Notifications
Clear all

Lennon for Sainthood

Page 2 / 3

 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93 Ian. I trust that you took no offense at my post. I have an automatic reflex to inject balance whenever I see im'. 😉

I was a mere boy of thirteen when I witnessed the Beatles concerts. The energy was extraordinary. (Inadequate term, you really had to be there.) Beyond the Beatles as such, beyond the performance, beyond the audience, beyond the time and the place and well beyond myself. Your nomination to sainthood was most certainly apropos, but it is in the dissecting of the elements of the phenomenon that the Magick dissipates rather quickly. The Beatles were/are much less individually than they were as a sum, it seems.* A couple of years later I encountered Liber AL and Crowley's works, and I made the connection with THAT energy immediately, and have ever since. 93 93/93 Cam

* Some years later, my sister, who had been with me at one of the Beatles concerts and had the same extraordinary experience, met Lennon and May Pang at a party in the Hollywood hills. No Magick seemed evident to her, just a witty man with personal issues he seemed to be battling within him. She is a psychologist and educator now, but clearly recalls feeling compelled to touch his arm then as they talked. She did not reconnect with THAT energy upon doing so.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
Topic starter  

No offence taken at all -- just speaking up for my nominee. And no offence was intended in my response.

Interesting what you say about the Beatles being synergistic like that. Undoubtedly their combined effect was greater -- especially when performing in front of a crowd. I'm not sure that says anything about Lennon on his own, to be honest.

Now about your sister's reaction to the concert and to the man. There is anecdotal evidence that I've seen and heard that suggests other men and women found Lennon rather more charismatic, and in any case I don't think it's easy to judge sainthood by touching a man's arm. Do you think we need to introduce anecdotal evidence, in the manner that the Catholics do, to show evidence of at least a miracle? I think the evidence is already there in his music and actions, and would again draw a comparison with St. Wagner -- did anyone get electric shocks from him?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ianrons" wrote:
No offence taken at all -- just speaking up for my nominee. And no offence was intended in my response.

Interesting what you say about the Beatles being synergistic like that. Undoubtedly their combined effect was greater -- especially when performing in front of a crowd. I'm not sure that says anything about Lennon on his own, to be honest.

Now about your sister's reaction to the concert and to the man. There is anecdotal evidence that I've seen and heard that suggests other men and women found Lennon rather more charismatic, and in any case I don't think it's easy to judge sainthood by touching a man's arm. Do you think we need to introduce anecdotal evidence, in the manner that the Catholics do, to show evidence of at least a miracle? I think the evidence is already there in his music and actions, and would again draw a comparison with St. Wagner -- did anyone get electric shocks from him?

LOL good points. I'm not sure how to sum up my own point. For certain, there was true Magick in the Beatles. For certain, when Lennon was gone, the Magick was gone. (Sum of the parts was greater than the whole, but each of the parts were essential. I've seen each of the others solo, Lennon too. No Magick, just memory of it.) Lennon's tragic murder makes him rather ripe for canonization. His outspoken, rather naive, political rhetoric stands out in our memories, and sort of supplies a focal point for our commemoration of the entire phenomenon. At any rate, you've got my vote, but there was certainly more afoot there than John Lennon alone.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 384
 

Both Lennon and Page (to name just two cultural heavyweights) have --- to no small effect --- used the genius of their art to lead people to a more Thelemic perspective, and in some cases to the genius of Crowley as well. This merits some considerable recognition, I'd think. And say what you will about liberalism, but it is a cultural movement that flows more in the 93 Current than in the dried veins of outworn ideologies the likes of which are more home to the crusty shells of Christian-dominated conservatism.

And as an aside, it is never one's true will to have one's rights taken away by a mindless slave. Lennon didn't die because it was his will to be snuffed anymore than it was the true will of the killer to rob the world of decades of musical genius. If you can't discern the slaves (driven by compulsion deriving from neuroses spawned by a repressive mindset) from the regents (who are always in their own way the epitome of greatness in creativity and intellect), then figuring out the Law of Thelema is going to be difficult.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
Topic starter  

Camlion -- agreed, more afoot than Lennon alone; but if Lennon gets your vote then I'm happy 🙂

Aleisterion -- I share your reservations about Lennon being killed like that, and have made it rather central to my views on his canonization. But we are talking about Binah not Chokmah; i.e., that his Will was in a sense thwarted is not really a bar to his sainthood. I would just like to reiterate that I make a distinction here between the Christian idea of martyrdom, which seems to veer towards rather pointless suicide in a similar way to some stories I've heard of idiot Buddhists, and trying one's best but being killed along the way. To some people, death may seem like failure, but Crowley talked about death being an accident along the way; and as I say, whilst it may be a failure of will it doesn't necessarily imply that at all -- or do we imagine Lennon's star perished completely that day?


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 384
 

Hello Ianrons,

That his will was thwarted by one with a lack of any true will is nothing against the man himself --- nor do I think that his death was a setback for him: the will goes on, with "omnipotence at its command and eternity at its disposal". It was a loss for mankind --- or a temporary one anyway, at least until the will returns to its course in whatever form it chooses.

As for sainthood, well...as I said, I think that he merits (along with a few others no doubt) some form of recognition in Thelemic circles, given his contribution to a more Thelemic culture. I think that all the chosen are "saints". But I'm not sure if he'd be canonized as a Gnostic Catholic saint. Certainly in any list of Thelemic saints, one of the first to make the list should be Blavatsky, to whom Crowley referred as an 8=3 and his forerunner heralding the New Aeon. I'd certainly include both Lennon and Page --- just on the musical front --- in any list of Thelemic icons. One need not be a ritual magician --- or even know the Law of Thelema consciously --- to be devoted to our liberational cause.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
Topic starter  

Thanks for your reply, Aleisterion. You stop short of giving your nod, so to speak; but that's ok. Sitting down this evening after a stressful day with beer in hand, I fell to thinking of the whole Lennon myth -- genius musician killed by government mind-control killer -- and thought how this would really stand up brilliantly in 300, 700, 2000 years time.

