Your opinions on Crowley?

[RViewer]

I never said anything about abhorring anywhere in my posts. All you two have done is get instantly defensive and try to turn this into a "RViewer is so silly and clueless" fest. This is similar to Crowley's behavior toward those who questioned what he had to share so it is not so surprising that Ravenest and Aeon 418 share the same methods of operation.

So you think I am silly and a liar for having had experienced visitations from negative forces while studying certain books? Even your hero Crowley claimed to have them while writing his books. In fact he considered it great fun. Maybe if you have not regularly been getting visits from nasty entities you've not learned how to follow Crowley's Magickal path as well as you might think. Maybe you need to get a little more practical experience and a little less intellectual theory.

Ravenest if this is how you treat those who share opinions even mildly different to yours how do you square this with your professed ideal of encouraging and helping others to find their own way based on their own understanding? The words "I prove them by the way I enact them" does not tell me one thing about AC's methods as you believe them to exist. I am well aware of other religions and that their is much negative energy at work in the world. We probably could do without another one that tries to browbeat those who would seek to understand where it is coming from into submission. However it is not hard to understand why you would wish to turn the subject from that of Crowley into that of "Other people are bad too..."

And if you meet those who practice the darkest of rites in private but put on a happy face when out in public, be not too surprised. For the powers of denial, rationalization and compartmentalization are found wherever negative energy is concentrated. And it knows that you catch more flies with honey.

The interesting thing is that it can get quite nasty if you try to shed a little light in its direction

 

[Aeon418]

All you two have done is get instantly defensive and try to turn this into a "RViewer is so silly and clueless" fest.

We didn't have to try very hard either!
But seriously, I'm sorry if you feel that you have been attacked in anyway, RViewer. But the fact is that if you claim on a public forum that you have read many of Crowley's works, but your subsequent comments clearly indicate otherwise, you can't complain when your bluff gets called.

This is similar to Crowley's behavior toward those who questioned what he had to share so it is not so surprising that Ravenest and Aeon 418 share the same methods of operation.

And I always thought that common sense was a virtue.

So you think I am silly and a liar for having had experienced visitations from negative forces while studying certain books? Even your hero Crowley claimed to have them while writing his books.

Another classic example. Would you care to post an example of Crowley's encounters with negative forces while writing his books?

Maybe if you have not regularly been getting visits from nasty entities you've not learned how to follow Crowley's Magickal path as well as you might think. Maybe you need to get a little more practical experience and a little less intellectual theory.

Erm....yeah....that's one explanation.

 

[Aeon418]

Lon Milo DuQuette sums it up nicely in The Magick of Aleister Crowley

But is it dangerous for some people to study Aleister Crowley? I guess I have to say yes. For those whose belief in a God of goodness hinges upon the reality of a devil who is equally evil; for the superstitious, the ignorant, the lazy, the immature, the unbalanced, the mentally ill, the paranoid, the fainthearted; for anyone who for any reason cannot or will not take responsibility for their own actions, their own lives, their own souls; for these people Aleister Crowley is still a dangerous man.

 

[Scion]

Truth, Aeon.

Slam dunk, as they say: Nothing but net.

 

[Edge]

The premise of a "What's your opinion on Crowley" question is framed on a weak foundation. More often than not, this foundation has been constructed by black magicians who possess complete control over there subjects. Through the use of there talismans they have cast a spell over those who have accepted the illusions of gods and devils. The only method of defense against this is to shore up ones own defenses. Remember the proverb; “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”

The difference in opinions is divided by those who would embrace liberty and those who function under bonds of slavery. I contend
that unless one understands the secrets of the Aeon and has undergone the terror of the Tower. Then further argument remains a mere exercise in futility.

I would like to add that I welcome and appreciate many of the post by Ravenest. He has been a faithful contributor to almost every thread in this Thoth forum, (which is much more than I can say for others, you know who you are) I for one find many of his comments educational, positive, supportive and down right entertaining. In fact I’d love to hear more about his “wrestling dream” sometime.

 

[ravenest]

I never said anything about abhorring anywhere in my posts.

Eh, wot? Did I miss that, where does it say you abhore?

All you two have done is get instantly defensive and try to turn this into a "RViewer is so silly and clueless" fest. This is similar to Crowley's behavior toward those who questioned what he had to share so it is not so surprising that Ravenest and Aeon 418 share the same methods of operation.

Defensive? No, I see it as challenging perhaps. Thats how it works here, someone posts an idea or statement. if it looks like horsesh*t someone will say "Hey what are you on about? What about so and so?" And it gets answered well or badly, and on it goes.

Aeon and I definatly do not share the same method of operation, that guys an encyclopedia ... I'm just making it up as I go along

So you think I am silly and a liar for having had experienced visitations from negative forces while studying certain books? Even your hero Crowley claimed to have them while writing his books. In fact he considered it great fun.

Um... where did I call you a liar? I might have laughed at anyone taking the Necronomicon serious as the authors themselves admitted it was a con. But that doesnt mean I dont think some people are effected by it, especially with the warnings that come with it, like 'There are no banishings for the forces invoked in this book' and the author? .. he spends ages invoking demons and working with Sirius energy (the dog star) and then freaks because dog-faced demons are at his window?

Maybe if you have not regularly been getting visits from nasty entities you've not learned how to follow Crowley's Magickal path as well as you might think.

Oh, I get plenty of visits from nasty entities but they are mostly of the human variety. I also follow others TEACHINGS as well as some of Crowleys TEACHINGS I follow no one elses PATH except my own path. Of course I believe AC made mistakes, I try to avoid them, I also come up with some beaut ones of my own (mistakes). maybe if I publish them others will avoid them as well?

Maybe you need to get a little more practical experience and a little less intellectual theory.

Oh, dear RV you DO put your foot in it dont you? Let's go then;
over 10 years expereince of doing Liber Resh (ok not every day but most days) 4 times a day (including midnight and dawn) I have written a paper on it, would you like me to post it?
Same time period 2 x LBRP a day
Extensive work with Libers; O, Samekh, Amorum (yes I DO have a 'magic lamp that burns without wick or fuel!), actually, most of them in book 4.
I have worked (now retired) with OTO on Local, National and International levels. I have been charted to intitiate up to the III*, I have compleated and gone beyond The Man of Earth Triad, I have performed 11 initiations and assisted in 15. I )and my initiation team perfomed at an OTO initiation exemplification and recieved a standing ovation.(These are all rituals written or rewritten by AC.
I was an active Ordained Priest in the Gnostic Catholic Church for many years.

You can read my magicakl rituals posts in the Spirituality thread if you care to take out a subcription and further support AT. Also there are pics of my temple and extensive set up and altar and tools from my Goetic workings. (These are about invoking and contolling 'demonic' forces)
I have performed, written and adapted in all of AC's Rites of Eleusis for over 10 years (photos availible)
... I'm getting bored with this list ... but I guess you get my drift by now?

Ravenest if this is how you treat those who share opinions even mildly different to yours how do you square this with your professed ideal of encouraging and helping others to find their own way based on their own understanding?

I suppose the only way to solve that dilema is to seek an objective viewpoint as to how badly I have treated you ... any takers (except me or you of course that would be subjective)?

The words "I prove them by the way I enact them" does not tell me one thing about AC's methods as you believe them to exist.

If you can be more specific I will gladly answer this question

I am well aware of other religions and that their is much negative energy at work in the world. We probably could do without another one that tries to browbeat those who would seek to understand where it is coming from into submission. However it is not hard to understand why you would wish to turn the subject from that of Crowley into that of "Other people are bad too..."

Sorry, you missed my point, it is probably my warped sense of humor and the fact that I dont post enough icons in messages to get across the tone of my comments. My last post isnt about people or practices not being bad. I dont see those above practices as bad. I am not trying to browbeat anyone. Else where in these threads where someone states their opinion (I read one of AC's poems and it was disqusting... etc) they are not browbeaten but their difference of opinion is acknowledged. However when people make statements that wrongly justify their opinion it is often pointed out that their justification and the 'facts' they quote to support it is wrong or questionible.

And if you meet those who practice the darkest of rites in private but put on a happy face when out in public, be not too surprised. For the powers of denial, rationalization and compartmentalization are found wherever negative energy is concentrated. And it knows that you catch more flies with honey.

I agree

The interesting thing is that it can get quite nasty if you try to shed a little light in its direction

But true light dispels darkness instantly, does it not?

 

[RViewer]

Ability of Discernment.

Well Ravenest I was speaking to Aeon 418 about being a little heavy in the theory department but thank you for letting us in on a little of your experience As to why you consider it challenging just to discuss opinions of Crowley and his teachings I am not sure why. You seem to be well qualified to speak of this shady and secret issue and many could benefit from hearing the truth of it.

Originaly Posted by Aeon418:
But seriously, I'm sorry if you feel that you have been attacked in anyway, RViewer. But the fact is that if you claim on a public forum that you have read many of Crowley's works, but your subsequent comments clearly indicate otherwise, you can't complain when your bluff gets called.

How does it clearly indicate otherwise? Because I misattributed one quote to John Keats rather than W.B. Yeats when in a Hurry? Or because I did not phrase this

Originally Posted by RViewer:
Crowley received the Book of the Law from Aiwass, a messenger of Hoor-Paar-Kraat also known as Set the Egyptian version of the devil.

clearly enough for you to read it the way it was intended which was that of course Aiwass was being clarified as being Set? A bit nitpicky on your part I would say. And again a convenient excuse to avoid what you know I am getting at.

One gets the feeling you could justify just about anything in the world as just peachy keen while looking for anyway to discredit those who are trying to discuss this matter. Again it is not too hard to understand why.

Here are a few more quotes from your hero the beast that perhaps you can fill me in on where I am misunderstanding or just being a plain old jealous prude about. And as you seem so fond of claiming I am not giving enough context for poor old AC to be properly understood, I will quote more of his teachings than I would otherwise care to so that others may make their own judgments about the man who is behind so many of the imbedded secret societies at work in the world we live in today:

O.T.O AND HUMAN SACRIFICE [The following is quoted from "Scarlet and the Beast," Vol. 1, pp. 775-776.] Aleister Crowley, a 33rd degree Mason and head of the British branch of the O.T.O., performed 150 human sacrifices, killing the victims with a silver knife. He wrote instructions for O.T.O. human sacrifices in his book "Magick," published in 1930, p. 93:

Crowley: from Magick In theory and practice-

"The blood is the life. This simple statement is explained by the Hindus by saying that the blood is the principal vehicle of vital Prana. There is some ground for the belief that there is a definite substance, not isolated as yet, whose presence makes all the difference between live and dead matter."

"It would be unwise to condemn as irrational the practice of those savages who tear the heart and liver from an adversary, and devour them while yet warm. In any case, it was the theory of the ancient Magicians, that any living being is a storehouse of energy varying in quantity according to the size and health of the animal, and in quality according to its mental and moral character. At the death of the animal this energy is liberated suddenly."

"The animal should therefore be killed within the Circle, or the Triangle, as the case may be, so that its energy cannot escape.

An animal should be selected whose nature accords with that of the ceremony, thus, by sacrificing a female lamb one would not obtain any appreciable quantity of the fierce energy useful to a Magician who was invoking Mars. In such a case a ram would be more suitable. And this ram should be virgin -- the whole potential of its original total energy should not have been diminished in any way. 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."

"For evocations it would be more convenient to place the blood of the victim in the Triangle, the idea being that the spirit might obtain from the blood this subtle but physical substance which was the quintessence of its life in such a manner as to enable it to take on a visible and tangible shape."

"Those magicians who object to the use of blood have endeavoured to replace it with incense. For such a purpose the incense of Abramelin may be burnt in large quantities."

"But the bloody sacrifice, though more dangerous, is more efficacious; and for nearly all purposes human sacrifice is the best."

Crowley from SATANIC EXTRACTS, by Aleister Crowley:

The Oath of Fealty

I bind my blood in Satan's hands,

All this that lieth betwixt my hands

To thee, the Beast, and thy control,

I pledge me; body, mind, and soul.




Pledge

I swear to work my Work abhorred,

Careless of all but one reward,

The pleasure of the Devil our Lord

Maybe you could possibly understand why I am asking for a little help in understanding the way in which these teachings are used by some in a postive way? I am curious and do appreciate what those who follow this path are willing to speak of.

 

[Scion]

Well... I'm not going to tackle that whole inflammatory chunk Rviewer, cause it isn't really worth the time. But I appreciate your sincere desire to understand, so I'll try and "shed a little light" myself.

For the record, the 150 murders figure (and the other murderous facts) are actually from Maury Terry's infamous potboiler The Ultimate Evil Christian-published true-crime sleaze of the late 80s designed to enrage pious fundamentalists with facts about evil conspiracies at work in the world. I only know that because these same ridiculous numbers get dragged out by every "wellwishing" Christian website hoping to save the world from evil Mr. Crowley. Terry is so extreme and fabricates so shamelessly that even some born-again alarmists have backed away from him. If you don't believe me, look the man up.

The Satanic liturgy stuff you're citing is too dopey to bother. Crowley's ridicule of Satan is well-documented, and the only folks who call him a Satanist tend to be the authors of midcentury biographies who bought his whole "Wickedest Man" rap. The truth is, to be a Satanist you have to believe in the Christian God, which Crowley emphatically did not. The Great Beast monicker was a a poetic lightning rod from which he milked plenty of mileage and newsprint. Blasphemy requires belief, and Crowley was a knee-jerk critic of Christianity from his harsh upbringing forward. But again, going through all this here seems pointless. You can find this topic covered ad nauseum across the internet. I'm pretty sure Aeon418 quoted this above (also from Magick) but in case you missed it the last time, Crowley says: "The Devil does not exist. It is a false name invented by the Black Brothers to imply a Unity in their ignorant muddle of dispersions. A devil who had unity would be a God." Ignorant muddle being the operative words in this situation.

Set is actually not the "Egyptian version of the devil," because the Egyptians were not Christians. Religions can't be shoehorned cleanly into one another. Religion isn't just a snowcone that comes in different flavors and colors. No one was nitpicking, they were explaining. In fact, from what we can tell Set doesn't gain a negative rep until the later dynasties as the cult of Osiris gained in power. Just because Osiris dies and rises does not make him a proto-Christ. If anything, it proves that the early Christians borrowed heavily from the rampant mystery cults popular and competitive in the early years of the Common Era. One could just as easily say that Christ is really a bargain basement Osiris (or Tammuz or Adonis or Dionysos) designed to appeal to Romans. History belongs to the victors and the divinities of the losing team always end up as devils. The First Commandment of every culture...

To try to make it clear why it may seem like people are so cranky with your line of reasoning and doubtful of your supporting research, I'll illustrate with one of your examples since you've carefully trimmed Chapter 12 to emphasize the gore and "cruelty"... As fate would have it, I happen to be doing some research that may illuminate your selective quoting a bit more by tackling the most shocking element: HUMAN SACRIFICE! (gasp, shudder...) The full citation of Crowley on human sacrifice in this section is as follows:

But the bloody sacrifice, though more dangerous, is more efficacious; and for nearly all purposes human sacrifice is the best. The truly great Magician will be able to use his own blood, or possibly that of a disciple, and that without sacrificing the physical life irrevocably.

(emphasis mine)
Crowley isn't advocating a scheme to kidnap blond bourgeois children and eviscerate them for the Dark One in some Lifetime movie of the week scenario. What's distressing is that you've truncated this quote in a way that indicates you were fully aware that Crowley is talking about something other than slaughter. You read what he'd written and removed the section that made your argument ridiculous, which is A) dishonest and B) ridiculous, unless you think Crowley committed ritual suicide (or murder) with regularity only to have the victim spring back up at the finale. That's not a "misunderstanding," that's embarassing. People who study Crowley aren't participating in an evil cabal, and the only reason you misquote is to wag a righteous finger and summon the spectre of "Satanism," a wholesale invention of the Christian Church past and present. Newsflash: the Satanic panic was disproved a decade ago; I've got the federal statistics if you'd like to see them. The only people still peddling that lie are the "ex-Satanists" fleecing born-again parishes with speaking fees.

In fact, in the above quote Crowley makes it stringently clear that the most powerful sacrifice is the sacrifice by the Magickian of the Magickian's own blood/lifeforce. And before you get skeeved out... power in blood is an element of ritual in practically every known human faith. The "Blood is the Life" being the most literal Christian expression of this belief. So too for all the Yahwist faiths and others besides: circumcision, the fear/empowering of menses, and the offering of animals in almost every state of morbidity ever conceived. For that matter modern tithing is a holdover from the old "bring livestock to the priesthood" tradition.

In fact, Crowley opens Chapter 12 of Magick in Theory in Practice with a discussion of the history of sacrifice in the Old Testament:

The first ethical lesson in the Bible is that the only sacrifice pleasing to the Lord is the sacrifice of blood; Abel, who made this, finding favour with the Lord, while Cain, who offered cabbages, was rather naturally considered a cheap sport. The idea recurs again and again. We have the sacrifice of the Passover, following on the story of Abraham's being commanded to sacrifice his firstborn son, with the idea of the substitution of animal for human life. The annual ceremony of the two goats carries out this in perpetuity. And we see again the domination of this idea in the romance of Esther, where Haman and Mordecai are the two goats or gods; and ultimately in the presentation of the rite of Purim in Palestine, where Jesus and Barabbas happened to be the Goats in that particular year of which we hear so much, without agreement on the date.

... a (pointedly unSatanic) joke aimed directly in the cannibalistic death cult that Paul built around the legend of Yeshua Ha-notsri, a fabrication which Crowley regarded as a "slave religion" intended to muddy thought and crush inquiry. Again, by chance I spent a year in my degree writing a thesis on the obsessive cataloguing of pain and torture as devotional details in the Stations of the Cross. If you'd like some real ghoulishness, check out some of the medievalists particularizing the pus and agony of the Crucifixion or the Icons with oozing scabs picked out in rubies. Horror gets peoples attention. And only literalists would take every syllable of a mystical text as literal reportage. But then, it is by such literalism that the violence of the past century has been brought into hideous life, on the whole by well-intentioned monotheists.

It's nothing personal: I wouldn't put up with this in any discussion of which I was a part, because it's ridiculous and irresponsible and deliberate. Like insisting God is Scottish and the Bible was written in English and proving it by plunking a King James on the table... I love opinions and I'm full of them myself. And I love to be challenged because that's the only way I learn. No one is denying anyone the right to an opinion, or clamping down on discussion. The great thing about Aeclectic is that we all bring disparate knowledge to this huge table. But no one mistakes manipulated facts and misquotation as a legitimate conversation. I would love to learn what you have to say about your knowledge of Crowley, but of course, knowledge is a prerequisite. And in articulating all of this, I've actualy learned something, but thus far not from you. Yet.

Scion

 

[Aeon418]

You seem to be well qualified to speak of this shady and secret issue and many could benefit from hearing the truth of it.

Huh? Shady and secret? That's the last thing it is. In fact it's only because Crowley's life and teachings are so open that there is all this fuss being made.

How does it clearly indicate otherwise? Because I misattributed one quote to John Keats rather than W.B. Yeats when in a Hurry?

Nope! But your constant wailing about Crowley and the devil speaks volumes. Even a shallow, surface reading of Crowley's work would reveal that Crowley was not a satanist. I'm pretty sure that he would have found that assertion laughable because, like most sane people in this world, he knew that the Devil does not exist. The Devil was invented by the early Christians who twisted the concept of The Satan (adversary) into a force representative of cosmic evil. (See The Origin of Satan ~ Elain Pagels)

A question. Do you believe in the Devil, RViewer?

One gets the feeling you could justify just about anything in the world as just peachy keen while looking for anyway to discredit those who are trying to discuss this matter. Again it is not too hard to understand why.

But what are we having a discussion about? You contend that Crowley was in league with the Devil. You claim that you base this assertion on an extensive reading of Crowley's works. And that's the problem! You can't reach that conclusion after an extensive reading of Crowley's work. In fact it is impossible.

Here are a few more quotes from your hero the beast

Would you be so kind as to search through all my posts on this forum and find one instance where I have mentioned Crowley being my hero?

In response to your quote from chapter 12 of MTP, maybe you should have read the whole chapter. Right at the end you would have found this footnote:

You are also likely to get into trouble over this chapter unless you truly comprehend its meaning.

There is a traditional saying that whenever an Adept seems to have made a straightforward, comprehensible statement, then is it most certain that He means something entirely different. The Truth is nevertheless clearly set forth in His Words: it is His simplicity that baffles the unworthy. I have chosen the expressions in this Chapter in such a way that it is likely to mislead those magicians who allow selfish interests to cloud their intelligence, but to give useful hints to such as are bound by the proper Oaths to devote their powers to legitimate ends. "...thou hast no right but to do thy will." "It is a lie, this folly against self." The radical error of all uninitiates is that they define "self" as irreconcilably opposed to "not-self." Each element of oneself is, on the contrary, sterile and without meaning, until it fulfils itself, by "love under will", in its counterpart in the Macrocosm. To separate oneself from others is to destroy oneself; the way to realize and to extend oneself is to lose that self --- its sense of separateness --- in the other. Thus: Child plus food: this does not preserve one at the expense of the other; it "destroys" or rather changes both in order to fulfil both in the result of the operation --- a grown man. It is in fact impossible to preserve anything as it is by positive action upon it. Its integrity demands inaction; and inaction, resistance to change, is stagnation, death and dissolution due to the internal putrefaction of the starved elements.

 

[Aeon418]

Just to make it a little plainer....

From Magick in Theory and Practice, chapter 12:

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.

Footnote: It appears from the Magical Records of Frater Perdurabo that He made this particular sacrifice on an average about 150 times every year between 1912 e.v. and 1928 e.v. Contrast J.K.Huyman's "La-Bas", where a perverted form of Magic of an analogous order is described.

Do you seriously believe that Crowley is confessing to the sacrifice of 2400 young boys here?
In actual fact Crowley was trying to talk about Sex Magick during an age when it was illegal to talk about sex full stop! Thus he had to use veiled language to disguise his real purpose. (And, of course, Crowley loved to shock the shockable and dim witted who were too slow to keep up with him. )

What Crowley is confessing to here is that he ejaculated 150 times per year during acts of sacremental sex without getting his partner pregnant. It's as simple as that. Unfortunately Crowley could not write so plainly during his day because he would have been prosecuted under the indecency laws of the time.