I’ve recently been testing a hypothesis that the left-hand path follows natural law, whilst the right-hand path follows systemic law. When banding about this idea amongst contemporaries it became quickly apparent that definitions to this theory are essential.
Perception of natural law varied widely from submission to ‘the universe,’ to the laws within the principles of the Kybalion.
For my practice and purpose, the theory came about from considering natural law in its scientific term (not to be confused with natures law, which is a separate scientific term.) The definition of natural law from the scientific perspective that I chose is “Natural laws are not like laws in our society. Societal laws define conduct between human beings and are determined through governing bodies. Natural laws, on the other hand, are determined by fundamental forces within nature.”
When questioning systemic law in relation to the Paths, I found my fellow travelers oft relating this to the laws of the Abrahamic god, which indeed it does, the Abrahamic paths do indeed contain systems and systemic (man-made,) laws, yet for my purpose I was thinking more on a wider scale (that includes the Abrahamic,) but also to include ‘any’ man written law that is propagated through a system (excepting those very few laws that are based on natural scientific law.)
Systemic law is often in direct opposition to Natural law (in fact you will find many of the classical philosophers tying themselves up in knots with reason, trying to justify the conflict between the two as systemic law is often being installed around them at the time of their writings (oft through the Abrahamic forces, and they are oft on the side of such forces.)
As you can imagine when banding about words such as ‘law,’ amongst a bunch of spiritual rebels, I found many getting tetchy not only as a reaction to the term but also at just the idea of defining the paths, and of course, for others, at even the idea of opposites existing, or of having preference to one or the other (which I think we can thank the Buddha for,) yet definitions are essential when we are manifesting the unknown into being. We should unite conflict within – yet, we are not speaking of the soul, rather we are defining action, thought processes, and ‘being’ within the physical world… I am defining my path. That being said, I have no interest in defining your path.
My hypothesis is not completed, (it is a mere thought I had just yesterday,) and my mind can surely change in accordance to new experiences, observations, and intentional practical applications of the natural laws in various personal experiences, or goal applications. I’d love to hear your own thoughts on the matter in the comments, let me know what you think.
“The law of inertia is that matter will remain at rest or continue in uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force.” I.Newton