St. Lennon! (just make sure to pronounce it correctly) 😆

Are these to be our Saints of Thelema -- musicians, artists, poets, writers -- rather than those dim politicos of times past? Floreant...


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 
"ianrons" wrote:
. . . genius musician killed by government mind-control killer

You've clearly got information to link Mark Chapman with the intelligence services of some government or other. I wonder if you might share it?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
Topic starter  

I thought that was more your department...


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2162
 

government mind-control killer

That's odd. I could've sworn the first time I read this sentence these words were originally "CIA."

Another conspiratorial twist?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 

I wouldn't have thought so, Kyle.

After all, Ian is no longer a moderator or a technical administrator here, is he?

So he wouldn't be able to change posts, would he?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5355
 

I have absolutely no idea whether Ian changed his post or not - and I'm not entirely clear as to the significance if he has - but I am enormously proud to confirm that he most definitely does continue to work as a technical administrator. Without his assistance in recent weeks there'd be no Encyclopedia Thelemica, for example, or viable plans for its future.

I have to say that I think this thread has run its natural course now. Now, if we were discussing Jimmy Page, that would, of course, and quite impartially, be another thing entirely...

😉

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 

To set the record straight, I have rather more in common with Rons's Lennon thingummy than I do your Page whatsit. I like them both, but regard Lennon as much the more creative genius. However, as can be deduced from my contributions to this thread, where I part company from Ian is the conspiracy theory as to his murder.

To step back even further, however much I like Lennon, I cannot see any reason for his addition to the roll-call in the Gnostic Mass. Of course he channels gnosis - as Ian pointed out in an earlier post, that is a function of creativity - but one has to draw a line somewhere, because otherwise there are probably thousands of people with a claim to be added to the roll-call.

Rolling with the Calls,

Mickey the Monkey.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
Topic starter  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
That's odd. I could've sworn the first time I read this sentence these words were originally "CIA."

Yes indeed, I did say "CIA" and I then did edit my post using my super-secret ninja postNuke admin powers, which I use to secretly mend the universe in unimaginable ways. I suppose I must have been feeling generous... CIA: fine body of men and women, wouldn't say a word against 'em! 😛

And with regard to Michael's remarks, I did say that it was a "myth":

"ianrons" wrote:
the whole Lennon myth -- genius musician killed by government mind-control killer

Something that Michael left out in his quote and comment. I had hoped we could move on, accepting that we'll never get to the bottom of his death here, and respecting my topic steerage to the extent that I felt the identification of any conspiracy (i.e., what other people might have done) is largely irrelevant to the question of his sainthood (i.e., what he himself did).

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
However, as can be deduced from my contributions to this thread, where I part company from Ian is the conspiracy theory as to his murder.

I have never stated that I believe it was definitely an assassination (sounds better than the lazy pejorative "conspiracy theory", doesn't it?), so you are creating division where there is none. I like to keep an open mind. It might not be for another 40 or 50 years (till everyone involved is dead) that we'll know the truth -- if it's any different from the official story. But as I keep saying, that's not the point.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
To step back even further, however much I like Lennon, I cannot see any reason for his addition to the roll-call in the Gnostic Mass. Of course he channels gnosis - as Ian pointed out in an earlier post, that is a function of creativity - but one has to draw a line somewhere, because otherwise there are probably thousands of people with a claim to be added to the roll-call.

Who are these "probably thousands" -- exactly? Care to name 20 serious contenders? The EGC should be keeping the list of saints up to date if the gnosis is to be passed on (it's practically a requirement to acknowledge new saints, in my view), and there are a few in the 20th Century (for instance Jung was mentioned) who ought to be considered -- Crowley certainly counted a lot from the 19th Century, and we are now nearly 100 years on. I get the sense you are simply being contrary -- you acknowledge Lennon as a "genius" who "channels gnosis", but want to "draw a line", when the number of new saints from the 20th century stands at... zero!

I am reminded that Crowley, whilst a creative genius, was not in your view a prophet. Would it be fair to say that the question of Lennon's sainthood is more a matter of personal unwillingness to acknowledge religious attainment? Who would you regard as a saint? Would Grant qualify?

My own views on attainment are perhaps rather more liberal. I, for instance, am happy to acknowledge both To Mega Therion and Mohammed as prophets -- and have no problem even with the shahada (in the understanding that a fair translation would, I am informed, end with "... and Mohammed is a prophet of God", not "... the prophet..."), though I find the Qur'an a rather unhelpful document in the 21st century and obviously some of its adherents are quite confused. I also consider myself quite free to ignore what they've said, if I feel it appropriate; but I find To Mega Therion had a lot of useful things to add to the conversation.

I don't, however, extend my liberal view so far as to say that the unwillingness to acknowledge others' attainment (="their spiritual freedom") is a bar to personal attainment, although it may in fact be so when that authority is truly "of the Highest". The contrast is easily made with Saddam Hussein's righteous stand against acknowledging the judge in his case, where the authority was de facto only; and note generally that notions of religious authority have historically faltered with the requirement to believe in a "Supreme Being" which unnecessarily implies a Unity -- but I do not make such requirements here.

"...let it be ever thus: that men speak not of Thee as One, but as None..."

Trusting that you follow my line of reasoning, do you see why I think you're being rather mean-spirited?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

"my Mother Was Of The Sky
my Father Was Of The Earth
but I Am Of The Universe
and You Know What It's Worth"-John Lennon "Yer Blues"

Seens like Gnosis to me! ...at least more so than anything I can get from Ulrich Von Hutten, Or William of Schyren(whoever that is)

Also...

