Notifications
Clear all

Aleister Crowley's Treatment of "Scarlet Women"  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/11/2012 2:49 am  

My research and reading of Crowleys work over the last few years has significantly altered my opinion of him from when I first joined Lashtal. In part due to the informal education I've received here at LAShtal-thanks to Paul and enthusiastic regular members.

That notwithstanding, I find my impressions of Crowley are strong, and well...mixed. No doubt the man was brilliant, and far ahead of his time, and yet in other ways very much a product of his environment (childhood) and the times during which he lived.

I'll cut to the chase:

As a woman who is strong willed and independent, there are times I find it hard to come to terms with Crowley's treatment of his "Scarlet Women". He seems to have viewed woman as a commodity and not human beings, despite some of his writings to the contrary.

On one hand, 'The Book of the Law" states "...called the Scarlet woman...in whom all power is given"

AND

On the other hand, he often nicknamed them after animals-which I find rather degrading.

I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of Crowley in no way approaches that of some (if not most!) members of this forum.

But I've also noticed opinions about Crowley in this forum vary tremendously from one member to the next, and are usually very well presented. So I'd love to hear your thoughts and opinions on this topic.

And PLEASE keep it civil between members-we don't need yet another topic locked.


Quote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
05/11/2012 4:01 am  

A comparison between how he treated men, and how he treated women, may reveal that it wasn't women alone that got a bitter shaft.

Then again, I don't recall anywhere reading that he physically forced anyone to stay around him, or to abide by his wishes.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
05/11/2012 5:03 am  

Arianwe, your comments are cogent but I think you missed the point with "animal names." There was nothing derogatory about it - if we think of the same, of course - since the reference was on one hand to Egyptian priests wearing animal masks, representing Gods, and on the other to female officers in the context of his Magus initiation. So when he says that someone was "Camil," or "Monkey," or "Cat," he was referring to initiatiing officers, not calling women by animal names. The signifiers might seem trite but the signifieds were exalted.   


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/11/2012 12:23 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
A comparison between how he treated men, and how he treated women, may reveal that it wasn't women alone that got a bitter shaft.

Then again, I don't recall anywhere reading that he physically forced anyone to stay around him, or to abide by his wishes.

Point taken, Azidonis. His treatment of Israel Regardie and even more so, Victor Neuberg, were equally abysmal. Regardie, very cogniscent of this, later advised neophytes to get psychiatric treatment as they progressed and began to realize their power-presumably to prevent egomaniacal treatment of others that comes with realizing ones power and influence through magick.

It's his quote in the "Book of the Law" which has me puzzled about his treatment of women. Apparently "All power given" only applies as long as he chose to favour them; i.e. "give them' power. Which makes them subservient and not really powerful at all, imo.

And yes, he never took anyone hostage, physically anyway- emotionally and spiritually is another story. This was an option on my poll.

I believe Crowley had/has a very strong magnetic personality. And was able to easily manipulte others-some others; anyway, to do what he desired, sexually, magickally,  and otherwise. No doubt these people were also "seekers" of sorts, and vulnerable to a strong personality such as his.

"Palamedes " wrote:
Arianwen, your comments are cogent but I think you missed the point with "animal names." There was nothing derogatory about it - if we think of the same, of course - since the reference was on one hand to Egyptian priests wearing animal masks, representing Gods, and on the other to female officers in the context of his Magus initiation. So when he says that someone was "Camil," or "Monkey," or "Cat," he was referring to initiatiing officers, not calling women by animal names. The signifiers might seem trite but the signifieds were exalted. 

I was not aware the the "nicknames' corresponded to Egyptian priest wearing animal masks. Thank you for sharing that info, Palamedes. Though identifying them only through their usefulness to him and his magickal quest(s) as opposed to whole people doesn't show him in a flattering light, either.

Lady Freida Harris, who painted the originals for the Thoth tarot is the only woman I've never seen criticised in retrospect by Crowley. And she, from what i've read, anyway, 'bent over backwards' to please him.

Other thoughts and opinions?
 


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
05/11/2012 2:57 pm  
"Arianwen" wrote:
It's his quote in the "Book of the Law" which has me puzzled about his treatment of women. Apparently "All power given" only applies as long as he chose to favour them; i.e. "give them' power. Which makes them subservient and not really powerful at all, imo.

One to think on:

The power is "given", ie. transferred in two ways - from Beast to Babalon (IX* etc), and Nuit to Babalon, as an archetype or Avatar. In either case, a "power", or force, is necessary in order to help the engine run. Thus, the ritual, all ritual, is always "unto Nuit".

Think of Hadit, the coiled serpent - a masculine version of kundalini-shakti.

It is the expression of a general Formula, is what I am saying.

Where the actual people - men and women - are concerned, many think of passages like the above, and relate them to "personal power", but remember this: no one can give you something that you already have.

"Every man and every woman is a star."


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
05/11/2012 9:46 pm  

I would have chosen "All of the Above” in the poll....


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/11/2012 1:54 am  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
I would have chosen "All of the Above” in the poll....

LOL, and you would have been right, at some point in his life. I considered adding an "Other-please explain" category and now wish I had, although there doesn't seem to be much interest in voting in poll about this topic anyway.

I thought the poll had been removed but it appears to be back.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5326
06/11/2012 6:24 pm  

Perhaps that's because the Poll options - while presumably intended to be read as if they were witty - are frankly puerile. In my opinion.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
06/11/2012 6:59 pm  

This topic has also been discussed quite at length over the years. Unfortunately, I don't think many of them made the server transfer, however.

Crowley was a douche, yes. But Crowley also didn't make a habit of forcing people to do things for him.

"The slaves shall serve." - and that's not to be taken as derogatory.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
06/11/2012 9:16 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Crowley also didn't make a habit of forcing people to do things for him.

If we were to consult the communications from Crowley to OTO members in Agape Lodge, faithfully reproduced in Martin Starr's The Unknown God, we would see AC doing everything he could to verbally force money out of "the initiates." Of course, he had no way to bring physical or legal "force" upon them, but his emotional appeal was extremely intense and demanding, and it is almost embarrasing to read these letters that went on ... and on ... and on. He wasn't begging - he was demanding! And, at the same time, he was very demeaning, as he cursed them and called them stupid (and other things). It was probably the (lack of) drugs.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/11/2012 9:24 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
Perhaps that's because the Poll options - while presumably intended to be read as if they were witty - are frankly puerile. In my opinion.

Paul, If you feel that way-feel free to remove them...permanently.  It's your site, after all.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/11/2012 9:40 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Crowley also didn't make a habit of forcing people to do things for him.

If we were to consult the communications from Crowley to OTO members in Agape Lodge, faithfully reproduced in Martin Starr's The Unknown God, we would see AC doing everything he could to verbally force money out of "the initiates." Of course, he had no way to bring physical or legal "force" upon them, but his emotional appeal was extremely intense and demanding, and it is almost embarrasing to read these letters that went on ... and on ... and on. He wasn't begging - he was demanding! And, at the same time, he was very demeaning, as he cursed them and called them stupid (and other things). It was probably the (lack of) drugs.

Yea, he got pretty desperate at some points. Drug addiction can do that to a person. I remember reading a letter he wrote to a female initiate requesting she ask a well heeled male friend of hers for funding for his magickal ventures-forgive me-their names escape me. Anyway the letter's tone  was quite civil-but had an underlying note of desperation.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
06/11/2012 11:47 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Crowley also didn't make a habit of forcing people to do things for him.

If we were to consult the communications from Crowley to OTO members in Agape Lodge, faithfully reproduced in Martin Starr's The Unknown God, we would see AC doing everything he could to verbally force money out of "the initiates." Of course, he had no way to bring physical or legal "force" upon them, but his emotional appeal was extremely intense and demanding, and it is almost embarrasing to read these letters that went on ... and on ... and on. He wasn't begging - he was demanding! And, at the same time, he was very demeaning, as he cursed them and called them stupid (and other things). It was probably the (lack of) drugs.

You are right about this.

Of course, the people at the Lodge could have always just told Crowley "fu", and went on their merry way.

His money situation is interesting, especially in connection with the rule of not taking money for instruction... of course, he used O.T.O. as a loophole.

Maybe he should have just changed his name to some sort of swami.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/11/2012 11:53 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
This topic has also been discussed quite at length over the years. Unfortunately, I don't think many of them made the server transfer, however.

Crowley was a douche, yes. But Crowley also didn't make a habit of forcing people to do things for him.

"The slaves shall serve." - and that's not to be taken as derogatory.

I certainly hope I've misinterpreted your remarks as you thinking I was attempting to "make you slaves"

From the time I joined LAShtal, I've always admired the extensive knowledge of many forum members here and simply wanted to learn from you.

All I was attempting to do with the poll was gain knowledge..the knowledge and opinions of forum members ---which i value highly, by the way.  If I've offended anyone in the process, I apologize-for that was not my intention.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5326
06/11/2012 11:54 pm  
"Arianwen" wrote:
Paul, If you feel that way-feel free to remove them...permanently.  It's your site, after all.

Given your comment here and above ('I thought the poll had been removed but it appears to be back'), not to mention in the three almost identical Private Messages you've sent in the last hour or two, I should mention that I did not remove the Poll, not even for a moment. It's your Poll: I'm not a fan of your terminology but I'm not inclined to delete it.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
07/11/2012 1:27 am  
"Arianwen" wrote:
I certainly hope I've misinterpreted your remarks as you thinking I was attempting to "make you slaves"

lol not in the least.

The comment regarding slaves was in reference to the many people who assisted/obeyed Crowley, due to one reason or another, many probably because of what they wanted to get out of it, as though there were something to actually get.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2012 1:52 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
"Arianwen" wrote:
Paul, If you feel that way-feel free to remove them...permanently.  It's your site, after all.

Given your comment here and above ('I thought the poll had been removed but it appears to be back'), not to mention in the three almost identical Private Messages you've sent in the last hour or two, I should mention that I did not remove the Poll, not even for a moment. It's your Poll: I'm not a fan of your terminology but I'm not inclined to delete it.

Okay Paul, I've tried to send you a PM only once. It was never verified by your PM system. If you received more than that I can only assume I'm continuing to be hacked/messages sent/passwords changed on my behalf-which I firmly believe since my password for this site is continually being changed...multiple times daily. Sorry you/LAShtal got dragged into this situation.

Is there some reason this couldn't be handled by PM , by the way? This method seems far more appropriate than muddying up this thread, imo.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5326
07/11/2012 7:47 am  

Please check your PMs, Arianwen, for my reply, sent yesterday.

Now, back to the topic.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2012 9:05 am  

I already have, Paul. And only saw one "sent" message to you, incidentally. Will respond shortly.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
07/11/2012 9:34 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Crowley also didn't make a habit of forcing people to do things for him.

