rigorousintuition.ca

I don't want to seem like I'm lazy to research stuff myself (though I am), but I'd like to solicit some opinions from the board about Thelema and its founder Aleister Crowley. I understand there are even Thelemites on the board.

It seems to me based on Jeff's writings that Aleister Crowley was a very evil man, as well as a genius-level intellect. Reading from some other sources I've inferred he was also a hedonistic, self-obsessed, sex-crazed, possibly human sacrifice practicing prick.

So can you practice Thelema and at the same time renounce Crowley? Or is that necessary? Is there a tension there?

Crowley functioned in a milieu that included High Magic, Yoga, Buddhism, Rosicrucianism, Quabbalah, Sufism and other such esoteric traditions.

It should by no means be thought that Uncle Aleister tainted all those areas of spiritual endeavor simply because he had contact.

While I do think that these sort of theories and practices may have value for those that take them seriously and are able to find a good community of practitioners, I would personally recommend that people avoid Crowley's particular "spin" on things. Like the plague.

American Dream wrote:Crowley functioned in a milieu that included High Magic, Yoga, Buddhism, Rosicrucianism, Quabbalah, Sufism and other such esoteric traditions.

It should by no means be thought that Uncle Aleister tainted all those areas of spiritual endeavor simply because he had contact.

Of course he didn't invent all of those things, did he?

Crowley was undoubtedly evil and really tried to follow all that "stamp down the weak" stuff. The sad thing is that he turned out to be weak himself, he was used as a conduit for the book of the law and then as usually happens to those who have contact with the "divine" he was drained dry and left a withered old man who died alone in a Hastings boarding house begging anyone he could make listen to get some herion for him.

There's some graffiti under a local bridge: do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Crowley existed with a style and in a milieu where calling him evil seems redundant.

Stephen Morgan wrote:

American Dream wrote:

Crowley functioned in a milieu that included High Magic, Yoga, Buddhism, Rosicrucianism, Quabbalah, Sufism and other such esoteric traditions.

It should by no means be thought that Uncle Aleister tainted all those areas of spiritual endeavor simply because he had contact.

Of course he didn't invent all of those things, did he?

I was a bit unclear in what I wrote.

I am saying that these types of esoteric traditions- High Magic, Yoga, Buddhism etc.- are potentially useful, despite Crowley's efforts to "brand them" as part and parcel of his own Thelemic practices. Thelemic Magick I do not recommend in any way, although I do recognize that aspirants and practitioners come in a variety of forms.

American Dream wrote:Stephen Morgan wrote:

American Dream wrote:

Crowley functioned in a milieu that included High Magic, Yoga, Buddhism, Rosicrucianism, Quabbalah, Sufism and other such esoteric traditions.

It should by no means be thought that Uncle Aleister tainted all those areas of spiritual endeavor simply because he had contact.

Of course he didn't invent all of those things, did he?

I was a bit unclear in what I wrote.

I am saying that these types of esoteric traditions- High Magic, Yoga, Buddhism etc.- are potentially useful, despite Crowley's efforts to "brand them" as part and parcel of his own Thelemic practices. Thelemic Magick I do not recommend in anyway, although I do recognize that aspirants and practitioners come in a variety of forms.

Hello AD.

I'm sure you knew that my arrival in this thread was inevitable.

I think it is highly misleading to even make the vague claim that our Beast tried to brand anything from the old school. Rather the opposite i'd suggest, considering that students were given a lengthy list [about 150 volumes] of classical books on religion and philosophy before they were usually admitted to even the outer order.

He also went out of his way to make his work available to those who wanted it. He is not responsible for O.T.O. [etc] attempts to copyright and control distribution of his brand as most of this came some decades after he had already died.

There isn't a shred of evidence he ever participated in "human sacrafice" despite the silly endless tabloid like repeatings of this sort of nonsense perpetuated by ignorance.

...

Thelemites have no need to either remove themselves from his influence nor to redeem his image as we do not worship any human beings nor do we require our past students to have been perfect for our laws to have validity. [not an internal self-justification as with Christianity]

He was indeed a near lifelong heroin addict. Of course, this is to leave out the part where he was first given heroin by "doctors" for his asthma. This was around the same time in history when smoking was good for you, so it really isn't that suprising to me.

there is a term, somewhere, for the fallacious attempt to discredit someone's philosophy by baseless character attacks...

people who do not know anything about something should likely refrain from discussing it, especially if the only information they have seems to rely entirely on National Enquirer headlines from a century ago...

I want to emphasize that spiritual questions are very personal, and individual choices deserve to be respected- whether they are to follow a certain path, to not believe at all, or whatever.

I think there are very good reasons to be cautious of Aleister Crowley, and I'm not going to hold back from saying that. Of course, every one should be free to come to their own conclusions, to act accordingly, and to learn from their own experiences.

I hope I made that clear.

OP ED wrote:people who do not know anything about something should likely refrain from discussing it, especially if the only information they have seems to rely entirely on National Enquirer headlines from a century ago...

Agreed, and I'm no encyclopedia of knowledge on Crowley.

It's interesting to note that many of the people who question the "establishment line" are at the same time quite unquestioning of that same line when it comes to Crowley.

American Dream wrote:I want to emphasize that spiritual questions are very personal, and individual choices deserve to be respected- whether they are to follow a certain path, to not believe at all, or whatever.

I think there are very good reasons to be cautious of Aleister Crowley, and I'm not going to hold back from saying that. Of course, every one should be free to come to their own conclusions, to act accordingly, and to learn from their own experiences.

I hope I made that clear.

oh, you did, i think.

i hope it didn't seem like i was deliberately targeting you.
i like for it to be obvious when this is the case.

and i do not discount your assertion that the curious should proceed with caution.

[even the Book of the Law's comment urges people to take these considerations seriously]

the Beast is also not likely the best starting point for newer students and/or practicioners of occultism. most of his work is intended for those who have already reached at least the intermediate stages wrt their personal knowledge of past and contemporary thought on the subject and/or their level of familiarity with the very real and very dangerous forces these subjects interact with.

...

i only take issue with silly gossip from a century ago passing as "information". especially in a place like this, with much better standards of sourcing in most areas.

I look at Uncle AL as the prototype for the shock rockers. And I read silliness like "he was also a hedonistic, self-obsessed, sex-crazed, possibly human sacrifice practicing prick" as being akin to the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville Florida's affidavit i saw in the nineties which claimed that "omgeez it is Tru that Marilyn Manson haz his ribs removed so he can orally pleasure himself in autosexual blasphemy".

which is to say that there is good accounting that everything i quoted above is true, y'know, except the human sacrafice part.

but of course "hedonistic, self-obsessed, sex-crazed prick" could just as easily be used to describe me. or bill clinton. or any number of people.

the most shocking thing about Edward Crowley is how remarkably boringly normal he'd be by postmodern standards.

Crowley reveled in using the 'Beast mask' to ward off imbeciles who would never understand his work anyway. I've read many of his books and I consider him both a genius and somewhat of an asshole. But evil... that's a joke.

I don't know if you want to attach the e-word to someone like Crowley, but he certainly was a manipulative, selfish prick w/ probably two or three severe personality disorders. I plead agnosticism on the human sacrifice thing. The late Robert Anton Wilson was a huge fan of AC, which at one time inclined me to look at Crowley more favorably than I would have otherwise. Now it makes me a tiny bit suspicious of Wilson, whose books I love and reread to this day, in spite of the retro-hipster sexism.

He did sacrifice cats however, both as a child (according to his own admonition) and as an adult (I have a credible reference somewhere for that)...

I believe the "human sacrifice" claims come from misquoting Crowley about ritual masturbation or something along those lines.

Just did a search this blog seems to correlate with what I said:

Did Crowley really sacrifice children?



No. Most of the rumors concerning "child sacrifice" stem from disingenuous misquoting of a passage from his book Magick in Theory and Practice:



"For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim. "



Even though he is quoting someone else, taken out of context, this seems pretty damning. However, Crowley was in fact discussing ritual masturbation, which he believed consituted a form of "sacrifice," according to the old biblical idea of preventing contraception by "spilling seed." As he explains in his footnote on the same page, "... 'It is the sacrifice of oneself spiritually. And the intelligence and innocence of that male child are the perfect understanding of the Magician, his one aim, without lust of result. And male he must be, because what he sacrifices is not the material blood, but his creative power.' ..."



In reality, Crowley considered even abortion to be a crime and certainly never advocated child murder, which is quite evident if one delves into his writings.



Human sacrifice would also be against Crowley's "Law of Thelema," which considers it a grave sin to interfere with the will of another person. This of course takes all the fun out of it for the hysterics, who continue to gleefully recount this passage as a literal truth.

Truth4Youth wrote:Human sacrifice would also be against Crowley's "Law of Thelema," which considers it a grave sin to interfere with the will of another person. This of course takes all the fun out of it for the hysterics, who continue to gleefully recount this passage as a literal truth.

Though who's to assess his adherence to dogma - I'm almost sure that it would be considered somehow at odds with Catholicism to rape a small boy.