I nominate R. Buckminster Fuller for sainthood!


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 
"ianrons" wrote:
And with regard to Michael's remarks, I did say that it was a "myth"

Yes, you did. Sorry to have overlooked that.

"ianrons" wrote:
Who are these "probably thousands" -- exactly? Care to name 20 serious contenders?

No, I can't. I was referring back to your earlier remark that a great many artists are channelling gnosis, hence my remark that there are "probably thousands".

"ianrons" wrote:
I am reminded that Crowley, whilst a creative genius, was not in your view a prophet. Would it be fair to say that the question of Lennon's sainthood is more a matter of personal unwillingness to acknowledge religious attainment?

This is an interesting point with some validity, though it is not a matter of my being unwilling to recognise "religious attainment". As is perhaps clear from my contributions to the "Creation" thread, as well as our private discussions over the last few years, I have great respect for what I see as religious attainment of any stripe, though I prefer to focus upon mystical attainment. I find the Gnostic Mass moving, but don't care for the roll-call of saints, and indeed the few Masses that I have attended have omitted that section. I think that gnosis is something that is channelled, and hence not a personal attainment. I realise that this is a sweeping statement with not a few holes, but there it is.

"ianrons" wrote:
Who would you regard as a saint? Would Grant qualify?

Well, I don't regard anyone as a saint, actually. But if you're going to twist my arm, and if we're talking about foremost channellers of gnosis in our field, and apart from Crowley himself, then yes I'd nominate Kenneth Grant, but also others such as Austin Osman Spare. Outside of our narrow alleyway I'd nominate others such as Jung (I think you mentioned him earlier) and Ramana Maharshi.

"ianrons" wrote:
Trusting that you follow my line of reasoning, do you see why I think you're being rather mean-spirited?

Yes I do follow it, and perhaps I am being a little mean-spirited.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
Topic starter  

Thanks for your generous reply, Michael. It's good to see the lines of divergence as well as the points where our views meet. I didn't realise the masses you'd attended had omitted the Saints from the Collects.

Just for reference, for those among us who may not be familiar with the Mass, the invocation of the Saints is is one of 11 Collects which comprise:
The Sun -- The Lord -- The Moon -- The Lady -- The Saints -- The Earth -- The [Three] Principles -- Birth -- Marriage -- Death -- The End

and it runs like this:

Lord of Life and Joy, that art the might of man, that art the essence of every true god that is upon the surface of the Earth, continuing knowledge from generation unto generation, thou adored of us upon heaths and in woods, on mountains and in caves, openly in the marketplaces and secretly in the chambers of our houses, in temples of gold and ivory and marble as in these other temples of our bodies, we worthily commemorate them worthy that did of old adore thee and manifest they glory unto men,

    - Oh Sons of the Lion and the Snake! with all thy saints we worthily commemorate them worthy that were and are and are to come.

    May their Essence be here present, potent, puissant and paternal to perfect this feast!

    I understand also that, in those masses, the words from TBOTL spoken by the Priestess in the Ceremony of the Opening of the Veil were changed from "Ye shall gather goods and store of women and spices" to "Ye shall gather goods and store of treasure and spices" (or something similar), apparently because of the conflict there presented with Wicca, where the feminine principle is regarded as spiritually dominant; though I would suggest this is a misinterpretation of Atu XI, "Lust" -- coincidentally resonating for me with views I've recently expressed in another thread.

    Whilst I wouldn't like to make too much of it, because I appreciate you're being very forthcoming in your views here, I personally find the invocation of the Saints in the Mass to be one of the most stirring sections of it -- though I can see this could be perceived as a rather boyish sentiment, calling up the heroes from the comic-books of one's youth, so to speak; but there's a wonderful spirit of generosity and inclusiveness about calling one's ancestors to share the joys of Earth, cakes and wine, and to inform the congregation with their energy and wisdom. Like recollecting the names of those soldiers who have died on the battleground of Love. And I think it's nice to be remembered, if one has achieved something outstanding, not merely as an inspiration to future generations but in recognition of the human desire to be remembered. It's a brotherhood (and a sisterhood) of soldiers, poets and teachers which I'm most happy to commemorate -- rather like the Beatles' own "People We Like", which at the risk of having my case struck out did include our own Prophet, as I seem to recall by the choice not of one of the four but by the art director Robert Fraser. (I wasn't aware of this before, but the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom was worn on Lennon's sleeve on that famous album cover; something which has interesting and very positive resonances in "Enochian" magick; but that's a subject for another thread.)

    Anyway, it's perhaps a little unorthodox but I'm submitting this thread to Frater H.B. as my grounds for putting forward John Lennon for canonization in EGC, and let's hope he doesn't ask me to write 20,000 words of supporting documentation before he'll consider the proposal, otherwise it'll never happen! Thanks for everyone's contributions. 🙂


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 501
 

Give him a nudge about Joyce McKinney while you have his ear. Long overdue.

OK


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I support the bid for Lennon's sainthood.

Camlion - I disagree on Lennon not having magickal force post-Beatles. Two examples off the top of my head: he was a prominent and one of the more creative leaders of the Vietnam anti-war movement. That war did end with the defeat of the US not too long after he did his thing. Also, he very much wanted to have a child with Yoko. Despite much odds against them, their Will for this prevailed.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 
"zardoz" wrote:
I disagree on Lennon not having magickal force post-Beatles. Two examples off the top of my head: he was a prominent and one of the more creative leaders of the Vietnam anti-war movement. That war did end with the defeat of the US not too long after he did his thing. Also, he very much wanted to have a child with Yoko. Despite much odds against them, their Will for this prevailed.

So it was John Lennon that defeated the US in Vietnam, not the Vietcong, nor the fact that the US military were bogged down in a long, costly war with mounting casualties?


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 384
 

Nah...surely it was the Doors music that they blasted from the incoming choppers that did the trick! 🙄


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 384
 

Or maybe it was St.Wagner...


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 384
 

They say it freaked out the Vietcong but I suspect it might've inspired 'em --- I know it always does me (especially Wagner)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
I disagree on Lennon not having magickal force post-Beatles. Two examples off the top of my head: he was a prominent and one of the more creative leaders of the Vietnam anti-war movement. That war did end with the defeat of the US not too long after he did his thing. Also, he very much wanted to have a child with Yoko. Despite much odds against them, their Will for this prevailed.

So it was John Lennon that defeated the US in Vietnam, not the Vietcong, nor the fact that the US military were bogged down in a long, costly war with mounting casualties?

No it wasn't John Lennon alone, obviously. It was a combination of many factors on many levels, obviously, the anti-war movement being a prominent one. It already was a long costly war with lots of casualties before Lennon began actively protesting. Why wasn't it ended earlier? Of course, I have no idea if his magick - for instance, hiring billboards around the world saying No More War If You Want It - had anything to do with the war ending a few years later. Could just be a coincidence. He exercised Will to end the war and it ended. Maybe that had nothing to do with it, but I'm of the unprovable opinion that it helped.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I commented here before on the resemblance of the structure and the last word of Liber Legis and those of Finnegans Wake and that began a long thread.

Now, looking through some old notes of mine I see those last five letters of AL,
A U M H A set against the five words of another (final) phrase:
She's leaving home. Bye bye.

I have no recollection what was in my mind (or in my veins) at the time; but I suppose it could be argued that the two phrases reflect each other: The musical phrase "she's leaving home" has a joyful lift (technically, dominant modulation) reflecting the joy of the reborn Child, and "bye bye" contradicts this, evoking the grief of the parents in a plagal cadence, the tune to which the "amen" of a Christian prayer or hymn is typically sung.

"Aum Ha" is the opposite, a closing followed by a lift into a new life.

I like the comment of the then head of the Royal Academy of Music on that line, in 1987, for a TV programme called It Was Twenty Years Ago Today:

"Now I don't suppose John Lennon ever said to Paul McCartney ' 'ere, let's 'ave a dominant modulation folowed by a plagal cadence' - but that's the way it works."

Maybe that says something about direct operation of the Will in composing music, as against "invoking Because".

I notice, BTW that the first sentence contains 22 words and that setting it against the Hebrew alphabet puts "John" - the more rawly energetic of the two - at Yodh and "Paul" - the gentler one - at Heh.

But what to do with the seond, six-word sentence? I have them pasted (in a computer sense) from right to left and top to bottom and am in the process of beholding. I'll let you know 🙂

OP


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"OliverP" wrote:
I notice, BTW that the first sentence contains 22 words and that setting it against the Hebrew alphabet puts "John" - the more rawly energetic of the two - at Yodh and "Paul" - the gentler one - at Heh.

Nope, I got those precisely backwards; "John" is Heh and Paul "Yodh". That doesn't make sense at all. Back to the drong board...

And once again, curse the lack of an edit button.

OP


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

What does Lennon have to do with Thelema?

Aside from putting Crowley on the cover of Sgt. Pepper, is there any actual indication that any of the Beatles had any real concept of what he was about?


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 

Funny, Poelzig, that's almost exactly what Sabazius, Supreme and Holy King of North America said to me a decade ago, back when he was wearing his Bishop's hat as T. Apiryon!


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
Topic starter  

Poelzig,

I think you are confusing Thelema with Crowleyanity. There is one connecting point -- Crowley himself, "The Beast 666" -- but no reason why Jews, Hindus, etc., can't be "of us" (see, e.g., Liber I); else this freedom is mere slavery to one man's dogma. Of course, I would suggest that only the very best Jews, Hindus, etc., could be "of us"... but that is my opinion. Those who have truly "attained" using any religious system necessarily transcend the symbols and dogma. As for Lennon, he was a musician and expressed his Will through music.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ianrons" wrote:
Poelzig,

I think you are confusing Thelema with Crowleyanity. There is one connecting point -- Crowley himself, "The Beast 666" -- but no reason why Jews, Hindus, etc., can't be "of us" (see, e.g., Liber I); else this freedom is mere slavery to one man's dogma. Of course, I would suggest that only the very best Jews, Hindus, etc., could be "of us"... but that is my opinion. Those who have truly "attained" using any religious system necessarily transcend the symbols and dogma. As for Lennon, he was a musician and expressed his Will through music.

Are you responding to my comment or someone else?

As for Lennon, you could say that about any musician or artist, which renders the statement essentially meaningless.

To say "Everything everyone does expresses their will in some way" is entirely devoid of meaning - it contributes nothing to knowledge or understanding beyond a superficial immediate "cosmic" titilation for people who mistake garden-variety ambiguities or tautologies expressed in religious terms as something profound. It is psuedo-profundity, the likes of which abound to a nauseating degree in esoteric, mystical and "self help" literature.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
Topic starter  
"Poelzig" wrote:
Are you responding to my comment or someone else?

I'm responding to your comment, which is why I addressed it to you, and presumably why you responded to me.

"Poelzig" wrote:
As for Lennon, you could say that [he expressed his Will through music] about any musician or artist, which renders the statement essentially meaningless.

This is a ridiculous generalisation -- a straw man -- which is neither implied nor can reasonably be inferred from the statement I made. I don't say that about all musicians (in fact I completely disagree), but in any case your reductio ad absurdum doesn't work, since even given that "All artists express their music through sound", does that make music meaningless? My only point is that Lennon was such a brilliant musician and lived such a noteworthy life that he rose above the rest and is worthy of special consideration. So the question I ask is: How is it "meaningless" that John Lennon (not "all musicians") expressed his Will (note the capitalisation, please) through music?

To say "Everything everyone does expresses their will in some way" is entirely devoid of meaning - it contributes nothing to knowledge or understanding beyond a superficial immediate "cosmic" titilation for people who mistake garden-variety ambiguities or tautologies expressed in religious terms as something profound. It is psuedo-profundity, the likes of which abound to a nauseating degree in esoteric, mystical and "self help" literature.

You're the one who made the statement that you criticise, not I. "The universe is a magickal mirror..."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

You are missing my point entirely and trying to apply your informal fallacy terminology where it does not apply.

In what manner or to what degree would you argue that Lennon expreses his Will any more than any other "talented" musician or artist?

If his "success" measured in popularity and money is the measure of his Will, why not include Elvis, Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Britney Spears?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Poelzig" wrote:
What does Lennon have to do with Thelema?

Aside from putting Crowley on the cover of Sgt. Pepper, is there any actual indication that any of the Beatles had any real concept of what he was about?

"Walterfive" wrote:
Funny, Poelzig, that's almost exactly what Sabazius, Supreme and Holy King of North America said to me a decade ago, back when he was wearing his Bishop's hat as T. Apiryon!

LOL Walter! If and when David one day ascends to 'Fra. Hymenaeus Gamma,' he will have had ample time to contemplate the precedent that Crowley established as a criteria for Sainthood in Liber XV. 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Sorry, Walter. I kid my OTO friends. The whole idea of making Saints, by any church, however, is usually a tricky way of engaging The People's interest, diverting their attention, enabling them to identify with the church, and manipulations of that sort... and it usually works. 😉 No offense intended.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 501
 

In the future this sort of question will be solved by software like the stuff Amazon has.

"People who venerated John Lennon also venerated........Bert Weedon.

OK


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
Topic starter  

Grow up, the lot of you.


ReplyQuote
warriormonk93
(@warriormonk93)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 82
 

93! I’m surprised no one recalls the song God he wrote on his first solo album. Hed just gone through primal scream therapy and was busy exorcising his demons.

"I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
Í don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in Mantra
I don't believe in gita
I don't believe in yoga
I don't believe in kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles
I just believe in me
Yoko and me
And that's reality"

I think he’d reject the idea of being elevated to any Sainthood; remember he even returned his MBE. There’s a clip of him welcoming a “bum” and his mansion one day, and he debunked the idea that the Beatles meant anything more than being just good pop tunesmiths. He said he’d write about taking a shit if he felt like it.

Mind you, Yoko aparently had a tarot reader and an astrologer counseling her business decisions later on though...

93, 93/93.
WM


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I'm actually in the extreme minority of thinking Yoko Ono was far more interesting than Lennon.

She also recently sued Ben Stein for using a Lennon track in his recent pro-god/creationist propaganda film without permission.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Poelzig" wrote:
You are missing my point entirely and trying to apply your informal fallacy terminology where it does not apply.

I agree also that Universe acts like a Magickal Mirror - posting on these forums helps bring this to light.

"Poelzig" wrote:
If his "success" measured in popularity and money is the measure of his Will, why not include Elvis, Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Britney Spears?

Because popularity and money = NOT a measure of Will.

Maybe all Lennon had to do was put Crowley on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, one of the most culturally significant albums of all time.

Much of The Beatles' music aligns quite closely to the Thelemic current, for example: asked to compose a song for the first worldwide satellite tell a vision broadcast, Lennon came up with All You Need is Love, very similar in spirit to "love is the law, love under Will.

As to how much Lennon or his mates worshiped at the temple of Crowley, I know not. I don't find it relevant.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

At least all of those fundigelical Christian, rock n’ roll is satanic sites are willing to give Lennon his Gnostic props. Sheesh, this is a TOUGH room!

“Lennon's legacy, is one giant, multi-media portrait of degradation-a sleazy world of immorality, venereal disease, anarchy, nihilism, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, death, Satanism, perversion, and orgies" (The Legacy of John Lennon, by David Noebel, 1982, p. 15).

Weren’t similar things said about the various “Gnostic” practices of old by a variety of pious detractors?

Let me begin by saying that I do NOT support John Lennon’s nomination to the EGC Collect of Saints. I somehow find doing so would be an injustice to his legacy to have it submitted to some such body for “their approval.” I find myself in agreement with the views expressed that it is a matter for each individual to decide.

If one looks on the totality of John Lennon’s life, legacy and career, it reads like a portrait of everything the word Gnosis portends to be. One can even find correspondences between the lives of John and Yoko and of Simon and Helen. John Lennon is both a Gnostic martyr and saint. Tobias Churton certainly recognized this in his book, "Gnostic Philosophy." Still, I find this thread interesting in that it has put forth a series of basic question as to qualification for what is a Gnostic Saint.

Some have tried to ascertain John Lennon’s merit based on his acceptance of “Thelema” …in other words, did John Lennon accept and embrace Liber Al as was given to or composed by Aleister Crowley? Before I answer this question, I must begin with asking the same of William Blake? What about Frederick of Hohenstaufen, Roger and Francis Bacon, Nietzsche etc. etc. etc.? My question is, of course, revealed to be rhetorical. By the inclusion of those people in the collects, the original premise of the question is rendered useless for determining eligibility for Gnostic sainthood. None of them ever subscribed to Liber Al.
The above also supports a further assertion that John Lennon is at least as much a Gnostic Saint as any of the aforementioned in that he unequivocally confessed support for the central formula of Thelema: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” John Lennon publicly declared, “The whole Beatle idea was to do what you want, right? To take your own responsibility, do what you want and try not to harm other people, right? DO WHAT THOU WILST, as long as it doesn't hurt somebody. . ." ("The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono", by David Sheff and G. Barry Golson, p. 61)

Now, I guess one could pose the further question, “Well maybe he said that, but did he practice what he preached?”

“You make your own dream. That's the Beatles' story, isn't it? That's Yoko's story. That's what I'm saying now. Produce your own dream. If you want to save Peru, go save Peru. It's quite possible to do anything, but not to put it on the leaders and the parking meters. Don't expect Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan or John Lennon or Yoko Ono or Bob Dylan or Jesus Christ to come and do it for you. You have to do it yourself. That's what the great masters and mistresses have been saying ever since time began. They can point the way, leave signposts and little instructions in various books that are now called holy and worshipped for the cover of the book and not for what it says, but the instructions are all there for all to see, have always been and always will be. There's nothing new under the sun. All the roads lead to Rome. And people cannot provide it for you. I can't wake you up. You can wake you up. I can't cure you. You can cure you.”

“You say you found Jesus Christ; He’s the only one
You say you found Buddha; Sitting in the sun
You say you found Mohammed; Facing to the east
You say you found Krishna; Dancing in the seats
Ain't nobody gonna do it for you
Well you may believe in devils and you may believe in lords
But Christ, you're gonna have to serve yourself and that's all there is to it.
…You got to serve yourself; Ain't nobody gonna do it for you?
You gotta serve yourself; Nobody’s gonna do for you.”
Serve Yourself by John Lennon

Did John Lennon ever rebel against the status-quo and the authority of imposed religion? Unequivocally.

“…despite his artistic talent, his school reports were damning: "Certainly on the road to failure ... hopeless ... rather a clown in class ... wasting other pupils' time."” Wiki entry for John Lennon

“Nobody controls me. I'm uncontrollable. The only one who can control me is me, and that's just barely possible. And that's the lesson I'm learning. If someone's going to impress me, whether it be a Maharishi or a Yoko, then there comes a point where the emperor has no clothes 'cause I'm naive, but I'm not stupid. For all you folks out there who think I'm having the wool pulled over my eyes, well, that's an insult to me. But if you think you know me, or you have some part of me because of the music, and then you think I'm being controlled like a dog on a leash because I do things with her, then screw you, brother or sister, you don't know what's happening. I'm not here for you, I'm here for me and her, and now the baby.”

Did John Lennon oppose the authority & legitimacy of the Christian church?

"They're [the Beatles] completely anti-Christ. I mean, I am anti-Christ as well, but they're so anti-Christ they shock me which isn't an easy thing" (Derick Taylor, Beatles Press Liaison to Saturday Evening Post, August 8-15, 1964, p. 25).

By age 11, John was permanently barred from Sunday services in his aunt's Anglican church because he "repeatedly improvised obscene and impious lyrics to the hymns." (Rock Lives; p. 114). He did things even cruder and viler than that, such as urinate on members of the "clergy" from second floor windows and display homemade dummies of Christ in lewd poses. In his 1965 book published by Simon & Schuster, John Lennon blasphemed the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by calling them "Fahter, Sock and Micky Most." In 1964 Paul McCartney stated, "We probably seem to be anti-religious none of us believes in God."

Was John Lennon a magician and/or did he ever make any such profession?

“So, it was "Bell, Book, and Candle" against Mr. Six Six Six Nixon. Yes, we used magic, prayer, and children to fight the good fight.”

“We're playing those mind games together, Pushing barriers, planting seeds,
Playing the mind guerilla, Chanting the Mantra peace on earth,
We all been playing mind games forever, Some kinda druid dudes lifting the veil.
Doing the mind guerilla, Some call it the search for the grail,

Did John Lennon make any acknowledgement or reference of the Great Work?

“Hello, hello, testing, testing...

“At this time of year...oh, let me first introduce myself. Maybe you have heard me before, i am the great wok.And as you know, the great wok must be done. Now, at this time of year when brahama is in brahma...
The day of brahma is set to last one thousand years and its night is of equal length.
Well, for us human being, this is the end of the year now and our minds turns towards what is laughably called the future.
No mind can comprehend the infinite and absolute anon munsch mars stunvelly humpff, as we say in the himalayas.
Now let me tell you, my resolution of the year 1979 is to renounce complete everything,but complete luxury and self indulgence.
Now i suggest this is going to be very, very difficult, very difficult indeed.
I feel it's my duty, not only as a human being but as a personor was it not george formy who said there are four billion three hundred and twenty million
mortal or earth years which is one day of brahma.
So, one way of looking at it is simply not to look at it at all.
And that's exactly what we're going to do now.
So we'll settle down, deeply, i hope, and comfortably in an easy chair
and then, lay back, put the incense on, light the candles and give yourself a hard time.”

Did John Lennon’s “Great Work” culminate in a coherent purpose or message?: Yes. In a word, it was “Love.“ All You Need is Love.” “Give Peace a Chance.” “Imagine”

“We've got this gift of love, but love is like a precious plant. You can't just accept it and leave it in the cupboard or just think it's going to get on by itself. You've got to keep watering it. You've got to really look after it and nurture it.”

“It just was a gradual development over the years. I mean last year was 'all you need is Love.' This year, it's 'all you need is Love and peace, baby.' Give peace a chance, and remember Love. The only hope for us is peace. Violence begets violence. You can have peace as soon as you like if we all pull together. You're all geniuses, and you're all beautiful. You don't need anyone to tell you who you are. You are what you are. Get out there and get peace, think peace, and live peace and breathe peace, and you'll get it as soon as you like.”

Did his Work cultivate the respect and acclaim of a following that could be objectively considered significant? Yes. It is worldwide and numbers in the millions, and perhaps the hundreds of millions.

Did John Lennon ever claim a contact with extraterrestrials? (vs. Crowley’s LAM)
Yes. August 23, 1974
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=542

Also Uri Geller’s account of John Lennon describing an extraterrestrial encounter:
http://www.uri-geller.com/megg.htm

Thread Comment: “Lennon seems to have been shot by a nobody who was deluded enough to think that he could become a somebody by killing a high-profile star.”

Thread Comment: “Does the fact that Lennon's murderer was delusional and psychotic really mean he died as a 'result of his life's work' and therefore is a martyr'? Don’t you think you’re stretching that?”

Does John Lennon merit a martyr status?
Yes: on the physical AND the archetypal planes. Not only was he martyred by his murderer: His murderer killed John Lennon because of who he was. His murderer didn’t randomly pick someone from Central Park and off them. To say that it is disqualifying that his murderer was simply a madman and his murder was MERELY an act of madness is to imply that all of those who have been martyred as heretics, Gnostics, printers (i.e. Dolet) etc were exterminated with great rationality, sanity and decency. All martyrs are murdered in acts of madness. Lennon was further martyred by his demonstrable persecution by the Nixon administration. He was spied on by the United States government. Lennon demonstrated his ‘magical’ abilities in defeating the Nixon administration in their war on him and Yoko. He won his citizenship.
On the Archetypal Plane: It is said in some circles that John or derivation is the name of the slain god.

Thread comment: “But the experience and transmission of the gnosis, with certainty not faith, based on the identification with one's secret self - I doubt that.”

Are there any significant synchronicities or coincidences that can be rendered in an objective manner that demonstrate an ongoing gnosis or spiritual revelation in John Lennon’s life?

By way of one example, the song, “The Word,” creates an association between its primary author, John Lennon, and the Book of John in the Bible:

Say the Word and you’ll be free, say the Word and be like me …IN THE BEGINNING (I misunderstood) The Book of John: IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD “But now I’ve got it and the Word is Good” The Book of John: “and the Word was God.” “Now I know what I feel must be right. I’m here to show everybody the Light.”

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Premonitions of his death:

In the beginning of the song, Come Together, Lennon says, “shoot me.”

“Christ you know it aint easy. You know how hard it can be. The way things are going, they’re gonna crucify me.”

“Rocky Raccoon: names the place (Dakota) and manner (but Daniel was hot, he drew first and shot and Rocky collapsed in the corner.) of Lennon’s death. Further, the song makes mention of Gideon’s Bible. Before leaving the hotel, John Lennon’s killer, opened the bible to the Book of John and wrote the word “Lennon.”

“He opened the Bible in his hotel room to the Book of John and added "Lennon" to it. He bought a new copy of "The Catcher in the Rye," and wrote in it, "This is my statement," above the title on the title page.”
http://archive.desertdispatch.com/2005/113379126891387.html

Visible Signs: “You mean besides Beatlemania?”

There is also, to consider: Our World was the first live, international, satellite television production, which was broadcast on 25 June 1967.

“Today, it is most famous for the segment from the United Kingdom starring The Beatles. The broadcast was taking place at the height of the Vietnam War, and the group wanted to use the opportunity to convey a positive message expressing a philosophy of love. They gave a live performance, transmitted at 8:54 p.m. GMT, performing a new song written primarily by John Lennon, "All You Need Is Love", composed especially for the occasion. The Beatles invited many of their friends to the event to create a festive atmosphere and to join in on the song's chorus. Among the friends were members of The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, Marianne Faithfull, Keith Moon and Graham Nash. The performance was preceded by just a single rehearsal.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_World_(International_TV_special)#The_Beatles.27_sequence

Did John Lennon possess a notable degree of “illumination”?

“IMAGINE.”

"I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now? Reality leaves a lot to the imagination."

"The more I see the less I know for sure."

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

"Life is what happens to you when you’re busy making other plans."

Direct Reply To: “I am however unsure how either of them (Jim Morrison and John Lennon) transmitted the Gnosis to us their heirs.”

Answer: Through music, books, pictures, films, interviews etc.

“My role in society, or any artist or poet's role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel. Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of us all.” John Lennon

Did John Lennon make any other notable contributions to the propagation of the Gnosis?:

Jodorowsky's third film, The Holy Mountain (La montaña sagrada) (1973), was entirely financed by John Lennon and Yoko Ono through the production office of Beatles producer Allen Klein. It has been suggested that The Holy Mountain may have been inspired by Rene Daumal's surrealist novel Mount Analogue. The Holy Mountain was another complex, multi-part story that featured a man credited as "The Thief" and equated with Jesus Christ, a mystical alchemist played by Jodorowsky, seven powerful business people representing seven of the planets (Venus and the six planets from Mars to Pluto), a religious training regimen of spiritual rebirth, and a quest to the top of a holy mountain for the secret of immortality. During the completion of The Holy Mountain, Jodorowsky received spiritual training from Oscar Ichazo of the Arica School, who encouraged him to take LSD and guided him through the subsequent psychedelic experience[3]. Around the same time (2 November 1973), Jodorowsky participated[4] in an isolation tank experiment conducted by John Lilly. http://thefoolspeaks.com/showthread.php?t=619


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93!

What a fascinating subject! On the one hand, I would think that it would make sense that the saints of the EGC should be updated (or at least added to) regularly. Otherwise, you end up with a bunch of 19th century figures that amounted to Crowley's own version of "people we like". It'd be a sad statement for Thelema if there were no saints born in the Aeon of Horus.

On the other hand, it seems somehow ironic to be getting down on the Catholic church for trying to milk publicity from Lennon's memory while simultaneously suggesting adding him to the roster of Thelema's saints. Obviously, Thelema doesn't get the same press that the Vatican newspaper can get, but doesn't it really amount to the same thing? Saying "this guy was one of us, whether he knew it or not" is not that different a ploy from saying "we officially forgive him now, and no doubt his soul rests easier for the fact that the church is so awesome".

On the other hand, I would say that the question of qualification for Thelemic sainthood (apart from a question of "would he have considered himself a thelemite", which as noted here does not seem to have stopped most of the other people on the list from qualifying) is such that if John Lennon wouldn't qualify, there wouldn't be many people who ever possibly could.

But still, on the other other hand, that question of "would he have wanted it" may still be a valid one; its pretty clear that part of Lennon's iconoclasm extended to everything to do with "Magick". The reason his association with the likes of the Maharishi wouldn't disqualify him (the way that George Harrison's association with the Hare Krishnas would) is because Lennon later reviled the likes of the Maharishi along with pretty much every kind of religious concept. I'm not that sure that trying to explain to him that Thelema is really a concept that redefines "god" would have ended up convincing him.

So yes, I can see various sides to this argument. Ultimately, the issue is whether there really is anyone active in Thelemic circles or the EGC today that would be legitimately qualified (not in terms of "degree" but in terms of real personal spiritual authority) to actually declare definitive sainthood for Lennon or anyone else.
I don't feel there is.
That leaves it up to each individual or group to judge for themselves who the post-Crowley thelemic saints might be.
In my own personal list, I'd include Lennon, alongside a few others (Osho, and maybe Hunter S. Thompson).

93
Swami


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1265
 

I think the idea of Lennon for Sainthood is totally inappropriate. He was a wife beater, there is also plenty of evidence that he hit his girlfriends too.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
I think the idea of Lennon for Sainthood is totally inappropriate. He was a wife beater, there is also plenty of evidence that he hit his girlfriends too.

93!

Really? You're going to use something like that as a judgment for qualification? Considering the various things you could say about Crowley's own morality and actions?
Considering the things other characters on the current list of Thelemic Saints have done?

93
Swami


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"alamantra" wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I do NOT support John Lennon’s nomination to the EGC Collect of Saints. I somehow find doing so would be an injustice to his legacy to have it submitted to some such body for “their approval.” I find myself in agreement with the views expressed that it is a matter for each individual to decide.

[snip]

Still, I find this thread interesting in that it has put forth a series of basic question as to qualification for what is a Gnostic Saint.

Some have tried to ascertain John Lennon’s merit based on his acceptance of “Thelema” …in other words, did John Lennon accept and embrace Liber Al as was given to or composed by Aleister Crowley? Before I answer this question, I must begin with asking the same of William Blake? What about Frederick of Hohenstaufen, Roger and Francis Bacon, Nietzsche etc. etc. etc.? My question is, of course, revealed to be rhetorical. By the inclusion of those people in the collects, the original premise of the question is rendered useless for determining eligibility for Gnostic sainthood. None of them ever subscribed to Liber Al.

Hello alamantra, good to read you here.

I've always found the Saints Collect to be the weakest bit of Liber XV. It seems just to have been stuck in to follow form. It sets the standard, however vaguely, but the EGC seems content to just leave it as AC left it, despite much discussion now and then about adding names, especially those of females, and I would probably do the same, just leave it alone and let it fade into obscurity, because it's really just a distraction from the Rite itself. Thelemic Saints?


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1265
 

Really? You're going to use something like that as a judgment for qualification? Considering the various things you could say about Crowley's own morality and actions?
Considering the things other characters on the current list of Thelemic Saints have done?

Please accept my heartfelt apologies. I thought you were talking about something important.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"michaelclarke18" wrote:

Really? You're going to use something like that as a judgment for qualification? Considering the various things you could say about Crowley's own morality and actions?
Considering the things other characters on the current list of Thelemic Saints have done?

Please accept my heartfelt apologies. I thought you were talking about something important.

Exactly my point, this is busy work, a distraction more appropriate to old aeon religion wherein the church folks need something insignificant to debate endlessly.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93!

Well, I wouldn't disagree with you t here, Camlion. Which is again why it seems to me the real answer is that each person or working group should have their own list of saints for the gnostic mass; the idea of trying to create some kind of universal standard seems obviously doomed, given that people can't seem to even agree on what should qualify anyone for sainthood.
Ultimately, its all just "people we like".

93
Swami


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1265
 

Well, I wouldn't disagree with you t here, Camlion. Which is again why it seems to me the real answer is that each person or working group should have their own list of saints for the gnostic mass; the idea of trying to create some kind of universal standard seems obviously doomed, given that people can't seem to even agree on what should qualify anyone for sainthood.

Chains and shackles of the past.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 450
 
"michaelclarke18" wrote:

Chains and shackles of the past.

I disagree. The sangha, communitas, egregore, whichever term you prefer is important. The sense of lineage, of tradition, of fellowship, is important. Why would it be a chain to state these people are our spiritual predecessors and we honour their lives and their ideas? More importantly, there are chains of tradition as there are chains of isolation. It is not necessarily what we do but how we do it that counts. Yes, we may throw away the baby with the bathwater, nobody stops us, but is it wise? We may discard the three millennia of Western culture as the inheritance of the dead white men, but is that really the point? And if the answer is yes, then by no means don't be selective in Thelemic anarchy and start with the Prophet himself! If I were of such an opinion, I would neither join nor remain a member of the Aleister Crowley Society.

Continuity is an important aspect of Thelema and it certainly pertains to the mysteries of Nuit, if nothing else.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Iskandar" wrote:
"michaelclarke18" wrote:

Chains and shackles of the past.

I disagree. The sangha, communitas, egregore, whichever term you prefer is important.

Not as important as each sovereign individual who is the star at the center of his or her own system in this mode of manifestation, and in relation to whom all such judgements must be made. Only a community which recognizes this fact is, in reality, a Thelemic community.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: