How to appreciate Crowley?

The difference is that we kill for food because it's necessary for survival (a vegetarian would argue this, but I am not a vegetarian and disagree with vegetarianism in general).

It isn't necessary to sacrifice another creature's life for occult or religious purposes. It is a selfish act, done solely one's own benefit -- for what you believe you will receive in return.

And eating animals isn't selfish? We wouldn't eat them if we got nothing out of it.

We would die. It kind of changes the picture. For me, anyway.

I appreciate very much Rosanne's quote from Kant about spiritual immaturity; quite apt in this context.

As is Greg's suggestion:

A magician, by definition, is in control of his life, his body, and his environment.

Click to expand...

Some people segregate aspects of their lives (personal vs. professional, etc.) and for good reason. Thus an ad writer can write good copy for a product he doesn't particularly care for, or a teacher help someone they dislike, etc.

On the other hand, when dealing with those who believe that all aspects of life and self must be integrated, how can we help but see their art and other "products" as reflecting their self? And thus understanding more of how they see themselves and want to be seen does affect how I see their work. Back to Rosanne's comments from Kant.

Rosanne said:

Immanuel Kant said there was three ways of recognising spiritual immaturity. They are according to him....
When a Book takes the place of our understanding
When a spiritual director takes place of our conscience
When someone decides what our diet (of any intake) should be,
Then we are not enlightened individuals, so not spiritually mature.
Congrats on having your own criteria and sharing your considered opinion.

As to Crowley, Demosthenes is reported to have said way back before Christ-
Whatever your actions are, such must be your spirit.......
~Rosanne

Click to expand...

Aeon418 said:

Given that the transcript is directly discussing Crowley's claim of sacrificing 150 male children,

Click to expand...

For the benefit of people following this thread who are unaware of the context of this claim, Crowley was making a vieled reference to sex magic. Specifically, 150 ejaculations that did not result in a child being conceived. The metaphor was used as it was unacceptable in Victorian time to publish a discourse on masturbation, though acceptable to sacrifice children At the request of a colleage he included a lengthy disclaimer, warning about literal interpretation of the chapter this claim appeared in. None the less people frequently quote it literally and hysterically.

In Australia recently it has been a legal battle in the courts. Some people are still ignorantly promoting this as a literal fact, which has been judged as religious vilification. Some details may be seen on the local OTO website.
http://www.otoaustralia.org.au/main.htm Click the link for press releases.

Thank you for posting this!

I think I should have used another example of Crowley's notoriety -- the press release on the website does much to explain why a few of you were so upset with the particular example in my post. Please accept my apology.

Greg Stanton said:

I made statements that may have been misinformed (or misunderstood),

Click to expand...

That was the point being made Greg, that your misinformed ignorance does not square with your claims of 20 years study and practice of GD/Crowley and acquaintance witht the OTO and its members. It made such claims appear a lie to bolster or offer some sort of bogus authority to the usual commonplace rehearsal of prejudiced and ill informed opionions.

Animal sacrifice is a monstrous and barbairc act. That's my opinion. I've no problem killing animals used for food. Killing animals as "food for the gods", or even for the "purification" of Jesus, is despicable.

Click to expand...

And your welcome to your opinion; it is nonetheless legal in most of Europe and in the USA (protected by the first amendment, in fact), and is a question with a wider context and significance than to Crowley alone - and one often associated with anti-semitism and religious bigotry in general (as can be demonstrated by reference to those European countries in which it is illegal where there is a demonstrable link to anti-semiticism and racism in general). It is a question being increasingly faced by communities in the USA with the spread of for example hoodoo, voodoo, and African Diaspora religions such as Santeria etc.

Is your objection truly rational? Or more of a rationalisation:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/08/21/daily-poll-should-ritual-animal-sacrifices-be-allowed.htm

Sacrifice of chickens, often associated with Voodoo, also occurs prior Yom Kippur as part of the kapparot tradition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kclAMhZzkTw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7F57fY70OE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo7v41YNKoo&feature=related

Modern concerns can and do have an impact upon modern practice of animal sacrifice of course, the rooster in kaparot is increasingly being replaced by money in response to modern sensibilities to animal rights:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kapparot.html

Similia said:

I have just finished reading "Do What Thou Wilt" A Life of Aleister Crowley by Lawrence Sutin, and would like to hear some others opinions on how "Crowley the man" affects your use of the Thoth deck.

I'd not had any knowledge of Crowley besides that gleamed from apologetic writers on the tarot deck. Based on that I had largely assumed his bad reputation was a sign of the puritanical time, and his own love of notoriety. Now having an idea of the sort of stuff he got up to , I am curious about how people temper their feeling for the deck with their feeling for the man.

I found his pretentious character was even more offensive to me than some of his more depraved actions. I find it hard to resolve that personality with a spiritual quester. (posted in 2005)

Click to expand...

I personally choose to focus on the Artist Lady Freida Harris, which is because I am a barely 'tolerable' woman. I do not find any antisemitism feeling in her deck, nor any apparent racism and I think she overcomes any misogynistic leanings of her mentor. I think her deck in the main quite beautiful. In fact I think the deck cuts through the crap that history has left behind of Crowley. I am especially glad he could not paint.
How do I reconcile the Crowley and her deck? I don't. I ignore the connection- except when I contemplate the Fool card. The animal biting the leg of Harpo Marx is getting his own back I feel. I also see Lady Harris winking.
~Rosanne

Rosanne said:

I personally choose to focus on the Artist Lady Freida Harris, which is because I am a barely 'tolerable' woman. I do not find any antisemitism feeling in her deck, nor any apparent racism ...~Rosanne

Click to expand...

Why should there be?

So, just to be clear, I said from the start that I didn't believe the claims of human sacrifice to be true. I was using these claims to illustrate that Crowley had cultivated his own notoriety. I apologize that I did not make my meaning more evident in the original post, and I also apologize for offending the present Crowley devotees by using this sensitive subject to make my point. Using this particular material to say what I meant was misjudged -- especially when there are many other, less controversial, examples I could have choosen.

I am far from ignorant, nor am I misinformed about Crowley's work or teachings -- yes, after 20 years of involvement and study.

I won't say any more on this singular point, as it has already been belabored to death. I still stand behind the opinions I have previously posted, in sum:

1) Crowley's moral character makes him a questionable teacher.
2) His books were written to impress his readers and propegate his own notoriety rather than to earnestly teach.
3) His drug habits and inability to honestly earn a living prove he was not a true magus.
4) Thelema has not become the established religion of the New Aeon, as he claimed it would.
5) His system of "magick" was derived from the Golden Dawn, whose teachings were assembled/concocted/invented from incomplete, misunderstood and flawed sources -- and moreover, the GD material he used was largely left intact, errors included.
6) I have never achieved any tangible results from either the GD's or from Crowley's magick, nor have I met anyone who has (not saying there aren't people out there who have, just haven't met any). I believe that the bulk of current Western occult teaching, which is largely derived from GD material, but also from Crowley, is so flawed and misguided in its conception as to be practically worthless.

Regarding the last point: I now firmly believe that Crowley made statements in his writings that deliberately set-up his readers to fail at their endeavors. His introduction to the Goetia is but one example of this. I think that this board is probably not the place to discuss Ceremonial Magic, but it is something I believe so strongly that I felt compelled to make the statement.