...and Crowley be thy Name - Page 7

kwaw · 29-12-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lillie

When he was young he was really good looking.
But when he got older he looked like a toad.
*Sigh*

Perhaps he failed to follow Lola Daydreams example, and let go of his Fairy Prince

Kwaw
You must remember that I never let go of my Fairy Prince for a single instant, or of course I should have been turned into a horrid black toad. Lola daydream on the path of Atout XV in Wake World.

Fulgour · 29-12-2006

Crowley was in fact a very reliable companion.
If you loaned him money he would disappear...
much easier than just trying to get rid of him.

**jmd** · 29-12-2006

To those who see in the spiritual world but psychological dispositions and of 'philosophical principles' mere mental concepts, there are apologetics that are offered for Crowley's own clearer views as expressed in such a 'textbook' as his Magick in Theory and Practice.

There (and elsewhere), he claims clearly not only that one is to seek one's own "Holy Guardian Angel", but also claims that his (not everyone's!) is Aiwaz, and that, further, this is the same entity as Satan.

Certainly, I would further suggest, his view is that this Aiwaz is a different being to Christ (as an example).

My quote - as any quote - was taken out of the full context of the book, but not out of context in terms of its meaning within that book - or within his overall Opus.

The question of whether or not he was a 'satanist' is of course marred by how this term is in various ways understood by each of us, so allow me to outline, outside of his own peculiar writing (that I have done in my post above), another manner in which he can be so viewed.

For this, I will take as given the existence of a spiritual world, and that further this world is inhabited by a pleroma and legions of spiritual beings. When invoking or in other ways involved in magical or spiritual work, one works in consort with that world. The 'satanist' will be one that works in consort (whether awake to it or not) with beings of a particular kind that seek to either force humanity's premature development or retarding the same.

An instance of seeking to force premature development is to seek for someone to engage in an activity for which they have not, as yet, properly developed (as very simple analogy, with similar shock value, is the sexual). As a consequence, a stifling often occurs, unless the person is able to overcome the assault to their being in ways more difficult than had they not been so exposed.

Retardation is equivalent to engaging in activities in which one may lose oneself to the delights of past experiences, without the effort supported for further growth.

These two are the two extremes I mentioned in, also, my previous quote when making mention (as does Crowley) of Satan (or Ahriman) and Lucifer respectively. In contrast, one may compare an appropriate support for efficient and healthy development of all one's faculties and organs - such, I would suggest, is reflected in what some esotericist view as Christ or the Light of the Sun.

If one looks at the body of work stemming from Crowley (irrespective of what we know from various biographies of his personal life), what seems apparent is that he seeks to consciously work with the spiritual realms, conjuring and bringing to submition those he invokes, and lacking tolerance and compassion for both fellow human beings and spiritual entities.

His focus appears to be to bring to bear his will upon all, and only if and when confronted with another being with a will stronger and more bossy than his would he 'submit' to its bend. Quite at variance with will under the balancing power of Love. These two, Will and Love, equal only at a very sublime spiritual level, and at that level equal also with Knowledge, infused with the crowning radiance of wisdom and understanding.

In contrast, then, there is a sense that a whole direction of development and intent is for domination, accelerated (but as false and inappropriate) development, and a subjugation of the spiritual sublimated to the forces of egotism. And that, in a nutshell, reflects, at least to my view, a form a satanism.

Something, incidentally, quite distinct and different to beginning to understand the gods Pan or any other he (and others) may inappropriately overlay in correlative fashion - something that he certainly took from the GD and further expended, masking further intrinsic differences between the numerous impulses working themselves in myriad forms.

How does this apply to tarot? Apart from the comment he makes (and that I quoted above) about how this is depicted in card XV, his correlative overlays are going to be reflected and included in the depictions drawn by Freida Harris. So, for example, Strength has become other than Strength.

Rosanne · 29-12-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosanne

Q. Do you think this interview will clear things up?
A. Not really- because you either believe he was a Master or you don't.
I don't.
~Rosanne

Well things have come full circle I guess. I have enjoyed 99% of all your replys and I thank you for the time you took to post. I have more understanding of the man, and although I will never be a fan, as I said firstly- there are writings of his I enjoy and I do love Lady Freida Harris's Thoth deck.
With tongue in cheek I take Lillie's post and quote:

Quote:

When he was young he was really good looking.
But when he got older he looked like a toad.

I have been told "You are what you eat!" ~Rosanne

Aeon418 · 29-12-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmd

There (and elsewhere), he claims clearly not only that one is to seek one's own "Holy Guardian Angel", but also claims that his (not everyone's!) is Aiwaz, and that, further, this is the same entity as Satan.

The great failure of conventional western religion is that the devotees of one sect always think that they worship the one true God, and everyone else's god is merely the devil or Satan. So what happens when you "let names stand as they are" and promote a philosophy/religion that declares that each man and woman has/is their own personal God. The whole world is full of Satan's.

**Lillie** · 29-12-2006

Crowley started his life by telling his mother that he was the 'Beast 666' to wind her up.

This is not worshipping Satan.
He was claiming to be Satan.
Mostly because he knew it would drive her mad, and also because his parents were fanatical christians and they had stuffed his little boy head with all this wild christian imagery.

He remained 'The Beast 666' to the end of his life.

To Mega Therion just shows off his education, it don't really change the meaning.

So, to say he was a Satanist would be to say that he worshipped himself.
Which probably wouldn't be far wrong. But still, Crowley the 'Satanist' is more a public opinion of him, more like a sound bite or a tabloid headline rather than a complete picture of the man and his beliefs. Which were, of course, more complicated than that, and which did, of course, change to some degree as he moved through his life.

Still, he started as the 'Great Beast 666' and stayed true to that throughout his life, however his understanding of the name may have changed in his life.
It is written on the Ace of Discs in the Thoth deck.

**jmd** · 29-12-2006

So what happens when you promote a view that declares that each person is his or her own god?

Egotism, mixed with the oppression of relativism, and a diminishment of discernment into the spiritual realms and its manifestation.

Aeon418 · 29-12-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmd

So what happens when you promote a view that declares that each person is his or her own god?

Egotism, mixed with the oppression of relativism, and a diminishment of discernment into the spiritual realms and its manifestation.

That's your point of view.

Having intellectual, ego centered knowledge of this fact is one thing, realising it is something else altogether. Crowley's term for this realisation was Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. The Biblical sense is implied here.

**Lillie** · 29-12-2006

Every man and woman is a star...

If Crowley thought of himself as a god (and I didn't mean to say that, I was just playing with the best=satan idea) then he did not see himself as the only god.
He clearly believed in some kind of 'higher power', his HGA, or his ascended masters or whatever, and he undoubtably used the pantheons of the ancient world, though I am not sure how he saw them. Wether as real powers, or gods, or just as thought forms etc.

To make my position clear. I am not a Crowley scholar.
I read some of his stuff a long time ago, but not a lot by any means.

I have read a few bio's, and I liked Symmonds best, because it told the best story.
Which probably sums up my opinion on Crowley quite well.

Interesting bloke, as a fictional character.

But if we are talking about fictional characters, I know more about Harry Potter.

kwaw · 29-12-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosanne

With tongue in cheek I take Lillie's post and quote:

I have been told "You are what you eat!" ~Rosanne

He was French?

Lillie Frog Join Date: 12 Dec 2004 Location: Nowhere Posts: 11,911	Crowley started his life by telling his mother that he was the 'Beast 666' to wind her up. This is not worshipping Satan. He was claiming to be Satan. Mostly because he knew it would drive her mad, and also because his parents were fanatical christians and they had stuffed his little boy head with all this wild christian imagery. He remained 'The Beast 666' to the end of his life. To Mega Therion just shows off his education, it don't really change the meaning. So, to say he was a Satanist would be to say that he worshipped himself. Which probably wouldn't be far wrong. But still, Crowley the 'Satanist' is more a public opinion of him, more like a sound bite or a tabloid headline rather than a complete picture of the man and his beliefs. Which were, of course, more complicated than that, and which did, of course, change to some degree as he moved through his life. Still, he started as the 'Great Beast 666' and stayed true to that throughout his life, however his understanding of the name may have changed in his life. It is written on the Ace of Discs in the Thoth deck. __________________ All things move toward their end Of that you can be sure

29-12-2006	Ask a Professional Tarot Reader Top #66

Lillie Frog Join Date: 12 Dec 2004 Location: Nowhere Posts: 11,911	Every man and woman is a star... If Crowley thought of himself as a god (and I didn't mean to say that, I was just playing with the best=satan idea) then he did not see himself as the only god. He clearly believed in some kind of 'higher power', his HGA, or his ascended masters or whatever, and he undoubtably used the pantheons of the ancient world, though I am not sure how he saw them. Wether as real powers, or gods, or just as thought forms etc. To make my position clear. I am not a Crowley scholar. I read some of his stuff a long time ago, but not a lot by any means. I have read a few bio's, and I liked Symmonds best, because it told the best story. Which probably sums up my opinion on Crowley quite well. Interesting bloke, as a fictional character. But if we are talking about fictional characters, I know more about Harry Potter. __________________ All things move toward their end Of that you can be sure

29-12-2006	Ask a Professional Tarot Reader Top #69

Fulgour Citizen Join Date: 10 Jun 2004 Location: slumbrin in the windrows of the hours... Posts: 7,828	Crowley was in fact a very reliable companion. If you loaned him money he would disappear... much easier than just trying to get rid of him.

29-12-2006	Ask a Professional Tarot Reader Top #62

jmd fourhares Join Date: 05 Aug 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 8,502	To those who see in the spiritual world but psychological dispositions and of 'philosophical principles' mere mental concepts, there are apologetics that are offered for Crowley's own clearer views as expressed in such a 'textbook' as his Magick in Theory and Practice. There (and elsewhere), he claims clearly not only that one is to seek one's own "Holy Guardian Angel", but also claims that his (not everyone's!) is Aiwaz, and that, further, this is the same entity as Satan. Certainly, I would further suggest, his view is that this Aiwaz is a different being to Christ (as an example). My quote - as any quote - was taken out of the full context of the book, but not out of context in terms of its meaning within that book - or within his overall Opus. The question of whether or not he was a 'satanist' is of course marred by how this term is in various ways understood by each of us, so allow me to outline, outside of his own peculiar writing (that I have done in my post above), another manner in which he can be so viewed. For this, I will take as given the existence of a spiritual world, and that further this world is inhabited by a pleroma and legions of spiritual beings. When invoking or in other ways involved in magical or spiritual work, one works in consort with that world. The 'satanist' will be one that works in consort (whether awake to it or not) with beings of a particular kind that seek to either force humanity's premature development or retarding the same. An instance of seeking to force premature development is to seek for someone to engage in an activity for which they have not, as yet, properly developed (as very simple analogy, with similar shock value, is the sexual). As a consequence, a stifling often occurs, unless the person is able to overcome the assault to their being in ways more difficult than had they not been so exposed. Retardation is equivalent to engaging in activities in which one may lose oneself to the delights of past experiences, without the effort supported for further growth. These two are the two extremes I mentioned in, also, my previous quote when making mention (as does Crowley) of Satan (or Ahriman) and Lucifer respectively. In contrast, one may compare an appropriate support for efficient and healthy development of all one's faculties and organs - such, I would suggest, is reflected in what some esotericist view as Christ or the Light of the Sun. If one looks at the body of work stemming from Crowley (irrespective of what we know from various biographies of his personal life), what seems apparent is that he seeks to consciously work with the spiritual realms, conjuring and bringing to submition those he invokes, and lacking tolerance and compassion for both fellow human beings and spiritual entities. His focus appears to be to bring to bear his will upon all, and only if and when confronted with another being with a will stronger and more bossy than his would he 'submit' to its bend. Quite at variance with will under the balancing power of Love. These two, Will and Love, equal only at a very sublime spiritual level, and at that level equal also with Knowledge, infused with the crowning radiance of wisdom and understanding. In contrast, then, there is a sense that a whole direction of development and intent is for domination, accelerated (but as false and inappropriate) development, and a subjugation of the spiritual sublimated to the forces of egotism. And that, in a nutshell, reflects, at least to my view, a form a satanism. Something, incidentally, quite distinct and different to beginning to understand the gods Pan or any other he (and others) may inappropriately overlay in correlative fashion - something that he certainly took from the GD and further expended, masking further intrinsic differences between the numerous impulses working themselves in myriad forms. How does this apply to tarot? Apart from the comment he makes (and that I quoted above) about how this is depicted in card XV, his correlative overlays are going to be reflected and included in the depictions drawn by Freida Harris. So, for example, Strength has become other than Strength.

29-12-2006	Ask a Professional Tarot Reader Top #63

Support the Forum via Google Adsense
	#ADS