If we were to consult the communications from Crowley to OTO members in Agape Lodge, faithfully reproduced in Martin Starr's The Unknown God, we would see AC doing everything he could to verbally force money out of "the initiates." Of course, he had no way to bring physical or legal "force" upon them, but his emotional appeal was extremely intense and demanding, and it is almost embarrasing to read these letters that went on ... and on ... and on. He wasn't begging - he was demanding! And, at the same time, he was very demeaning, as he cursed them and called them stupid (and other things). It was probably the (lack of) drugs.

I would like to readdress this.

First, I would like to point out the following:

Members of the A∴A∴ of whatever grade are not bound or expected or even encouraged to work on any stated lines, or with any special object, save as has been above set forth. There is however an absolute prohibition to accept money or other material reward, directly or indirectly, in respect of any service connected with the Order, for personal profit or advantage. The penalty is immediate expulsion, with no possibility of reinstatement on any terms soever.

But all members must of necessity work in accordance with the facts of Nature, just as an architect must allow of the Law of Gravitation, or a sailor reckon with currents.

I note that this is presented, as it were, in two separate paragraphs. That is, they are assumed to be two very separate things. But, is it possible that Crowley was intentionally yet slyly relating the second paragraph to the first?

"Members of the A∴A∴ of whatever grade are not bound or expected or even encouraged to work on any stated lines, or with any special object, save as has been above set forth."

Many take this as a particular type of Instruction. Within the context presented here, this sentence almost seems to be the one that should have been in a separate paragraph. Like this:

Members of the A∴A∴ of whatever grade are not bound or expected or even encouraged to work on any stated lines, or with any special object, save as has been above set forth.

There is however an absolute prohibition to accept money or other material reward, directly or indirectly, in respect of any service connected with the Order, for personal profit or advantage. The penalty is immediate expulsion, with no possibility of reinstatement on any terms soever. But all members must of necessity work in accordance with the facts of Nature, just as an architect must allow of the Law of Gravitation, or a sailor reckon with currents.

We can, of course, argue that, "Crowley put it like the intentionally, don't go messing around with His Infallible paragraphs!!!!!!111!!!1". One is free to argue that. However, let us take that second paragraph, and put it thus:

There is however an absolute prohibition to accept money or other material reward, directly or indirectly, in respect of any service connected with the Order, for personal profit or advantage. The penalty is immediate expulsion, with no possibility of reinstatement on any terms soever. But all members must of necessity work in accordance with the facts of Nature, just as an architect must allow of the Law of Gravitation, or a sailor reckon with currents.

Now, to Crowley, as Shiva so rightly pointed out, it is common knowledge about Crowley that he placed a heavy personal value on drugs. Not that he considered them to have any monetary value or anything, but an intricately personal value. They were very much a part of his life even until his physical death in Hastings.

Could it be that Crowley imagined taking drugs as a part of his "Nature"? Could it be that Crowley also imagined needing the money for said drugs, and other financial exploits, as part of his "Nature"? For certainly, until the day he died, he considered these two things as somewhat essential, no matter how hard he tried to deny it.

I'm not saying it was in his DNA or any such thing. I'm saying, does anythone think it was possible that he considered the acquisition and maintenance of either money or drugs (or both) as an essential aspect of who he was?

If so, then by this definition, however preposterous, one might argue that the constant demand for money and drugs in his life were considered by him as "work[ing] in accordance with the facts of Nature".

I personally think this is bullshit, and that if any evidence suggests this is so, then Crowley's claims to higher Grades may require serious evaluation before one assumes them as "facts". (I am not disputing those claims, only saying that there may be a "further secret" if this is so, and this is obvious to some.)

Also, an examination of his monetary income may indeed "expell" him from the A:.A:., in accordance with his own bylaws. What do you all think of this?

How this relates to Scarlet Women is this:

Money and drugs obviously revealed an aspect of his personality that Thelemites sometimes overlook, and critics salivate over exploiting. They help portray Crowley as a human being, with wants, desires, etc., and more importantly, show a "darker side" of his personality.

I recall reading somewhere that he had a physical altercation with Rose Kelley. They were his words, maybe in Confessions, I don't remember. Anyway, such a physical altercation might in the present day be labeled "abuse".

What did this altercation entail? Did it happen often? Was Crowley a "wife beater"? What really drove Rose Kelley into the institution? Many people drink like crazy. Few of them end up in straight jackets.

We also know that Rose was not the only woman who had troubles dealing with Crowley.

My earlier remarks about him holding people down, and forcing them to obey, may be moot in light of any definite knowledge to come out of these questions, and they are totally appropriate both to the study of the Scarlet Woman, and the Beast's treatment of them, as well as to Thelema as a whole, as forcing people into obedience or compliance is hardly an indication of allowing someone the freedom to "live how they will".


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
07/11/2012 3:56 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Of course, the people at the [Agape] Lodge could have always just told Crowley "fu", and went on their merry way.

Well, there's this ancient tradition that causes demeaned acolytes to hang in there and take the insults, even if the guru is mean and foul-mouthed. I know all about that one, having served under a teacher that was glorious - and who then stooped to foul-mouthedness and materialism. Not many Agape Lodge initiates quit, and some of them continued to send money. I understand that the renowned Maharishi also fell into rants and rages about "Money - More Money" in his later years.

[/align:13zyl1c8]

"Azidonis" wrote:
His money situation is interesting, especially in connection with the rule of not taking money for instruction... of course, he used O.T.O. as a loophole.

This is correct. A.'.A.'. prohibits the reception of funds for "personal profit," which basically means it's free teaching - except for "one guinea" that was paid for the official instructions. OTO was different and Reuss was unhappy with Crowley when he raised the fees and dues to what he (Reuss) considered "too much." I believe the entire income of OTO went to Germer - and then to Crowley. The Order was his personal retirement fund. Even then, he (A.C.) still had to ask/demand more.

This is what comes from being an "author." It was Manly P Hall who delivered a lecture on the necessity of an initiate also having a practical vocation (in addition to a spiritual avocation). He made a very good point, describing how spaced-out spiritualists could easily find themselves in poverty - simply because they couldn't get a job, due to their inability to perform meaningful tasks. This comment specifically refers to "starving artists and writers."

"Azidonis" wrote:
Maybe he should have just changed his name to some sort of swami.

I believe he tried that one, but he didn't pursue it strongly enough.

[/align:13zyl1c8]


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
07/11/2012 4:19 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
... it is common knowledge about Crowley that he placed a heavy personal value on drugs. Not that he considered them to have any monetary value or anything, but an intricately personal value. They were very much a part of his life even until his physical death in Hastings. Could it be that Crowley imagined taking drugs as a part of his "Nature"?

It is also commonly known that Crowley was a "medical-addict." That is, he was given heroin and cocaine by doctor(s) to relieve his asthma condition. I don't see much (if any) drug "addiction" before his asthmatic days. He and Bennett took everything in the Pharmacopia to try and find the "secret substance" that bestows illumination, but there is no evidence that this led to addiction. This medically-induced addiction is not rare. Today, we have oxycontin addicts in Huge numbers. The stuff is horribly addictive (like heroin - in fact it's called "hillbilly heroin"). There is an epidemic of oxy addicts in the USA - all (well, most) created by medical prescription.

Does anyone know if this substance is also a problem in Europe?

In terms of the Scarlet Women, A.C. had a tendency to fall head-over-heels in love, and sing their praises - to be followed by less pleasant comments and actions. He also made a few statements about women in general that were not very nice. He clearly played both sides of the gender game, depending on his mood (or viewpoin) at the time of writing.

It's the same old topic that has been covered etensively. His official publications were usually encyclopedic and helpful. His persona suffered from what some might consider "defects."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2012 4:50 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
The stuff is horribly addictive (like heroin - in fact it's called "hillbilly heroin"). There is an epidemic of oxy addicts in the USA - all (well, most) created by medical prescription.

Does anyone know if this substance is also a problem in Europe?

Friend of mine has been prescribed oxycodone ( It goes under different brand name around here ) after he injured his hand at work-related accident.
It's been very sad to watch him for these last few years, considering he first only took them ease his pains, but his doctors have even prescribed him stronger synthetic opioids after oxys "stopped working", but I'm pretty sure he is not taking them anymore simply to ease his pains. Only a shadow of his former self, physically and mentally.

I wouldn't say that synthetic opioids are even worst of the spectrum that people get prescribed these days. Benzos are the real devil. It wouldn't be that far off to label things like "Xanax" as 'poor man's cocaine 'or "hillibilly cocaine".  I've gone through xanax withdrawal myself and they certainly were 3 months of something I will never forget ( even though I didn't acquire my stuff legally through medical professionals ).
Still blows my mind how strong stuff people can get prescribed by their local doctor.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2012 4:57 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
It is also commonly known that Crowley was a "medical-addict." That is, he was given heroin and cocaine by doctor(s) to relieve his asthma condition. I don't see much (if any) drug "addiction" before his asthmatic days. He and Bennett took everything in the Pharmacopia to try and find the "secret substance" that bestows illumination, but there is no evidence that this led to addiction. This medically-induced addiction is not rare. Today, we have oxycontin addicts in Huge numbers. The stuff is horribly addictive (like heroin - in fact it's called "hillbilly heroin"). There is an epidemic of oxy addicts in the USA - all (well, most) created by medical prescription.

Does anyone know if this substance is also a problem in Europe?

I'm sure it is, although other countries seem to be a bit more liberal in treating addiction than the US. I wholeheartedly agree that the medical profession here in the US also adds exponentially to the addiction problem we have here. Worse-then it's "legal", "justifiable" and not seen in a stigmatized light as opposed to illicit drugs, cocaine for instance. 

Did you know our high (US) prescription drug prices actually subsidize lower prices for other countries-from the same pharmaceutical manufacturers?

"Shiva" wrote:
In terms of the Scarlet Women, A.C. had a tendency to fall head-over-heels in love, and sing their praises - to be followed by less pleasant comments and actions. He also made a few statements about women in general that were not very nice. He clearly played both sides of the gender game, depending on his mood (or viewpoint) at the time of writing.

Heh, yea, reminds me of the ancient myth of Pygmallion. Once Crowley got to know them, and discovered they weren't perfect-but actual human beings with faults and everything else that entails, he lost interest.

"Shiva" wrote:
It's the same old topic that has been covered extensively. His official publications were usually encyclopedic and helpful. His persona suffered from what some might consider "defects."

He was human, after all. Despite what some think of him. But then, it's our quirks that make us intriguing.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2012 5:02 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
It is also commonly known that Crowley was a "medical-addict." That is, he was given heroin and cocaine by doctor(s) to relieve his asthma condition. I don't see much (if any) drug "addiction" before his asthmatic days. He and Bennett took everything in the Pharmacopia to try and find the "secret substance" that bestows illumination, but there is no evidence that this led to addiction. This medically-induced addiction is not rare. Today, we have oxycontin addicts in Huge numbers. The stuff is horribly addictive (like heroin - in fact it's called "hillbilly heroin"). There is an epidemic of oxy addicts in the USA - all (well, most) created by medical prescription.

Does anyone know if this substance is also a problem in Europe?

I'm sure it is, although other countries seem to be a bit more liberal in treating addiction than the US. I wholeheartedly agree that the medical profession here in the US also adds exponentially to the addiction problem we have here. Worse-then it's "legal", "justifiable" and not seen in a stigmatized light as opposed to illicit drugs, cocaine for instance. 

Did you know our high (US) prescription drug prices actually subsidize lower prescription drug prices for other countries-from the same pharmaceutical manufacturers?

"Shiva" wrote:
In terms of the Scarlet Women, A.C. had a tendency to fall head-over-heels in love, and sing their praises - to be followed by less pleasant comments and actions. He also made a few statements about women in general that were not very nice. He clearly played both sides of the gender game, depending on his mood (or viewpoint) at the time of writing.

Heh, yea, reminds me of the ancient myth of Pygmallion. Once Crowley got to know them, and discovered they weren't perfect-but actual human beings with faults and everything else that entails, he lost interest.

"Shiva" wrote:
It's the same old topic that has been covered extensively. His official publications were usually encyclopedic and helpful. His persona suffered from what some might consider "defects."

He was human, after all. Despite what some think of him.  But then, it's our quirks that make us intriguing.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2012 5:16 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Of course, the people at the [Agape] Lodge could have always just told Crowley "fu", and went on their merry way.

Well, there's this ancient tradition that causes demeaned acolytes to hang in there and take the insults, even if the guru is mean and foul-mouthed. I know all about that one, having served under a teacher that was glorious - and who then stooped to foul-mouthedness and materialism. Not many Agape Lodge initiates quit, and some of them continued to send money. I understand that the renowned Maharishi also fell into rants and rages about "Money - More Money" in his later years.

Sounds a bit more like "boot camp" than spiritual training-though I guess the principles are the same-tear a human being down to rebuild them as you see fit. NOT a good thing. In my opinion.

It also shows the Agape (ironic considering the meaning of the word) lodge in a rather...cultish light. In my opinion.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
07/11/2012 9:01 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Of course, the people at the [Agape] Lodge could have always just told Crowley "fu", and went on their merry way.

Well, there's this ancient tradition that causes demeaned acolytes to hang in there and take the insults, even if the guru is mean and foul-mouthed. I know all about that one, having served under a teacher that was glorious - and who then stooped to foul-mouthedness and materialism. Not many Agape Lodge initiates quit, and some of them continued to send money.

"Arianwen" wrote:
Sounds a bit more like "boot camp" than spiritual training-though I guess the principles are the same-tear a human being down to rebuild them as you see fit. NOT a good thing. In my opinion.

It also shows the Agape (ironic considering the meaning of the word) lodge in a rather...cultish light. In my opinion.

On the subject of the 'guru/chela' relationship, anyone who has really been involved in such a thing understands that a certain degree of discipline is necessary, in the beginning, for the chela. This discipline is hard fought for, and hard earned, but worth the trouble.

For starters, one is forced (read, agrees to, in the hopes of it working) to undergo rigorous training.

[flash=200,200:1i134d9j] https://www.youtube.com/v/gW0mrlxXY6M&feature=related[/flash:1i134d9j]

And then, there is the point where the student gets so frustrated about it, that the potential to lash out occurs. Sometimes this happens toward the guru, and sometimes it happens toward other things.

[flash=250,200:1i134d9j] https://www.youtube.com/v/_KBaB_Jc_mk[/flash:1i134d9j]

After this period, and a period of coalescence of sorts between the guru and chela, the chela begins to get the hang of the initial method. In some ways, maybe the chela even begins to understand the nature of the training. Then there is a period of this:

[flash=200,200:1i134d9j] https://www.youtube.com/v/sWqO8TtlNf8[/flash:1i134d9j]

And then, just as a mother bird literally tosses her babies out of the nest to force them to learn how to fly, the guru releases the chela into the world, left to their own devices. There is an assurance in the training that the chela has the necessary fundamentals in order to succeed on his/her own.

They may or may not still remain in contact.

Crowley, however, seemed uninterested in this last part, for whatever reason. Maybe the Adepts stuck around in hopes of returning the favor, maybe they were interested in helping him 'build a movement', but whatever the reason, rarely did Crowley kick a bird out of the nest to fly on their own.

From there, one can almost wonder if a sense of obedience was really deep, the guru refused to relinquish control, or the chelas simply had nowhere else to go. I think we can see in the history of Crowley's interactions with his students, a mixture of all of these things. And of course, there were a few who left to fly on their own, but would return and 'make music' with him every now and again. Complete historical analyses of these circumstances may not be possible without the dairies of all the individuals concerned.

"Shiva" wrote:
I understand that the renowned Maharishi also fell into rants and rages about "Money - More Money" in his later years.

image

Onto the money thing, it the ubiquitous U.G. made quite a few statements about money. He was, however, intent on keeping money within its necessary context, merely as a means to an end. He understood the importance of money when dealing with society, as noted in the Mystique of Money. He also made statements about money from the unique perspective that only few in history have:

[flash=200,200:1i134d9j] https://www.youtube.com/v/17oP_LEwuds[/flash:1i134d9j]

"I wish I had money, how I can get money, if the thought is not there, money is never a problem. Rest assured. You don't have any money at all. No resources. No tools to make money. No survival, no money for survival. The thought that I wish I had money, how am I going to survive without money also to not be there, then it is never a problem. Such a man will not come and gamble here [casino in Vegas] Such a man does not want... come on, let's get out [of here]."

But U.G. definitely identifies money as a resource, a tool to aid survival within society. So he recognized its use, though he was far from being one for self-aggrandizement. In fact, he is renowned for using the term "holy business", and saying "those jokers" were just out to make a lot of money.

Aside from that, however, he did indicate Maharshi, and J. Krishnamurti, as being of the class of "saints, sages, and saviors of mankind". J. Krishnamurti was known to live a lavish life. Maharshi much less so.

One is apt to wonder then, once the futility of the entire system of society is realized as the illusion it is, how hard it must be to re-enter society, and subjugate oneself to such nonsense in order to continue survival... how a Master may find themselves in a circumstance where posing as a slave may be more profitable for continued survival. Of course, "a King may choose his garment as he will".

We can take this in another direction:

[flash=200,200:1i134d9j] https://www.youtube.com/v/o7YFWEJyJhg[/flash:1i134d9j]

In this video, Sadhguru (who is obviously in the holy business), talks about Ramakrishna. In short, he says that Ramakrishna created a willful attachment, to allow him to remain in the world, that attachment being food.

The point of bringing that up, is the idea of willful attachment, that is willfully severed. One is reminded of the saying, "there is that which remains". This alone has the ability to "clear Crowley's name" where the use of drugs are concerned. If it was his one identifier, then it was his one identifier. This will probably garner some debate.

"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
His money situation is interesting, especially in connection with the rule of not taking money for instruction... of course, he used O.T.O. as a loophole.

This is correct. A.'.A.'. prohibits the reception of funds for "personal profit," which basically means it's free teaching - except for "one guinea" that was paid for the official instructions. OTO was different and Reuss was unhappy with Crowley when he raised the fees and dues to what he (Reuss) considered "too much." I believe the entire income of OTO went to Germer - and then to Crowley. The Order was his personal retirement fund. Even then, he (A.C.) still had to ask/demand more.

This is what comes from being an "author." It was Manly P Hall who delivered a lecture on the necessity of an initiate also having a practical vocation (in addition to a spiritual avocation). He made a very good point, describing how spaced-out spiritualists could easily find themselves in poverty - simply because they couldn't get a job, due to their inability to perform meaningful tasks. This comment specifically refers to "starving artists and writers."

I think you bring up a valid point here, Shiva. One of the things Crowley often stressed, is that contrary to some traditions such a Buddhism, in which many live their lives holed up on a monastery begging for alms to ensure their survival, Thelema is about how to achieve enlightenment (or pure will) while remaining within the everyday thralls of a bustling modern society. This in and of itself is a type of contradiction, but also a necessity given the current situation of world affairs. What's worse, is that instinctively one who has renounced the thralls of society's construct in favor of the path of enlightenment is identified by that society as "other", making it increasingly hard to slip through the cracks. But again, the King's garment.

On Crowley's "personal profit", I wonder at what the people themselves got out of it. If you pay money, you expect to get something. Gerald Yorke, who gave money to Crowley for years, could be considered as having bought stock in the Crowley legacy, as noted by his reception of many of Crowley's writings and artifacts. Others did not fare so well.

So what did they get out of it? And if the answer is nothing, in any case, what the hell were they paying him for, and was the money actually warranted? I think this is a most pertinent question.

"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Maybe he should have just changed his name to some sort of swami.

I believe he tried that one, but he didn't pursue it strongly enough.

image[/align:1i134d9j]

lol Yes. I recall reading he wasn't even allowed to join the Buddhist monasteries. HE seemingly got turned away at almost every venue. Maybe he didn't pursue it strongly enough. Maybe he didn't have the right color skin. Indians seem to have little problems harnessing thousands of Western followers, even during Crowley's day. One has to but look at Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, and others. More recently, we have the likes of Osho, J. Krishnamurti, etc.

U.G. is on record as clumping the lot of them into "the sages, saints, and saviors of mankind", saying they were in the "holy business". He also mentioned from time to time how the (ridiculous) measure of one's success was in the number of Western followers he had.

"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
... it is common knowledge about Crowley that he placed a heavy personal value on drugs. Not that he considered them to have any monetary value or anything, but an intricately personal value. They were very much a part of his life even until his physical death in Hastings. Could it be that Crowley imagined taking drugs as a part of his "Nature"?

It is also commonly known that Crowley was a "medical-addict." That is, he was given heroin and cocaine by doctor(s) to relieve his asthma condition. I don't see much (if any) drug "addiction" before his asthmatic days. He and Bennett took everything in the Pharmacopia to try and find the "secret substance" that bestows illumination, but there is no evidence that this led to addiction. This medically-induced addiction is not rare. Today, we have oxycontin addicts in Huge numbers. The stuff is horribly addictive (like heroin - in fact it's called "hillbilly heroin"). There is an epidemic of oxy addicts in the USA - all (well, most) created by medical prescription.

Does anyone know if this substance is also a problem in Europe?

Good question.

"Shiva" wrote:
In terms of the Scarlet Women, A.C. had a tendency to fall head-over-heels in love, and sing their praises - to be followed by less pleasant comments and actions. He also made a few statements about women in general that were not very nice. He clearly played both sides of the gender game, depending on his mood (or viewpoin) at the time of writing.

It's the same old topic that has been covered etensively. His official publications were usually encyclopedic and helpful. His persona suffered from what some might consider "defects."

What you are talking about here is disillusionment. I am aware that you know that, just pointing it out bluntly. Crowley seemed to have quite the problem with this, as you have noted.

But I still wonder what exactly led to Rose Kelley going into the looney bin.
I also still wonder why Leah Hirsig, a "Magister Templi" is quoted as having a hard time dealing with the difference between "Aleister Crowley the man" and "The Beast as an Idea". This implies some difference between the two, and what were those differences? More importantly, why did those differences even exist at that point in his life?

"ayino" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
The stuff is horribly addictive (like heroin - in fact it's called "hillbilly heroin"). There is an epidemic of oxy addicts in the USA - all (well, most) created by medical prescription.

Does anyone know if this substance is also a problem in Europe?

Friend of mine has been prescribed oxycodone ( It goes under different brand name around here ) after he injured his hand at work-related accident.
It's been very sad to watch him for these last few years, considering he first only took them ease his pains, but his doctors have even prescribed him stronger synthetic opioids after oxys "stopped working", but I'm pretty sure he is not taking them anymore simply to ease his pains. Only a shadow of his former self, physically and mentally.

I wouldn't say that synthetic opioids are even worst of the spectrum that people get prescribed these days. Benzos are the real devil. It wouldn't be that far off to label things like "Xanax" as 'poor man's cocaine 'or "hillibilly cocaine".  I've gone through xanax withdrawal myself and they certainly were 3 months of something I will never forget ( even though I didn't acquire my stuff legally through medical professionals ).
Still blows my mind how strong stuff people can get prescribed by their local doctor.

Thank you for the input here. If we learn anything at all from Crowley, it could be that drug abuse is not the Way.

"Arianwen" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
It is also commonly known that Crowley was a "medical-addict." That is, he was given heroin and cocaine by doctor(s) to relieve his asthma condition. I don't see much (if any) drug "addiction" before his asthmatic days. He and Bennett took everything in the Pharmacopia to try and find the "secret substance" that bestows illumination, but there is no evidence that this led to addiction. This medically-induced addiction is not rare. Today, we have oxycontin addicts in Huge numbers. The stuff is horribly addictive (like heroin - in fact it's called "hillbilly heroin"). There is an epidemic of oxy addicts in the USA - all (well, most) created by medical prescription.

Does anyone know if this substance is also a problem in Europe?

I'm sure it is, although other countries seem to be a bit more liberal in treating addiction than the US. I wholeheartedly agree that the medical profession here in the US also adds exponentially to the addiction problem we have here. Worse-then it's "legal", "justifiable" and not seen in a stigmatized light as opposed to illicit drugs, cocaine for instance. 

Did you know our high (US) prescription drug prices actually subsidize lower prices for other countries-from the same pharmaceutical manufacturers?

Oh yes. The Machine has quite the number of methods by which to keep us tame, docile, obedient, and coming back for more... all for the low price of our very own "souls".

"Arianwen" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
In terms of the Scarlet Women, A.C. had a tendency to fall head-over-heels in love, and sing their praises - to be followed by less pleasant comments and actions. He also made a few statements about women in general that were not very nice. He clearly played both sides of the gender game, depending on his mood (or viewpoint) at the time of writing.

Heh, yea, reminds me of the ancient myth of Pygmallion. Once Crowley got to know them, and discovered they weren't perfect-but actual human beings with faults and everything else that entails, he lost interest.

"Shiva" wrote:
It's the same old topic that has been covered extensively. His official publications were usually encyclopedic and helpful. His persona suffered from what some might consider "defects."

He was human, after all. Despite what some think of him. But then, it's our quirks that make us intriguing.

The response to disillusionment can be an extremely overpowering event. By entertaining some of the examples of Crowley's life, he didn't deal with it so well, as Shiva pointed out. It is a further call to question how Crowley dealt with complete disillusionment, which would require an in-depth analysis of all the information we have available to Crowley after his claim to Ipsissimus in 1921.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/11/2012 4:21 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I think you bring up a valid point here, Shiva. One of the things Crowley often stressed, is that contrary to some traditions such a Buddhism, in which many live their lives holed up on a monastery begging for alms to ensure their survival, Thelema is about how to achieve enlightenment (or pure will) while remaining within the everyday thralls of a bustling modern society. This in and of itself is a type of contradiction, but also a necessity given the current situation of world affairs. What's worse, is that instinctively one who has renounced the thralls of society's construct in favor of the path of enlightenment is identified by that society as "other", making it increasingly hard to slip through the cracks. But again, the King's garment.
"Azidonis" wrote:
One is apt to wonder then, once the futility of the entire system of society is realized as the illusion it is, how hard it must be to re-enter society, and subjugate oneself to such nonsense in order to continue survival... how a Master may find themselves in a circumstance where posing as a slave may be more profitable for continued survival. Of course, "a King may choose his garment as he will".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ride_the_Tiger

Recommend reading for everyone:

"Wiki" wrote:
"Ride the Tiger expands upon the Radical Traditionalist ideas which Evola developed in Revolt Against the Modern World and offers a solution to the problem of living in the modern world different from the reactionary revolution he argued for in Men Among the Ruins. The principal metaphor of the book is its title. Evola argues that in order to survive in the modern world an enlightened or "differentiated man" should "ride the tiger". As a man, by holding onto the tiger's back may survive the confrontation, so too might a man, by letting the world take him on its inexorable path be able to turn the destructive forces around him into a kind of inner liberation."

"I have in mind the man who finds himself involved in today's world, even at its most problematic and paroxysimal points; yet he does not belong inwardly to such a world, nor will he give in to it. He feels himself, in essence, as belonging to a different race from that of the overwhelming majority of his contemporaries"

Evola's "aristocracy" and "superior attitude" may smell a bit smuggy, but the book is a great read and raises good points on these matters.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/11/2012 6:15 am  
"ayino" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I think you bring up a valid point here, Shiva. One of the things Crowley often stressed, is that contrary to some traditions such a Buddhism, in which many live their lives holed up on a monastery begging for alms to ensure their survival, Thelema is about how to achieve enlightenment (or pure will) while remaining within the everyday thralls of a bustling modern society. This in and of itself is a type of contradiction, but also a necessity given the current situation of world affairs. What's worse, is that instinctively one who has renounced the thralls of society's construct in favor of the path of enlightenment is identified by that society as "other", making it increasingly hard to slip through the cracks. But again, the King's garment.
"Azidonis" wrote:
One is apt to wonder then, once the futility of the entire system of society is realized as the illusion it is, how hard it must be to re-enter society, and subjugate oneself to such nonsense in order to continue survival... how a Master may find themselves in a circumstance where posing as a slave may be more profitable for continued survival. Of course, "a King may choose his garment as he will".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ride_the_Tiger

Recommend reading for everyone:

"Wiki" wrote:
"Ride the Tiger expands upon the Radical Traditionalist ideas which Evola developed in Revolt Against the Modern World and offers a solution to the problem of living in the modern world different from the reactionary revolution he argued for in Men Among the Ruins. The principal metaphor of the book is its title. Evola argues that in order to survive in the modern world an enlightened or "differentiated man" should "ride the tiger". As a man, by holding onto the tiger's back may survive the confrontation, so too might a man, by letting the world take him on its inexorable path be able to turn the destructive forces around him into a kind of inner liberation."

"I have in mind the man who finds himself involved in today's world, even at its most problematic and paroxysimal points; yet he does not belong inwardly to such a world, nor will he give in to it. He feels himself, in essence, as belonging to a different race from that of the overwhelming majority of his contemporaries"

Evola's "aristocracy" and "superior attitude" may smell a bit smuggy, but the book is a great read and raises good points on these matters.

Evola's writing style always bored me. Regardless of that, it is an appropriate link within the context. Thanks for sharing. If you wouldn't mind elucidating on some of those points, I'm sure the thread would benefit therefrom.

If a fellow is "truly enlightened", they really don't need a book to tell them how to approach either the world-at-large, or society's constructs. One then wonders at Evola's intended audience.

I note that the context for which the parts you quote, were on not "accepting money" as a part of the A:.A:. rule, a rule which it may be argued that Crowley himself flat out broke on several occasions.

As for relevance to the thread, we know that Crowley had female "supporters" from time to time, and may be right in assuming that he made money off of some pursuits, such as Laylah's violin acts and putting Leah "on the corner" so to speak.

Of course, the subject of disillusionment falls within the category as well, however broad and general it may be.

I recall a statement from a fellow lashtalian made many years ago. I think it was anpi who said something to the effect of, "Crowley's later life may have gone a little better if he would have just got a damn job."

Anyway, bedtime.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/11/2012 10:50 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:

So what did they get out of it? And if the answer is nothing, in any case, what the hell were they paying him for, and was the money actually warranted? I think this is a most pertinent question.

"They" paid the dues to be in the Order.  As an example, let's take the IX*'s and what they paid their dues and fees for: To be a member of the Sovereign Sanctuary of the Gnosis, the gradepapers, and in on "the Secret".  I actually think most of them got a bit ripped off.  Crowley conferred the IX* on quite a few people, and these people never underwent the initiation rituals that led up to that degree.  The degree initiation rituals were re-written by Crowley himself in his re-formulated O.T.O., and they never got to experience them.  Nor do I think everyone he conferred IX* were given all of the gradepapers, instructions, and ritual scripts for the skipped degrees.  They missed out on a large portion of the privilege that being a member of the O.T.O. with Baphomet X* as O.H.O. gave them: the teachings and Gnosis gained from going through Crowley's new Initiation rituals that he designed, which prepared initiates for the Sovereign Sanctuary, and its secrets.  So, not only were they not "getting their moneys worth" (and remember that the dues for the higher degrees were rather expensive back then) from missing out on instructions, and other gradepapers, they weren't fully Initiated.  Without going through all of the Degrees, which Crowley designed to perfect the initiate, was like missing some of the Keys.  Keys enabling them to properly wield the Graal, fully partake of the Elixer of Life, use the Philosopher's Stone, with the knowledge, power and responsibility conferred upon them inside the Sanctuary of the Gnosis.  This might explain why only some he admitted into the Sovereign Sanctuary continued with the Great Work, while others simply faded into obscurity, known only to future generations of Thelemites through the Archives of documents by A.C., Yorke, Grant, and Germer.

"Azidonis" wrote:
But I still wonder what exactly led to Rose Kelley going into the looney bin.
I also still wonder why Leah Hirsig, a "Magister Templi" is quoted as having a hard time dealing with the difference between "Aleister Crowley the man" and "The Beast as an Idea". This implies some difference between the two, and what were those differences? More importantly, why did those differences even exist at that point in his life?

I think a combination of multiple things could have led to Rose's admission into an asylum.  Perhaps her alcoholism was a factor.  It could have exacerbated an already extant mental illness.  Perhaps its because she was unprepared to deal mentally/initiatorially/spiritually/psychically with the impact of everything that occurred during and after the Cairo Working.  Perhaps it was fallout of the magical battle between Crowley and Mathers after they had returned to Boleskine.  Perhaps a tangential tantrum from Crowley's aborted Abramelin Working at Boleskine.  Perhaps Crowley just had her admitted because she truly did have alcohol related dementia.  Her liquor bill from around that time certainly confirms that she had an extreme drinking problem.  Or maybe he just really wanted a divorce and to "kill two birds with one stone" seized the opportunity to get one as well as get her help with the alcohol and mental problems.  Who knows?  Only Aleister and Rose truly know, and they are dead.  So we can only conjecture.

I think Leah had such a hard time with the difference between "Aleister Crowley the man" and "The Beast as an Idea" because it was she who had separated the two, in her mind, which was a mistake, on her part.  But, remember, she was a Magister, and thus unable to truly comprehend him, especially after his 10*=1* initiation.  I'm sure to Crowley those differences did not exist, at that point in his life, or indeed any point after his acceptance of AL and his role in establishing the Aeon of Horus.

"Azidonis" wrote:
If we learn anything at all from Crowley, it could be that drug abuse is not the Way.

Nope.  LAM is the Way.  😉

"Azidonis" wrote:
The response to disillusionment can be an extremely overpowering event. By entertaining some of the examples of Crowley's life, he didn't deal with it so well, as Shiva pointed out. It is a further call to question how Crowley dealt with complete disillusionment, which would require an in-depth analysis of all the information we have available to Crowley after his claim to Ipsissimus in 1921.

See his "Vision of Jupiter" during his Magus initiation for his complete dis-illusionment.  A Vision that had such an astounding impact on him he would only hint at its horrible secrets...... 
This is all just my opinion, and like everything else, utterly meaningless....Off to sleep, now.  To rest in Sacred Shushupti....Home inside the Holy Hill....Welcoming the Wordless Aeon with a Silent Smile.

🙂


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4065
08/11/2012 12:31 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
On Crowley's "personal profit", I wonder at what the people themselves got out of it. If you pay money, you expect to get something. Gerald Yorke, who gave money to Crowley for years, could be considered as having bought stock in the Crowley legacy, as noted by his reception of many of Crowley's writings and artifacts. Others did not fare so well.

So what did they get out of it? And if the answer is nothing, in any case, what the hell were they paying him for, and was the money actually warranted? I think this is a most pertinent question.

It varied from person to person. Crowley had a love of fine wine, good food, good tobacco, etc. But the main driving force in his life was his role in promulgating the Aeon of Horus, and everything else in his life was subordinated to this. So far as Crowley was concerned, this was a full-time job, and he looked to others who involved themselves in his work to sponsor him to a greater or lesser extent, whether through membership dues or donations.

Crowley could sometimes be less than scrupulous in seeking these sums of money. Gerald Yorke, for instance, gave money to Crowley in the late 1920s; I believe that he paid for the printing of Magick in Theory and Practice. However, he became aware that a mutual friend of theirs was preparing to give Crowley access to his bank account, and advised that mutual friend not to. From then on, Yorke took care to remove money from his relationship with Crowley, but continued to be a good and devoted friend and, after his death, spent a great deal of money building up an archive of Crowley's papers and diaries.

Somebody earlier in this thread suggested that Crowley somehow forced his American followers to send him money, citing Martin Starr's Unknown God as source-material for this impression. In the first place, the people in Agape Lodge gave this money willingly, whether as Lodge dues or as donations over and above this. I used to study in the Yorke Collection in the late 1980s, and one of the folders was a collection of 200 or so letters from Agape Lodge members to Crowley. The tone of these letters ranged from the somewhat facetious (they were writing to a loveable old eccentric across the pond) to the respectful and even awestruck, but in none of them did I come across the resentment that one might expect from someone who felt that money was being extracted from them.

Crowley took the publication of his work very seriously, and expected others to help where they could. The fact that he managed to get out in the last decade or so of his life books like The Heart of the Master, Eight Lectures on Yoga, Little Essays Toward Truth, and in particular the magnificently-produced The Book of Thoth betokens in my view a single-mindedness and a strong sense of purpose. It's clearly not the case, then, that money from his American disciples were dissipated in a lavish and dissolute life-style. Looking at these works, I think they would have considered their money well-spent.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/11/2012 6:39 pm  
"N.O.X" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:

So what did they get out of it? And if the answer is nothing, in any case, what the hell were they paying him for, and was the money actually warranted? I think this is a most pertinent question.

"They" paid the dues to be in the Order.

Aside from the O.T.O. membership fees.

"N.O.X" wrote:
As an example, let's take the IX*'s and what they paid their dues and fees for: To be a member of the Sovereign Sanctuary of the Gnosis, the gradepapers, and in on "the Secret".  I actually think most of them got a bit ripped off.  Crowley conferred the IX* on quite a few people, and these people never underwent the initiation rituals that led up to that degree.  The degree initiation rituals were re-written by Crowley himself in his re-formulated O.T.O., and they never got to experience them.  Nor do I think everyone he conferred IX* were given all of the gradepapers, instructions, and ritual scripts for the skipped degrees.  They missed out on a large portion of the privilege that being a member of the O.T.O. with Baphomet X* as O.H.O. gave them: the teachings and Gnosis gained from going through Crowley's new Initiation rituals that he designed, which prepared initiates for the Sovereign Sanctuary, and its secrets.  So, not only were they not "getting their moneys worth" (and remember that the dues for the higher degrees were rather expensive back then) from missing out on instructions, and other gradepapers, they weren't fully Initiated.  Without going through all of the Degrees, which Crowley designed to perfect the initiate, was like missing some of the Keys.  Keys enabling them to properly wield the Graal, fully partake of the Elixer of Life, use the Philosopher's Stone, with the knowledge, power and responsibility conferred upon them inside the Sanctuary of the Gnosis.  This might explain why only some he admitted into the Sovereign Sanctuary continued with the Great Work, while others simply faded into obscurity, known only to future generations of Thelemites through the Archives of documents by A.C., Yorke, Grant, and Germer.

I see what you are saying here, but really... those "secrets" and "keys" are something anyone could figure out. Hell, the IX* "secret" has been a part of Daoism openly for thousands of years. So in relation to the "big picture", they got nothing that they could not have gotten elsewhere or discovered on their own. In relation to the O.T.O. specifically, yes I agree that many of them were shafted, whether they knew it or not.

As for Germer, he was not a member of the O.T.O., IIRC. Yet he gave Crowley money constantly. For what in return?

See, we are talking about dues and what-not, and I don't have access to any of the official log books, but would be willing to reckon that most of the time, Crowley's very few O.T.O. members actually did pay their dues. Crowley requested money from the dues at times yes, but he also requested money in lump sums, which I doubt were due related.

This still begs the question, what were these people giving him money for, aside from O.T.O. dues?* And, if the answer turns out to be that he, "accept[ed] money or other material reward, directly or indirectly, in respect of any service connected with the Order [A:.A:.], for personal profit or advantage," then there is a huge problem. Also, if we find that he DID in fact accept extraneous money, we have to come to the definition of A:.A:. "services". If that money in any way went to those "services" (think Germer), then Crowley made a huge mistake.

*I say aside from O.T.O. dues because, as we all know, being a member of the O.T.O. costs a fee, which differs depending on the Degree or Grade that one is within the membership. These fees are agreed on before becoming a member, and just like any club, the people pay their dues and fees in order to continue to reap the benefits of membership. So these fees then, can be discounted in some ways. We can always wonder what the O.T.O. would have been had Crowley not drained its treasury for his escapades though, which is a part of this very topic.

"N.O.X" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
But I still wonder what exactly led to Rose Kelley going into the looney bin.
I also still wonder why Leah Hirsig, a "Magister Templi" is quoted as having a hard time dealing with the difference between "Aleister Crowley the man" and "The Beast as an Idea". This implies some difference between the two, and what were those differences? More importantly, why did those differences even exist at that point in his life?

I think a combination of multiple things could have led to Rose's admission into an asylum.  Perhaps her alcoholism was a factor.  It could have exacerbated an already extant mental illness.  Perhaps its because she was unprepared to deal mentally/initiatorially/spiritually/psychically with the impact of everything that occurred during and after the Cairo Working.  Perhaps it was fallout of the magical battle between Crowley and Mathers after they had returned to Boleskine.  Perhaps a tangential tantrum from Crowley's aborted Abramelin Working at Boleskine.  Perhaps Crowley just had her admitted because she truly did have alcohol related dementia.  Her liquor bill from around that time certainly confirms that she had an extreme drinking problem.  Or maybe he just really wanted a divorce and to "kill two birds with one stone" seized the opportunity to get one as well as get her help with the alcohol and mental problems.

Sounds like you are saying that Crowley "threw her under the bus", intentionally or unintentionally.

"N.O.X" wrote:
Who knows?  Only Aleister and Rose truly know, and they are dead.  So we can only conjecture.

While we are busy conjecturing, we can conjecture given Rose's history before she met Crowley what type of person she was, and question whether or not she would have ended up in the asylum had she not met him, or at least eloped and wed him.

"N.O.X" wrote:
I think Leah had such a hard time with the difference between "Aleister Crowley the man" and "The Beast as an Idea" because it was she who had separated the two, in her mind, which was a mistake, on her part.  But, remember, she was a Magister, and thus unable to truly comprehend him, especially after his 10*=1* initiation.  I'm sure to Crowley those differences did not exist, at that point in his life, or indeed any point after his acceptance of AL and his role in establishing the Aeon of Horus.

So it's completely her fault that she could not deal with it? It's her fault that this "enlightened being" was not in any way capable of helping her understand what exactly was going on, though she herself had the Light of Understanding?

"N.O.X" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
The response to disillusionment can be an extremely overpowering event. By entertaining some of the examples of Crowley's life, he didn't deal with it so well, as Shiva pointed out. It is a further call to question how Crowley dealt with complete disillusionment, which would require an in-depth analysis of all the information we have available to Crowley after his claim to Ipsissimus in 1921.

See his "Vision of Jupiter" during his Magus initiation for his complete dis-illusionment.  A Vision that had such an astounding impact on him he would only hint at its horrible secrets...... 

I assume you are talking about this?

"Source wrote:
5.00 p.m.  The meditation of this afternoon resulted in an initiation so stupendous that I dare not hint at its Word. It is the supreme secret of a Magus, and it is so awful that I tremble even now – two hours later and more – 2.20 p.m. was the time – as I write concernin it. In a single instant I had the Key to the whole of the Chinese wisdom. In the light – momentary glimpse though it was – of this truth, all systems of religion and philosophy became absolutely puerile. Even the Law appears no more than a curious incident. I remain absolutely bewildered, blinded, knowing what blasting image lies in this shrine. It baffles me to understand how my brother Magi, knowing this, ever went on.

I had only one foreshadowing of this Vision of Jupiter – for so I may call it! – and that was a Samadhi which momentarily interrupted my concentration of Sammasati. This can only be described vaguely by saying that I obtained a reconciliation of two contraries of which “There is a discrimination between good and evil” is one.

This experience has shaken me utterly: it has been a terrible struggle to force myself to this record. The secret comes along the Path of Aleph to Chokmah. I could write it plainly in a few words of one syllable, and most people would not even notice it. But it has might to hurl every Master of the Temple into the Abyss, and to fling every adept of the Rose Cross down to the Qliphoth. No wonder One said that the Book T was in ashes in the Urn of a Magus! I can’t see at all how it will affect me at present. Even the Way of the Tao looks idiotic –  but then of course that’s what it is! So I suppose that’s it, all right. And its freedom, in an utterly fascinating and appalling sense, is beyond my fiercest conception.

This is detailed some more, thought not specifically mentioned, in the Urn.

And no, I do not believe that this could have severed the connection between Crowley and Leah unless he allowed it to. Just like I think he could have done more for Rose.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/11/2012 7:00 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
On Crowley's "personal profit", I wonder at what the people themselves got out of it. If you pay money, you expect to get something. Gerald Yorke, who gave money to Crowley for years, could be considered as having bought stock in the Crowley legacy, as noted by his reception of many of Crowley's writings and artifacts. Others did not fare so well.

So what did they get out of it? And if the answer is nothing, in any case, what the hell were they paying him for, and was the money actually warranted? I think this is a most pertinent question.

It varied from person to person. Crowley had a love of fine wine, good food, good tobacco, etc.

Would you consider people giving him money for any of these 'luxuries', money received either directly or indirectly for personal profit or personal gain?

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
But the main driving force in his life was his role in promulgating the Aeon of Horus, and everything else in his life was subordinated to this. So far as Crowley was concerned, this was a full-time job, and he looked to others who involved themselves in his work to sponsor him to a greater or lesser extent, whether through membership dues or donations.

So, he was in the holy business.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Crowley could sometimes be less than scrupulous in seeking these sums of money. Gerald Yorke, for instance, gave money to Crowley in the late 1920s; I believe that he paid for the printing of Magick in Theory and Practice. However, he became aware that a mutual friend of theirs was preparing to give Crowley access to his bank account, and advised that mutual friend not to. From then on, Yorke took care to remove money from his relationship with Crowley, but continued to be a good and devoted friend and, after his death, spent a great deal of money building up an archive of Crowley's papers and diaries.

Yes. One could say that Yorke "bought stock" in Crowleyana.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Somebody earlier in this thread suggested that Crowley somehow forced his American followers to send him money, citing Martin Starr's Unknown God as source-material for this impression. In the first place, the people in Agape Lodge gave this money willingly, whether as Lodge dues or as donations over and above this.

Forced or not, One Star in Sight clearly says either directly or indirectly for personal profit or personal gain. If they bought his Ether, then that is for personal gain.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I used to study in the Yorke Collection in the late 1980s, and one of the folders was a collection of 200 or so letters from Agape Lodge members to Crowley. The tone of these letters ranged from the somewhat facetious (they were writing to a loveable old eccentric across the pond) to the respectful and even awestruck, but in none of them did I come across the resentment that one might expect from someone who felt that money was being extracted from them.

Not even from W.T. Smith?

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Crowley took the publication of his work very seriously, and expected others to help where they could. The fact that he managed to get out in the last decade or so of his life books like The Heart of the Master, Eight Lectures on Yoga, Little Essays Toward Truth, and in particular the magnificently-produced The Book of Thoth betokens in my view a single-mindedness and a strong sense of purpose. It's clearly not the case, then, that money from his American disciples were dissipated in a lavish and dissolute life-style. Looking at these works, I think they would have considered their money well-spent.

Here's the question, though. Was any of the money acquired either directly or indirectly for personal profit or personal gain?

What you are saying, is that Crowley doing what he did is no different from the many gurus in the marketplace, selling "enlightenment" in order to make a quick buck. J. Krishnamurti, for instance, is known to have led quite an extravagant lifestyle. Hell, if you look up "enlightenment" in YouTube, you can see 10s if not thousands of different "enlightened beings" sitting in fancy ashrams with 'golden chairs' and tons of followers. For example, look at some of Osho's videos. Seriously.

[One should only have to watch the first 2 minutes or so before seeing what is so disgusting about it. No sound required.]
[flash=200,200:1yplzti0] https://www.youtube.com/v/fsYmDxCnW74[/flash:1yplzti0]

Such a thing has been going on for thousands of years. The Jewish people had special houses, I forget their proper name, in which they would send one male member of their family to study and be a scholar of the Hebrew, basically a "holy man". That person would not work a normal job, and the families would help support the house and its members.

The Christians still do it to this day. They call it a "tithe". And the net result of that is thousands of followers sitting in a church somewhere, worshiping the words of their preacher, as he runs around with lavish jewelry, eating fine foods, driving fancy cars, etc. all while his people suffer.

So, Crowley was in the holy business. But did he somehow walk a fine line between being in the holy business and not using any of that money thrown his way for personal profit or personal gain?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/11/2012 2:49 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
As for Germer, he was not a member of the O.T.O., IIRC. Yet he gave Crowley money constantly. For what in return?

Germer was indeed a member of the O.T.O.  He was the Grand Secretary/Treasurer General, and took over as O.H.O, after Crowley's death.  However, he did not fully accept or perform the duties of the O.H.O. and some people recognized Grant as the O.H.O., but this is beyond the scope of this thread.  Germer certainly gave Crowley more money that just what was collected from the dues of members.  For what in return you ask?  Well, therein lies the crux of the matter.  Germer didn't ask for anything in return.  So, the whole argument of Crowley accepting money for spiritual teachings is moot.  Germer gave it to Crowley because he was kind enough to share with The Master Therion, helping him in his time(s) of need.  Regardless, of the if the need was for publishing funds, cigars, cognac, dope, paper, hiring help, living expenses....whatever the Master's needs.   

"Azidonis" wrote:
See, we are talking about dues and what-not, and I don't have access to any of the official log books, but would be willing to reckon that most of the time, Crowley's very few O.T.O. members actually did pay their dues. Crowley requested money from the dues at times yes, but he also requested money in lump sums, which I doubt were due related.

This still begs the question, what were these people giving him money for, aside from O.T.O. dues?* And, if the answer turns out to be that he, "accept[ed] money or other material reward, directly or indirectly, in respect of any service connected with the Order [A:.A:.], for personal profit or advantage," then there is a huge problem. Also, if we find that he DID in fact accept extraneous money, we have to come to the definition of A:.A:. "services". If that money in any way went to those "services" (think Germer), then Crowley made a huge mistake.

The money given by Germer that I've mentioned above is not connected with the A.'.A.'., again Germer (who if I'm not mistaken didn't really do any A.'.A.'. work, at all) gave (not paid, traded, etc.) it to Crowley thus assisting him to live and continue the Great Work....and indulge in a few luxuries like tobacco, chocolate, cognac, etc. bringing a little enjoyment, a smile perhaps easing the suffering of the Master failing health in his last years....now what is so wrong with that, Azi?  I don't understand why you're making such a big deal about this....its not like Crowley was hoarding money in some Swiss bank account, amassing a fortune, and living in extravagance.  He had no golden thrones upon which he sat while his disciples lived in poverty. 

"Azidonis" wrote:
Sounds like you are saying that Crowley "threw her under the bus", intentionally or unintentionally.

No, I'm saying that they boarded different buses, and went in different directions altogether.  After the death of their daughter, they dealt with the grief in their own way....Crowley went off again in search of high-adventure, while Rose retreated into the bottom of bottles....many bottles. 

"Azidonis" wrote:
While we are busy conjecturing, we can conjecture given Rose's history before she met Crowley what type of person she was, and question whether or not she would have ended up in the asylum had she not met him, or at least eloped and wed him.

You can conjecture, if you want.  I prefer to not entertain the horrible thought of a world without AL.  Without Rose and Crowley's honeymoon in Cairo there would be no Liber AL as we know (and love it).  Though the 93 Current would, in my opinion, have found a suitable channel through which to flow and manifest to mankind its message; becoming as a beacon and shining the Way, Light, Life, Liberty, and Love under will; revealing the path to Freedom...Do what thou wilt!  Regardless of the Conduit through which it flowed, and the symbols used to achieve its expression, the Current would manifest!  The time to announce a new Word for a new Aeon had come!  And come it would!   

"N.O.X" wrote:
I think Leah had such a hard time with the difference between "Aleister Crowley the man" and "The Beast as an Idea" because it was she who had separated the two, in her mind, which was a mistake, on her part.  But, remember, she was a Magister, and thus unable to truly comprehend him, especially after his 10*=1* initiation.  I'm sure to Crowley those differences did not exist, at that point in his life, or indeed any point after his acceptance of AL and his role in establishing the Aeon of Horus.
"Azidonis" wrote:
So it's completely her fault that she could not deal with it? It's her fault that this "enlightened being" was not in any way capable of helping her understand what exactly was going on, though she herself had the Light of Understanding?

Again, no.  You're reading me wrong.  I was referring to the line from One Star in Sight: "Ipsissimus. - Is beyond all this and beyond all comprehension of those of lower grades." Certainly he was capable, but you seem to take issue with the fact that he did not, in fact, help her Understand.  I refer you to this, also from One Star in Sight: "The Ipsissimus has no relation as such with any Being: He has no will in any direction, and no Consciousness of any kind involving duality, for in Him all is accomplished; as it is written “beyond the Word and the Fool, yea, beyond the Word and the Fool.”"

"N.O.X" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
The response to disillusionment can be an extremely overpowering event. By entertaining some of the examples of Crowley's life, he didn't deal with it so well, as Shiva pointed out. It is a further call to question how Crowley dealt with complete disillusionment, which would require an in-depth analysis of all the information we have available to Crowley after his claim to Ipsissimus in 1921.

See his "Vision of Jupiter" during his Magus initiation for his complete dis-illusionment.  A Vision that had such an astounding impact on him he would only hint at its horrible secrets...... 

I assume you are talking about this?

"Source wrote:
5.00 p.m.  The meditation of this afternoon resulted in an initiation so stupendous that I dare not hint at its Word. It is the supreme secret of a Magus, and it is so awful that I tremble even now – two hours later and more – 2.20 p.m. was the time – as I write concernin it. In a single instant I had the Key to the whole of the Chinese wisdom. In the light – momentary glimpse though it was – of this truth, all systems of religion and philosophy became absolutely puerile. Even the Law appears no more than a curious incident. I remain absolutely bewildered, blinded, knowing what blasting image lies in this shrine. It baffles me to understand how my brother Magi, knowing this, ever went on.

I had only one foreshadowing of this Vision of Jupiter – for so I may call it! – and that was a Samadhi which momentarily interrupted my concentration of Sammasati. This can only be described vaguely by saying that I obtained a reconciliation of two contraries of which “There is a discrimination between good and evil” is one.

This experience has shaken me utterly: it has been a terrible struggle to force myself to this record. The secret comes along the Path of Aleph to Chokmah. I could write it plainly in a few words of one syllable, and most people would not even notice it. But it has might to hurl every Master of the Temple into the Abyss, and to fling every adept of the Rose Cross down to the Qliphoth. No wonder One said that the Book T was in ashes in the Urn of a Magus! I can’t see at all how it will affect me at present. Even the Way of the Tao looks idiotic –  but then of course that’s what it is! So I suppose that’s it, all right. And its freedom, in an utterly fascinating and appalling sense, is beyond my fiercest conception.

This is detailed some more, thought not specifically mentioned, in the Urn.

And no, I do not believe that this could have severed the connection between Crowley and Leah unless he allowed it to. Just like I think he could have done more for Rose.

Yes, that's it.  The dis-illusionment that I was referring to was of a deeper level than the connection of those two human beings.  I was being punny (notice the different spelling that I used) but there is wisdom in my weaving of the wyrd.  THAT dis-illusionment was the destruction of Madness, and Falsehood, and Glamour in the Grade of Magus. 

You "think he could have done more for Rose" but he did not.  Crowley did his will, and you are applying a moral judgement it.  I don't judge Crowley on what he did and did not do.  I accept him for everything he did and didn't do, I accept him for who he was.  "No other shall say nay", right?  But we all have to face the Demon Crowley, some like Rose and Leah did not escape unscathed.....unable to see past this Guardian and Understand the Quintessence.  I just smile in silence in the face of the Demon and it fades away, revealing......

The Demon Crowley has been right in front of you, Azi....and you've been saying "You're terrible!  You could have done more!  You took all that money they gave you when you asked for it, and actually used it!  So many problems!  So many mistakes!"......but the Demon Crowley is still there, Azi, right in front of you with that demoniacal smile, that has terrified so many before.....but look closer Azi......see that Light in its eyes?  Its the Light of the Pure Fool!  *HAHA!*  What a scene!  Another brilliant performance in the Play from the Fool!  See....sometimes the Fool smiles, or even laughs manically, at its performance.  At these moments the Fool can see the entire stage, and appreciate the show!  Then the Fool disappears, absorbed in Acting again.....but that Light!  Look, that One Light illuminating the stage!  🙂

In the Night of Pan,
N.O.X


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/11/2012 6:23 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
Germer was indeed a member of the O.T.O.

 

Yes, you're right. I mixed up some history.

"N.O.X" wrote:
[On Germer giving Crowley money.]

Germer did not just give random people money. Surely, he didn't just wake up one day and think, "Oh, I think I'm just going to give Crowley loads of money for the rest of my life."

Germer was not the only one who gave Crowley money, either.

"N.O.X" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Sounds like you are saying that Crowley "threw her under the bus", intentionally or unintentionally.

No, I'm saying that they boarded different buses, and went in different directions altogether.  After the death of their daughter, they dealt with the grief in their own way....Crowley went off again in search of high-adventure, while Rose retreated into the bottom of bottles....many bottles.

Yes... Crowley came home to find her in a drunken stupor, packed some clean pants, and took off for another month or two excursion, only to return, find her in another stupor, etc.

You are talking as if the man was completely faultless in his marriage, or that the death of their child was the only reason for the ending issues.

You are saying he could have done absolutely nothing to change the situation... that Rose was just doomed to be put in a mental institution, as a "write off" for the Great Work.

"N.O.X" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
While we are busy conjecturing, we can conjecture given Rose's history before she met Crowley what type of person she was, and question whether or not she would have ended up in the asylum had she not met him, or at least eloped and wed him.

You can conjecture, if you want.  I prefer to not entertain the horrible thought of a world without AL.  Without Rose and Crowley's honeymoon in Cairo there would be no Liber AL as we know (and love it).  Though the 93 Current would, in my opinion, have found a suitable channel through which to flow and manifest to mankind its message; becoming as a beacon and shining the Way, Light, Life, Liberty, and Love under will; revealing the path to Freedom...Do what thou wilt!  Regardless of the Conduit through which it flowed, and the symbols used to achieve its expression, the Current would manifest!  The time to announce a new Word for a new Aeon had come!  And come it would!

Certainly the Aquarian Age would not have begun if Crowley and Rose didn't elope...

"N.O.X" wrote:
"N.O.X" wrote:
I think Leah had such a hard time with the difference between "Aleister Crowley the man" and "The Beast as an Idea" because it was she who had separated the two, in her mind, which was a mistake, on her part.  But, remember, she was a Magister, and thus unable to truly comprehend him, especially after his 10*=1* initiation.  I'm sure to Crowley those differences did not exist, at that point in his life, or indeed any point after his acceptance of AL and his role in establishing the Aeon of Horus.
"Azidonis" wrote:
So it's completely her fault that she could not deal with it? It's her fault that this "enlightened being" was not in any way capable of helping her understand what exactly was going on, though she herself had the Light of Understanding?

Again, no.  You're reading me wrong.  I was referring to the line from One Star in Sight: "Ipsissimus. - Is beyond all this and beyond all comprehension of those of lower grades." Certainly he was capable, but you seem to take issue with the fact that he did not, in fact, help her Understand.  I refer you to this, also from One Star in Sight: "The Ipsissimus has no relation as such with any Being: He has no will in any direction, and no Consciousness of any kind involving duality, for in Him all is accomplished; as it is written “beyond the Word and the Fool, yea, beyond the Word and the Fool.”"

Right, so that means toss your wife out onto the street corner, and eventually piss her off so much you send her packing while you sit around sniffing Ether, collecting money from people with the "promise of enlightenment", one that very few of them ever even realized.

And of course, you know all about consciousness devoid of duality...

"N.O.X" wrote:
Yes, that's it.  The dis-illusionment that I was referring to was of a deeper level than the connection of those two human beings.  I was being punny (notice the different spelling that I used) but there is wisdom in my weaving of the wyrd.  THAT dis-illusionment was the destruction of Madness, and Falsehood, and Glamour in the Grade of Magus.

Now you are trying to "school me" in disullisionment. Tell me more please, oh great N.O.X., but leave out the catch phrases.

"N.O.X" wrote:
You "think he could have done more for Rose" but he did not.  Crowley did his will, and you are applying a moral judgement it.

There's nothing "moral" about stating perhaps there was a possibility that he could have done something to help her keep her sanity.

The fact is, he did whatever it was he did, no matter how little or how grand it was, and the result was that Crowley's first wife ended up in the looney bin.

You can make the case that she was "supposed" to end up that way, and place some sort of "Divine Decree" on it, or whatever. The fact is still the fact.

All I'm saying is that maybe he could have done something different than what he did, not that he should have, and not that there is any indication that had he done anything different, the result would not have been the same.

"N.O.X" wrote:
I don't judge Crowley on what he did and did not do.

I haven't once made a statement in this thread about it being "good" or "bad". In fact, if anything, I've attempted to direct this thing to the "fine line" that I mentioned in reply to Mr. Staley's post.

Do you think I just have a hard-on for flaming Crowley all of a sudden? I don't. I'm simply trying to talk about the money he received from various sources, what he received them for, and what he did with it. That is all. If you don't see how this is relevant, that's your problem.

"N.O.X" wrote:
I accept him for everything he did and didn't do, I accept him for who he was.

Okay, then accept the fact that he had multiple failed marriages, tended to view women as "lesser" than men, carried a heavy drug addiction through his life, received money from various sources for many different reasons, and possibly spent that money for personal gain.

Add to that, accept that fact that had he not been "Aleister Crowley, the Great Beast 666, Prophet of the Aeon of Horus" etc., then he would have just been another random dude from Victorian Era England that probably would not have been able to get random people to send him tons of money.

So, did he accept money or other material reward - either directly or indirectly - in respect of any service connected with the A:.A:. (something that we've already established was his entire life, but I'm content to focus on events after 1921), for personal profit or advantage?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm trying to posthumously convict him in order to pop up with some "He expelled himself from the A:.A:.." I'm not. If he broke his own rule, that is one thing, and I don't have an agenda of prosecuting him for it if he did. I'm pointing to a finer line, as stated earlier.

Also, as I said, I'm content on focusing on the period of his life after 1921, not as you said:

"N.O.X." wrote:
I'm sure to Crowley those differences did not exist, at that point in his life, or indeed any point after his acceptance of AL and his role in establishing the Aeon of Horus.

This would take us back to 1909, at least, which would have been two years after he "founded the A:.A:.", incidentally the same year he officially divorced Rose.

However, One Star in Sight gives a date of: "Given from the Collegium ad Spiritum Sanctum, Cefalu, Sicily, in the Seventeenth Year of the Aeon of Horus, the Sun being in 23° Virgo and the Moon in 14° Pisces." Unless my math is bad (possible), this was in 1921.

"N.O.X" wrote:
"No other shall say nay", right?  But we all have to face the Demon Crowley, some like Rose and Leah did not escape unscathed.....unable to see past this Guardian and Understand the Quintessence.  I just smile in silence in the face of the Demon and it fades away, revealing......

First, you are telling me what a Magus is, and now you are saying Leah, a Magister Templi, couldn't cope with all of the Beast's "awesomeness". But you, on the other hand, can, and with a smile even. So do tell me how a Magus deals with a Magister Templi and vice versa. Do tell me how an Ipsissimus deals with a Magister Templi, and vice versa.

"N.O.X" wrote:
The Demon Crowley has been right in front of you, Azi....and you've been saying "You're terrible!  You could have done more!

No. I'm saying that in some cases it seems that he simply didn't care about his wives, and was quite content to consider them "cannon fodder for the Great Work", and you are apparently supporting that stance.

And you are saying, "But, but, he was the Beast! They just couldn't handle His Majesty," as if he were able to claim Papal Infallbility.

Tell me, since you seem to know all about it, how do you think the Curse of the Grade of Magus actually works in relation to another person. And when you do so, be sure to leave out all quotes, all catch-phrases, and the pretty capital pronoun stunt. Plain English, please.

"N.O.X" wrote:
You took all that money they gave you when you asked for it, and actually used it!  So many problems!  So many mistakes!"

Again, no.

I'm positing, did he violate this "asbolute prohibition" after 1921.

There is however an absolute prohibition to accept money or other material reward, directly or indirectly, in respect of any service connected with the Order, for personal profit or advantage.

"N.O.X" wrote:
......but the Demon Crowley is still there, Azi, right in front of you with that demoniacal smile, that has terrified so many before.....but look closer Azi......see that Light in its eyes?  Its the Light of the Pure Fool!  *HAHA!*  What a scene!  Another brilliant performance in the Play from the Fool!  See....sometimes the Fool smiles, or even laughs manically, at its performance.  At these moments the Fool can see the entire stage, and appreciate the show!  Then the Fool disappears, absorbed in Acting again.....but that Light!  Look, that One Light illuminating the stage!  🙂

In the Night of Pan,
N.O.X

Check your zipper, your fanboy is showing.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/11/2012 12:00 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
There's nothing "moral" about stating perhaps there was a possibility that he could have done something to help her keep her sanity.

The fact is, he did whatever it was he did, no matter how little or how grand it was, and the result was that Crowley's first wife ended up in the looney bin.

You can make the case that she was "supposed" to end up that way, and place some sort of "Divine Decree" on it, or whatever. The fact is still the fact.

All I'm saying is that maybe he could have done something different than what he did, not that he should have, and not that there is any indication that had he done anything different, the result would not have been the same.

This thread reminded me vaguely of U.G Krishnamurti's relationship with his wife Kusuma.
Kusuma, severely battling with depression, begging him to return home to raise their children while U.G is mindlessly wandering the streets before his calamity.

"Holy" men don't tend to make good fathers or "family men" it seems 😀

One exception to rule might be C.G Jones, Crowley's diary in 1919, after his visit to Jones, reads:

It was a sad interview. He is the same dear man as he was. Strangely gray for 46, but his turning back from the Abyss is evident. He is just a nice simple bourgeois. interested in the number and quality of his offspring

But then again, Crowley considered even him to have turned back from the Abyss. 


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/11/2012 5:52 pm  
"ayino" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
There's nothing "moral" about stating perhaps there was a possibility that he could have done something to help her keep her sanity.

The fact is, he did whatever it was he did, no matter how little or how grand it was, and the result was that Crowley's first wife ended up in the looney bin.

You can make the case that she was "supposed" to end up that way, and place some sort of "Divine Decree" on it, or whatever. The fact is still the fact.

All I'm saying is that maybe he could have done something different than what he did, not that he should have, and not that there is any indication that had he done anything different, the result would not have been the same.

This thread reminded me vaguely of U.G Krishnamurti's relationship with his wife Kusuma.
Kusuma, severely battling with depression, begging him to return home to raise their children while U.G is mindlessly wandering the streets before his calamity.

"Holy" men don't tend to make good fathers or "family men" it seems 😀

Yes. He mentioned hitting his wife at one time. That may be one of the reasons he didn't return to her. Although he does talk about it later, and give other reasons too.

Maybe he could have not done her that way, but he did. Same thing with Crowley.

I'm not hankering on the fact that it was done and "good or bad", so much as I am the fact that it was done and "there was no other course". And that course certainly had ramifications for those around Crowley, such as Rose and Leah.

"ayino" wrote:
One exception to rule might be C.G Jones, Crowley's diary in 1919, after his visit to Jones, reads:

It was a sad interview. He is the same dear man as he was. Strangely gray for 46, but his turning back from the Abyss is evident. He is just a nice simple bourgeois. interested in the number and quality of his offspring

But then again, Crowley considered even him to have turned back from the Abyss. 

As in, turned away, instead of gone through?

It is no doubt that the Ordeal of the Abyss is a mind-wrecker in many ways.

As I read Leah Hirsig's journal, it's worth noting is that she seems on edge for a lot of it. Of course, this was the time in which Crowley was deported from Italy, etc., so she has every reason to be.

But, if we look at these journal entries from 1924, we can see it vaguely:

"Leah Hirsig wrote:
Dec 14 1924 e.v. A
            AN xx A in Q K in ? 4:31 PM
            I start  a new  Magicak Record.  For months now I have dared
            and sneered  at and  rejected what  I termed  ``old  magical
            methods.'' But  all my  actions to  get something  new  have
            brought me merely to a state of nervous collapse which seems
            to have reached its limit today.

            I can do no more than start all over again. I affirm that my
            only reason  for holding out against what seemed hopless and
            unending difficulties  is that  I may  be of  service in the
            Great Work. I have in the past taken upon myself a series of
            tasks of  which I  neither understood  the purpose  nor con-
            sciously. I  do not know whether I have failed hopelessly or
            whether I  can still  make good. I do know that I can merely
            re-affirm these  oaths, one  by one; tho whichever one I may
            select will torture me to look at the next.

            But I  think on reading over various old Diaries, that I had
            better start with my 8o=3o Oath and work along those lines.

                                                    [...]
Dec 20 G
            After last  entry last night I suddenly got up and had a hot
            wash. I said, ``I am going to meet my Lord Chaos whose bride
            I am.''

            I ate a small bit of bread and invoked Chaos - my head burnt
            as tho  I were being branded by hot irons. I tried to repeat
            my 8=3  oath, but got no further than ``a member of the body
            of God'' -

            Then I  simply said I devote myself to the accomplishment of
            the G.W. and to establish the Law of Thelema.

            It was  midnight when  I slept and I never woke till 10 this
            morning. Dreams  - dreams  - Astrid  & Beast worried - Beast
            very obscure - going somewhere but didn't seem to know. I so
            uncertain, quite beyond myself. Two other men in the party.

            My general  impression is  that I  am not  ready to take the
            Oath properly  yet. Am  I trying  to get  out of it? I don't
            know.

            Got my  coat and  saw Suzanne  - Heaven only knows what this
            will lead to - but I did it. Anyway, the cook's a beauty and
            the bed will be too.

This indicates that she had taken the 8=3 Oath, but was still unsure. I surmise this would have been the beginning stages of that program. This much is reflected in the Record, from 1924. I do no know if further Records are extant, from say 1925 on. Maybe someone else does.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/11/2012 9:03 pm  

Whats done is done, Azi.  Look at all that happened then but then Look around NOW, don't you like what you see?  I do and I'm smiling!  ;D


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/11/2012 9:22 pm  
"N.O.X" wrote:
Whats done is done, Azi.  Look at all that happened then but then Look around NOW, don't you like what you see?  I do and I'm smiling!  ;D

Thanks for your lack of constructive input.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/11/2012 9:38 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Crowley took the publication of his work very seriously, and expected others to help where they could. The fact that he managed to get out in the last decade or so of his life books like The Heart of the Master, Eight Lectures on Yoga, Little Essays Toward Truth, and in particular the magnificently-produced The Book of Thoth betokens in my view a single-mindedness and a strong sense of purpose. It's clearly not the case, then, that money from his American disciples were dissipated in a lavish and dissolute life-style. Looking at these works, I think they would have considered their money well-spent.

A statement worth revisiting.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/11/2012 9:52 pm  

You're welcome, Azi!  I took one look at that wall of text you replied to me and all those strange questions you asked me, that somehow were raised by my last post, and said "fuck that noise!"  So, I just continued to smile!

I will say that, no, Crowley did not accept money or other material reward - either directly or indirectly - in respect of any service connected with the A:.A:. In fact, after his death (I don'tt remember exactly who, Grant, Yorke, or Symonds) found a box underneath Crowley's bed.  In it was all of the donations he received for the publication of, Liber Aleph, I believe.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/11/2012 12:40 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
I will say that, no, Crowley did not accept money or other material reward - either directly or indirectly - in respect of any service connected with the A:.A:. In fact, after his death (I don'tt remember exactly who, Grant, Yorke, or Symonds) found a box underneath Crowley's bed.  In it was all of the donations he received for the publication of, Liber Aleph, I believe.

Is this after reviewing all of the available facts, or just something you want to believe?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
10/11/2012 5:04 pm  
"N.O.X" wrote:
... after his death (I don't remember exactly who, Grant, Yorke, or Symonds) found a box underneath Crowley's bed.  In it was all of the donations he received for the publication of, Liber Aleph, I believe.

This brings up a third phase in A.C.'s life. The era of the old man. I'm in it myself right now. I (personally) see his early life as an initiate, his middle-life as a man. And his later years, wherein he softened. When I say "middle-life as a man," I mean the Ipsissimus after 1921. His old age (starting when? - probably around the time of ww2) seemed to be what most older folks turn into: mellowed.

He got The Book of Thoth out under wartime restrictions. What a coup!  Interesting that he might have had Aleph funds on hand, because that was the first (?) book published (by Germer) after A.C.'s death.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4065
10/11/2012 6:07 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Interesting that he might have had Aleph funds on hand, because that was the first (?) book published (by Germer) after A.C.'s death.

The first book which Germer got out was The Vision and the Voice with Crowley's Commentary in 1952, followed by The Gospel According to St. Bernard Shaw in 1953 and Magick without Tears in 1954. He didn't get Liber Aleph published until 1962, following several attempts by Crowley to publish it across the years since 1918.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
10/11/2012 6:15 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
The first book which Germer got out was The Vision and the Voice with Crowley's Commentary in 1952, followed by The Gospel According to St. Bernard Shaw in 1953 and Magick without Tears in 1954. He didn't get Liber Aleph published until 1962, following several attempts by Crowley to publish it across the years since 1918.

Yes, I'm sure you are correct. I seem to remember Aleph as a book, and that definition warped my steadingly-decreased sense of historical adventure, but the other two (earlier) publications I remember as being spiral bound, which are publications of course.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4065
10/11/2012 6:29 pm  

Yes, Germer's publication of The Vision and the Voice was a spiral-bound mimeograph of the typescript, complete with hand-drawn Hebrew letters, planetary symbols, etc. I've never seen copies of the Germer editions of St. Bernard Shaw nor Magick without Tears. I do though like the simplicity of his Liber Aleph; there's something beautiful about it.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
10/11/2012 7:08 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I do though like the simplicity of his Liber Aleph; there's something beautiful about it.

At one point, Aleph was my sole companion. When I was Way Out on a Limb, at the core of the dissolution of Solar Lodge, Aleph was my operative text. It was written in the context of a Magus instructing his magickal son, presumably a Magister, in how to deal with a certain level of atmic consciousness.

Whether or not Frater Achad succeded Therion, or failed to live up to the hiership, the language provides a primal instruction from father to magickal son (sun), and is applicable to anyone who finds themself so qualified. If one wanted to look more deeply into the "secrets" of the Aeon of Horus, then Liber Aleph is high on the list of treasured sutras. It is much more instructive than say, any "commentaries," or other tracts - at least it was for me.


ReplyQuote
sonnetophelia
(@sonnetophelia)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1
07/03/2019 10:23 pm  

Yes, I know Crowley could be a horrible person to people that did not deserve to be treated with respect, and, as for his living Scarlet Woman, I know that he showed them pure love and affection, as long as they were who they said they were, and they were not, however, as with me, because I am always true and I am who I say, he shows me the purest form of love, and when I was subjected by a vile being, I can remember him giving me the hope I needed to survive, for, you see I have cleared the last hurtle and soon I will be meeting my daddy at the gate


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3150
07/03/2019 10:40 pm  

Another sign that Spring is surely just around the corner!


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2372
07/03/2019 11:08 pm  

soon I will be meeting my daddy at the gate

Whose the daddy!?

Ah well it has been a bad winter around here.

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: