Celestine Prophecy

Teheuti

Libra8ca said:
Another fool here :laugh: (
And the Fool is the first step through the Major Arcana. Congratulations!
 

Teheuti

I just came across a relevant quote from Aleister Crowley:

"In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them."
--"Liber O vel Manus et Sagittae" The Equinox, vol. 1, no. 2 (1909).

What he'd say is that it is immaterial whether the Peruvian manuscript exists or not. What's important is whether one gains value from experiencing the processes. But, again, this kind of approach is clearly not for everybody.
 

Lillie

Teheuti said:
I just came across a relevant quote from Aleister Crowley:

"In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them."
--"Liber O vel Manus et Sagittae" The Equinox, vol. 1, no. 2 (1909).

What he'd say is that it is immaterial whether the Peruvian manuscript exists or not. What's important is whether one gains value from experiencing the processes. But, again, this kind of approach is clearly not for everybody.

It may be immaterial in the wider sense, but I would point out that, as your quote shows, Crowley felt the need to at least tell people where they stood.

It's why they put 'May contain traces of nuts' on everything. So people know where they stand and can make their decisions accordingly.
 

Teheuti

Lillie said:
It may be immaterial in the wider sense, but I would point out that, as your quote shows, Crowley felt the need to at least tell people where they stood.

It's why they put 'May contain traces of nuts' on everything. So people know where they stand and can make their decisions accordingly.
Crowley was not originating these things but plagarizing them. In this quote, he was telling people what to do with works that had already been created by others under possibly false pretenses as to their source.

Under this reasoning, are you saying that if I plagarized Redfield's work with "fiction" blazoned across the cover, then it is worth considering as containing something of value, yet, if "fiction" is only mentioned on the copyright page, all its content is automatically invalidated because it was not clearly labeled.

If you want to eschew all materials that were originally deceptively presented as real (i.e., physical mundane world real) but weren't, then you'll have to ignore all the original Golden Dawn material. The GD was based on a deliberate lie concerning its founding and the source of the GD rituals & tarot structure—which lie, in fact, precipitated it's breakup in 1900. (Read my book, Women of the Golden Dawn: Rebels and Priestesses.)

People now know about the lie and yet many still choose to work with the GD material because they find it valuable, despite the lie. And now-a-days people can easily find out about The Celestine Prophecy. People are well-served to learn some critical reading skills rather than accepting everything at face value. (I used to teach classes at a college in how to become an "active," critical reader—a very useful skill in this flawed world.)
 

Lillie

I was always under the impression that the GD were originally a bunch of staid Victorian gents kicking back and letting off some steam by dressing up in funny clothes.

I never pay them much mind.

I usually do have critical reading skills.
Believe it or not.
Though I do admire the way you make my negative reaction to the deceptiveness of this book my own fault for not having learned the relevant skills!
That's very well done.

But I'll go with Crowley on this one.

Like him I believe students should be warned.

And to anyone thinking of reading the book...
Regardless of whether it is a deliberate or an accidental lie, or whether it is a parable of some sort, the book is dire.
Be warned!
 

Teheuti

Lillie said:
Regardless of whether it is a deliberate or an accidental lie, or whether it is a parable of some sort, the book is dire.
Now I'm interested! If something in it (besides the fact that it is not a true story) is so "dire" that people should be warned away—what exactly is it that is so terribly terrible? I don't see it.
 

Teheuti

Lillie said:
I was always under the impression that the GD were originally a bunch of staid Victorian gents kicking back and letting off some steam by dressing up in funny clothes.
And some people think that all tarot readers are con-artists out to cheat people through candle and prayer scams. Does that make it so?

For one thing, the Golden Dawn was one of the first occult organizations in which men and women worked ceremonial magic together as equals. For another, at least three significant tarot decks (two of them being among the most influential in English-speaking and a few other countries) came directly out of this organization.

Maude Gonne, Florence Farr, Annie Horniman, Moina Bergson Mathers, William Butler Yeats, and Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers were not "staid Victorian gents" by any means. And they all "let off steam" in any number of interesting ways above and beyond the GD.
 

Lillie

Teheuti said:
Now I'm interested! If something in it (besides the fact that it is not a true story) is so "dire" that people should be warned away—what exactly is it that is so terribly harmful? I don't see it.

This is funny!

Where did I say it was harmful?

Apart (as you say) from my already stated opinions on it's veracity?

I just said it was dire.
As in 'Not a good book'
Or 'Badly written rubbish'

If I thought it was harmful my opinions on it would be a lot stronger than my mild dislike and irritation.

I though 'The Name of the Rose' was dire too.
It dragged on and on...
Other people love it of course.

It's all just a matter of taste.
 

Teheuti

Lillie said:
I just said it was dire.
As in 'Not a good book'
Or 'Badly written rubbish'
Sorry - I thought you were using the dictionary definition:
"presaging disaster", from Latin dirus ‘fearful, threatening.’
Synonyms: terrible, dreadful, appalling, frightful, awful, atrocious, grim, alarming; grave, serious, disastrous, calamitous, ruinous, hopeless, irretrievable, wretched, desperate, parlous; formal grievous.

As an adjective it can also mean "extremely serious or urgent" as in "dire circumstances."
 

Lillie

Teheuti said:
And some people think that all tarot readers are con-artists out to cheat people through candle and prayer scams. Does that make it so?
I really don't know what this has to do with my amusement at the golden dawn, but if you want me to answer then no, just because people think something it does not make it true.
Obviously.
Which is why I have said all along that my opinion of the book under discussion is just that. my opinion.
And I'm hardly the all knowing word of god.
I'm just an ordinary person who got annoyed at a book she once read.

[/quote]
For one thing, the Golden Dawn was one of the first occult organizations in which men and women worked ceremonial magic together as equals. For another, at least three significant tarot decks (two of them being among the most influential in English-speaking and a few other countries) came directly out of this organization.[/QUOTE]

Including my favourite deck of all time.
But the photos!
Those stiffly posed chaps with their regalia and moustaches looking so damn serious!
I have to laugh.
I sort of love them for it, but I do have to laugh.