Camlion wrote: › I have little interest in distinguishing [...]

Quote: › There are no "other beings" beyond the company of Stars that are mankind, IMO, which is not to say that the true scope such Stars is as limited as Erwin would have it. That true scope may, if properly understood, include "others," for all practical and functional purposes.

Quote: › Textual evidence taken from such books is not "overwhelming," it is incomplete in that it lacks sufficient personal experience with that system in its entirety to be well informed.

Los wrote: › If you'd rather just sweep the whole topic aside and say, "well, you simply have to have experience," then...ok, but that's a pretty convenient evasion of the topic.

It goes back to Erwin's point very early on -- actual experience gives you an ability to understand a subject and explain it clearly to others. If your "experience" is something you can't speak about, then you can't use that experience to make claims.

Los wrote: › I don't really understand how Erwin is "limit[ing]" anything. Acknowledging reality and refusing to accept things that are not real is exactly the opposite of limiting.

Skepticism is usually the sign of an open mind; faith is the sign of a closed mind. Certainly, if there were ever any actual evidence, I would believe in the existence of these "goblins" (just like I would believe in Santa or Bigfoot if there were ever any actual evidence of them).

Los wrote: › But the very thing we're discussing is what Crowley actually wrote. The only experience you need to discuss this topic is the experience of reading Crowley's books.

Aleisterion wrote: › Camlion wrote: "How would you define the term "Magister Templi"?"

alrah wrote: "...to do as the HGA wills. To do this and no other."


If that's the case, then any 5=6 would qualify. Technically the oath is to treat every phenomenon as a direct dealing of God with the soul; but to me, it also signifies an earth-shattering, life-changing switch of perception.

That said, I'd never presume to judge another's claim. If one claims anything, fine. I just say let him stand by it and his work in the end will be the final judge.

Erwin wrote: › despite the fact that it may not have been "so cut and dried for him personally", the magical and mystical system he presented to the world does not deal with contacting discarnate intelligences.

Quote: › Magick is getting into communication with individuals who exist on a higher plane than ours. Mysticism is the raising of oneself to their level.

Los wrote: › Well, distinguishing between various practices and various beings is the very topic in question, is it not?

Los wrote: › If you'd rather just sweep the whole topic aside and say, "well, you simply have to have experience," then...ok, but that's a pretty convenient evasion of the topic.

Los wrote: › It goes back to Erwin's point very early on -- actual experience gives you an ability to understand a subject and explain it clearly to others. If your "experience" is something you can't speak about, then you can't use that experience to make claims.

Los wrote: › So are you saying you're an "a-goblinist," then? Me too. But then again, I'm also an "a-Santa-Clausist" and an "a-Bigfootist."

Los wrote: › I don't really understand how Erwin is "limit[ing]" anything. Acknowledging reality and refusing to accept things that are not real is exactly the opposite of limiting.

Los wrote: › Skepticism is usually the sign of an open mind; faith is the sign of a closed mind. Certainly, if there were ever any actual evidence, I would believe in the existence of these "goblins" (just like I would believe in Santa or Bigfoot if there were ever any actual evidence of them).

Los wrote: › But the very thing we're discussing is what Crowley actually wrote. The only experience you need to discuss this topic is the experience of reading Crowley's books.

Los wrote: › The system, as he presented it to the world, does not seem to involve contact with external entities -- in fact, Crowley appears to go out of his way to specify that the system is about getting in touch with a part of the self.

zardoz wrote: › Maybe Erwin is right

I don't think personal experience in magick and/or mysticism necessarily equals personal experience with Thelemic principles. I would guess that very few those of interested in some aspect of Crowley's work would be up for the rigorous training of magick and yoga. And there's no reason they should be pushed into it if it's obviously not their cup of tea. As Erwin's signal points out, amongst roaring din of much noise, the average person can discover their True Will, unite with their True Self, derive much of practical value from Crowley's legacy without going anywhere near the occult.

I suspect Erwin has much experience in his area, just little experience with ritual magick or mysticism. He doesn't need it to do his Will.

My point ( and possibly Erwin's ) being, it's not necessary to delve into the more esoteric aspects of Crowley's work to live a rich and rewarding Thelemic life.

zardoz wrote: › Maybe Erwin is right

I don't think personal experience in magick and/or mysticism necessarily equals personal experience with Thelemic principles. I would guess that very few those of interested in some aspect of Crowley's work would be up for the rigorous training of magick and yoga. And there's no reason they should be pushed into it if it's obviously not their cup of tea. As Erwin's signal points out, amongst roaring din of much noise, the average person can discover their True Will, unite with their True Self, derive much of practical value from Crowley's legacy without going anywhere near the occult.

I suspect Erwin has much experience in his area, just little experience with ritual magick or mysticism. He doesn't need it to do his Will.

My point ( and possibly Erwin's ) being, it's not necessary to delve into the more esoteric aspects of Crowley's work to live a rich and rewarding Thelemic life.

Camlion wrote: ›
I see that we may be really quite close to agreement, after all. But you are a recovering Catholic, and I have taken this into account. It is quite important for you to vehemently debunk the lies that you were surrounded with as a child. (The fact that you casually dismiss their impact on you is mere denial.) As for me, I have no such compelling agenda, and no particular interest in "external entities," one way or another. But, Aleister Crowley did have such an interest, probably for reasons similar to your own, his childhood ordeal with old aeon religion. The compulsion to prove the existence of "external entities" is just as imbalanced as the compulsion to debunk it. Lack of interest is an indication of balance, IMO.

zardoz wrote: ›
I suspect Erwin has much experience in his area, just little experience with ritual magick or mysticism. He doesn't need it to do his Will.

Camlion wrote: › However, I consider it perfectly feasible that what I call "I" may be a part of a greater whole of which "I" function independently, for all practical purposes, and vise versa.

Camlion wrote: › No, dear boy, COMMON EXPERIENCE is what gives us an ability to understand this particular subject and explain it clearly to others. I cannot explain this sort of thing to you by virtue of my own experience until you have acquired common experience for yourself.

Los wrote: › But the very thing we're discussing is what Crowley actually wrote. The only experience you need to discuss this topic is the experience of reading Crowley's books.

Camlion wrote: › Nonsense. Crowley never said any such thing and would laugh you out of the room at the very thought. Crowley wrote "by doing certain things,,," not "by reading certain things..." Do you seriously not know the difference? Personal experience is quite literally everything, and extends far beyond reading.

Los wrote: ›
This approach wouldn't fly when discussing any other subject. If we were talking about vacuuming, for example, and I claimed to have experience vacuuming, it would be reasonable for others to expect me to be able to have a discussion about the theory and practice of vacuuming, including the ability to give a decent explanation as to how it works.

My audience need not have any experience in vacuuming for me to explain the theory and practice very clearly in simple terms.

Now, if I were to say, "I cannot explain vacuuming to you by virtue of my experience until you have acquired common experience," I would be completely evading the issue of having to explain it. On top of that, it would be impossible for someone else to distinguish me from someone who has never vacuumed or from someone who has been vacuuming incorrectly. [I'm not accusing you of anything, incidentally -- I'm just saying that it's impossible for another person to distinguish]

Los wrote: › I think you're misunderstanding. If you read my quote carefully, you'll see that I'm saying that our discussing is about what Crowley actually wrote. Discussing what someone wrote is a question of what is on the page, not about what is in the world around us (or even in "experience").

Aleisterion wrote: › "Crowley may not have created the text but it was he that made the physical link by committing those words to paper. Who is the author then, the person that does the work or the force that might be behind that person?"

As I've stated before, the Scarlet Woman was the one who made the link with Aiwass before the Beast ever did. Without Rose Kelly, there would have been no Book of the Law at all. She was receiving messages from this Being and Crowley really wanted nothing to do with. Add to this the fact that the verses themselves, many of which made no sense at all to the scribe who wrote them, were found a score of years later to contain such extraordinary meaning, and you have some evidence of a manifestation of praeterhuman Genius. And I believe that time and research will bear this out even more.