the occult scene after Crowley...

[closrapexa]

Ultimately, I think the Golden Dawn, Crowley, Waite, Blavatsky and the rest of those "great masters" were a little too good at what they did, which was to democratize spirituality and the occult and to bring it to the masses. However, their aim, as I see it, was not to do the work for you, but to show you the way and to lead by example. But the masses don't want to work, they want to be told that the path toward enlightenment is through eating pudding, and hence we have much of the New Age atrocities such as monks who sell their Ferraris, bland chicken soup for a bland soul and the hellish Doreen Virtue angels. This is a new symptom, that knowing nothing equals knowing everything, and that sitting down to actually read a book is "white European male." Far from continuing Crowley's work, most authors today take the pop option, easily digestible, but very fattening.

Even so-called Satanism would be laughed at by Crowley, a religion who's main purpose is to be against things it deems unworthy, interpreting "do what thou wilt" as hedonism, when Crowley specifically stressed that was not what it was about. New Age is not the Right-Hand path, it is the path to McDonald's. Satanism isn't the Left-Hand Path, it is the path to STDs.

Personally I doubt there is another Crowley alive today, or at least some one single minded as he was in his search. I don't think the age of giants is over, only that we are a little too early.

[Fianic]

Originally Posted by closrapexa

Personally I doubt there is another Crowley alive today, or at least some one single minded as he was in his search. I don't think the age of giants is over, only that we are a little too early.

I don't think that going to Crowley's extremes in spirituality is ever a good idea. As long as we are encased in flesh we should always live according to the material world. Spirituality should never be more than a passionate hobby. At least IMO. Golden Dawn members don't tend to have good endings to their lives.

[Abrac]

I haven't read Flowers' book, but I've thought about it more than once. It has a couple of bad reviews at Amazon but it also has several positive ones. I know he's a prolific author. I've read two articles by him that are in the appendix of Aquino's Church of Satan (COS.pdf). Those articles seem thoughtful and well-written.

[l'appeso]

Originally Posted by Aeon418

That letter shows how Crowley employed the terms Left and Right hand path. According to Crowley's definition the entire subject is irrelevant below the grade of Adeptus Exemptus 7=4. Only at that level is there any choice to be made. But I seriously doubt that this is what Abrac meant in his last post.

I naively understood that both paths were intended by Crowley simply as a means to an end. So both were equally valid and one did not exclude the other...

Instead what happened after Crowley was that each side focussed on their own path, forgetting what the real end of all this was, more or less like in the old tale of the finger pointing at the moon.

But I admit that to my uninitiated mind most of Crowley's writing often sound a bit obscure

[l'appeso]

Originally Posted by Abrac

I haven't read Flowers' book, but I've thought about it more than once. It has a couple of bad reviews at Amazon but it also has several positive ones. I know he's a prolific author. I've read two articles by him that are in the appendix of Aquino's Church of Satan (COS.pdf). Those articles seem thoughtful and well-written.

By the way I found Flowers' book here

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38754495/S...Hand-Path-1997

[closrapexa]

Originally Posted by Fianic

I don't think that going to Crowley's extremes in spirituality is ever a good idea. As long as we are encased in flesh we should always live according to the material world. Spirituality should never be more than a passionate hobby. At least IMO. Golden Dawn members don't tend to have good endings to their lives.

Oh, I completely agree, at least about not going to extremes, unless you, pardon the expression, have that firecracker up your behind, and really, really believe in what your`re doing. However, the opposite extreme of doing nothing, learning nothing and smugly telling yourself you`re a star is just as bad, if not worse. Not to start a debate, but I think that is one of the differences between spirituality and religion; a religion gives you a set of rules to follow that, whether you understand them or not, adhere to them and your place in the Beyond is assured. Spirituality, on the other hand, demands work, and understanding; finding your own path towards enlightenment. The main problem I have with New Age is not that it brings spirituality to the masses, but that much of the masses treat it like a religion, a place to find answers rather than questions.

On the other hand, who am I to judge, perhaps Doreen Virtue is on par with Crowley, and I am too stupid to understand

Personally, I am too much of a skeptic, and too cynical to hope to "contact my HGA," so I satisfy myself with broader horizons and food for thought. Crowley I most certainly am not

[Fianic]

Personally, I am too much of a skeptic, and too cynical to hope to "contact my HGA," so I satisfy myself with broader horizons and food for thought. Crowley I most certainly am not

Even if you do, you'll never be 100% sure if it's your HGA, or you're just going crazy.

[Aeon418]

Originally Posted by l'appeso

I naively understood that both paths were intended by Crowley simply as a means to an end. So both were equally valid and one did not exclude the other...

I think the problem is one of terminology. Crowley used the terms Left and Right hand path in a very specific way. But since then a whole raft of alternative definitions have been invented. And to make matters worse everyone seems to think that everyone else understands their own personal definition.

I mistakenly thought Wiki might help here, but it doesn't. In fact the Wiki article places Thelema in the Right hand path category. Then it goes to list a string of Left hand path characteristics, none of which seem opposed to Thelema as far as I can see. Clearly the author(s) of that article don't know a lot. (Hardly surprising really. )

I guess this snipit from Liber Tzaddi contributes a balance between the Left and Right according to some people. Then again maybe not. It's probably best to leave such notions out of it altogether.

36. Many have arisen, being wise. They have said «Seek out the glittering Image in the place ever golden, and unite yourselves with It.»
37. Many have arisen, being foolish. They have said, «Stoop down unto the darkly splendid world, and be wedded to that Blind Creature of the Slime.»
38. I who am beyond Wisdom and Folly, arise and say unto you: achieve both weddings! Unite yourselves with both!
39. Beware, beware, I say, lest ye seek after the one and lose the other!
40. My adepts stand upright; their head above the heavens, their feet below the hells.
41. But since one is naturally attracted to the Angel, another to the Demon, let the first strengthen the lower link, the last attach more firmly to the higher.
42. Thus shall equilibrium become perfect. I will aid my disciples; as fast as they acquire this balanced power and joy so faster will I push them.

[closrapexa]

Originally Posted by Fianic

Even if you do, you'll never be 100% sure if it's your HGA, or you're just going crazy.

Well, that's the thing, innit? People read their fortunes in little pieces of paper, but think magickal rituals are absurd. Others believe in magick, but are positive people who fiddle with gemstomes are fools. Still others practice that, but also think that anyone who has even heard of I Ching is a victim of a scam. Even those who believe in nothing have their own codes of conduct. Everyone has their own way of grasping at the intangible, even if they are human values and ideologies, and the important thing is not the destination, but the process, the search.

Probably even Crowley didn't know where his questions would lead him, and whether he was the Prophet of the New Aeon (in capital letters!) or not, I'm sure he asked himself at least once in his life if he was crazy. Like I said, the important thing is not to accept what others tell you blindly, even (especially!) Crowley, and also today`s so called gurus, but to ask yourself those same questions you would others and then go look for the answers. From an "occult" point of view, contact with the HGA is probably a small part of the overall journey, since by the time reach that so-called level, you are "enlightened" enough to, in a sense, not to look for it.

If there`s anything I've learned, it is that everyone (and no one) is crazy, except people who take the word of spiritual authorities at face value, that's just the lazy path.

[fyreflye]

Initiation in the Aeon of the Child: The Inward Journey by J Daniel Gunther, Ibis Press (2009).