Notifications
Clear all

Moonchildren and Scarlet Women  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
08/01/2009 12:01 am  

I seem to recall reading in an encyclopedia of the occult published in the 70s-80s that claimed Crowley had attempted twice to conceive real Moonchildren with two different wives. He himself claimed that the attempts both failed, once again, according to the encyclopedia.

I've been trying to verify this, but cannot find any mention of this in the usual places. All I am finding is LRH's Babylon Working and the fictional novel "Moon Child".

I'm curious to know which of Crowley's children were the result of the attempt, which of his wives was involved, and any more information in this regard. If anyone could even get me verifiable dates for the attempts I'd be able to suss the rest out for myself and would be very grateful.

Thanks in advance.
-Seth


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/01/2009 1:19 pm  

223 views and no replies... hmm.

Does anyone else at least recall reading about these 2 attempts? Perhaps with a reference I can track down more information.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/01/2009 3:26 pm  
"SethRose" wrote:
223 views and no replies... hmm.

Now it's 253. You might want to give up on this one, 'cause it never happened.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/01/2009 4:29 pm  

I think you're referring to "The Encyclopeadia Of The Unexplained", edited by Richard Cavendish. My copy from 1976.
page 72:
"Crowley believed that man is destined to engender gods. Some of the mysteries of this trans-human alchemy were woven into his novel Moonchild (1929) which tells the story of a magician and a woman specially chosen for the purpose. It is doubtful if Crowley ever actually performed the rite described in Moonchild, but his magical record shows that he several times attempted to beget a "magical child" on various scarlet women."

that entry on Crowley (about 3 pages) was written by Kenneth Grant.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/01/2009 11:56 pm  
"BlueKephra" wrote:
I think you're referring to "The Encyclopeadia Of The Unexplained", edited by Richard Cavendish. My copy from 1976.
page 72:
"Crowley believed that man is destined to engender gods. Some of the mysteries of this trans-human alchemy were woven into his novel Moonchild (1929) which tells the story of a magician and a woman specially chosen for the purpose. It is doubtful if Crowley ever actually performed the rite described in Moonchild, but his magical record shows that he several times attempted to beget a "magical child" on various scarlet women."

that entry on Crowley (about 3 pages) was written by Kenneth Grant.

Thanks a lot, BlueKephra! I just took a look and that is not the book or reference I was looking for. The Encyclopedia I was reading had about 11-20 Volumes.

I appreciate all the info you provided though, and while I was trying to track down Crowley's "Magical Record" I stumbled upon a biography focusing on his role in bringing Tantra to the West.

However, the ultimate goal that Crowley sought through his sexual magic seems went far beyond the mundane desire for material wealth or mortal power. In his most exalted moments, Crowley appears to have believed that he could achieve a supreme spiritual power -- the power to conceive a divine child, a godlike being, who would transcend the moral failings of the body born of mere woman. This goal of creating a divine fetus, Crowley suggests, lies at the heart of many esoteric traditions, from ancient Mesopotamia to India to the Arab world:

"This is the great idea of magicians in all timesโ€”To obtain a Messiah by some adaptation of the sexual process. In Assyria they tried incest...Greeks and Syrians mostly bestiality. ...The Mohammedans tried homosexuality; medieval philosophers tried to produce homunculi by making chemical experiments with semen. But the root idea is that any form of procreation other than normal is likely to produce results of a magical character" - Crowley, The Vision and the Voice (London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent, 1911), p. 385-6.

That looks like a dead end, but at least I know he had it in his head by 1911. It is kind of interesting to note that on the time line he writes Moon Child in 1918 and then we start seeing Leah Hirsig's name pop up.

Unfortunately the "Magical Record ", is $150 on Amazon and I can't find it any of the darker areas of the Internet. I'm afraid I'm more of a theological historian than a Thelemite (though I do believe sincerely in the wisdom of Liber AL vel Legis), so I'm not as well versed as I'm sure most of you are. Please forgive this clearly foolish inquiry, but is there a coherent place of record which contains the magical record of Crowley on the web? Google has failed me.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
22/01/2009 12:10 am  
"SethRose" wrote:
Unfortunately the "Magical Record ", is $150 on Amazon and I can't find it any of the darker areas of the Internet.

There are 15 copes listed on Abebooks.com - http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=aleister+crowley&sts=t&tn=magical+record&x=0&y=0 - starting at US$62.50.

Please forgive this clearly foolish inquiry, but is there a coherent place of record which contains the magical record of Crowley on the web? Google has failed me.

Please read the Guidelines regarding the inappropriateness on this site of attempting to solicit the provision of copyright breaching material. Is there a specific reference you'd like checked?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/01/2009 12:51 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
Please read the Guidelines regarding the inappropriateness on this site of attempting to solicit the provision of copyright breaching material. Is there a specific reference you'd like checked?

I'm sorry that is not what I meant to imply at all. I assume that some form of Crowley's records are in the public domain, so there should be no need to pay any amount of money for a book that merely chronicles what is a historical account. Unfortunately not even comprehensive libraries like Hermetic offer a complete record (though they are keen to point out the one for the Paris Working).

As a token of an apology I've added a new picture of Crowley to the Gallery, which I found tonight, that I thought was too funny not to have included. Oh dear, it seems it was a duplicate and you have rejected it. I'm just bumbling all over tonight.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/01/2009 5:39 am  

may be of some interest:
-> http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/fs3.htm


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/01/2009 6:21 pm  
"moyal" wrote:
may be of some interest:
-> http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/fs3.htm

Thanks a lot moyal, that is of great interest to me in two important ways:

    It proves I'm not delusional and at least some other people have heard of this before.

    The subject of this article is almost precisely my area of interest.

As I've mentioned I'm a bit of a theological historian (amateur, to be sure) and while history tends to be a study of the very old, I am interested in chronicling a modern development of historical significance.

In Mexico and other Latin American countries Catholics are forsaking orders from the Vatican and their Bishops to worship a new Saint, La Santa Muerte. I feel I should clarify that in this way their worship is more similar to Hinduism, where "Saint" is merely an honorific title for a lesser divine entity which may be worshiped for specific blessings in conjunction with the greater divinity. This is not only heretical, but fascinating because of the similarities in how she has come to be worshiped and the historical account of how Kali came to be worshiped.

Kali wasn't worshiped until ~600CE, when the poor and destitute elements of society began to worship her. Their motivation is suspected to be that since many members of their communities would be dieing on a seemingly daily basis that death became a major facet of their philosophical thought. Today in Mexico and other areas of Latin America where drug cartels thrive and death is a prominent factor in daily life, the poor have begun to worship this late comer.

I'm afraid I've run out of time to continue typing, but the short version is I'd like to investigate the activities of Mr. Crowley with regards to God Making; as I have learned repeatedly in my studies that no matter what you say about the man he has had a very important impact on the world. Any info to help me nail down the dates and participants of his attempts are greatly appreciated.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/01/2009 6:51 pm  
"SethRose" wrote:
In Mexico and other Latin American countries Catholics are forsaking orders from the Vatican and their Bishops to worship a new Saint, La Santa Muerte. I feel I should clarify that in this way their worship is more similar to Hinduism, where "Saint" is merely an honorific title for a lesser divine entity which may be worshiped for specific blessings in conjunction with the greater divinity. This is not only heretical, but fascinating because of the similarities in how she has come to be worshiped and the historical account of how Kali came to be worshiped.

Kali wasn't worshiped until ~600CE, when the poor and destitute elements of society began to worship her. Their motivation is suspected to be that since many members of their communities would be dieing on a seemingly daily basis that death became a major facet of their philosophical thought. Today in Mexico and other areas of Latin America where drug cartels thrive and death is a prominent factor in daily life, the poor have begun to worship this late comer.

Right. Somewhat similar to the idea behind my comments in another thread to the effect that the lay people are tacitly encouraged to be 'suckers for Saints' by a church allowing such honorific designations in the first place.

"Camlion" wrote:
Sorry, Walter. I kid my OTO friends. The whole idea of making Saints, by any church, however, is usually a tricky way of engaging The People's interest, diverting their attention, enabling them to identify with the church, and manipulations of that sort... and it usually works. ๐Ÿ˜‰ No offense intended.

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/01/2009 7:53 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Right. Somewhat similar to the idea behind my comments in another thread to the effect that the lay people are tacitly encouraged to be 'suckers for Saints' by a church allowing such honorific designations in the first place.

"Camlion" wrote:
Sorry, Walter. I kid my OTO friends. The whole idea of making Saints, by any church, however, is usually a tricky way of engaging The People's interest, diverting their attention, enabling them to identify with the church, and manipulations of that sort... and it usually works. ๐Ÿ˜‰ No offense intended.

I'm afraid I disagree entirely with your premise, but no, that is not relevant to this discussion as the worship of La Santa Muerte is actively discouraged by the Church.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/01/2009 8:12 pm  
"SethRose" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Right. Somewhat similar to the idea behind my comments in another thread to the effect that the lay people are tacitly encouraged to be 'suckers for Saints' by a church allowing such honorific designations in the first place.

"Camlion" wrote:
Sorry, Walter. I kid my OTO friends. The whole idea of making Saints, by any church, however, is usually a tricky way of engaging The People's interest, diverting their attention, enabling them to identify with the church, and manipulations of that sort... and it usually works. ๐Ÿ˜‰ No offense intended.

I'm afraid I disagree entirely with your premise, but no, that is not relevant to this discussion as the worship of La Santa Muerte is actively discouraged by the Church.

Yes, but it was the Church that set the precedent of Sainthood in the first place. ๐Ÿ™‚

No matter, we digress from the topic, I agree. In your research, have you read Louis T. Culling's take on the subject, in The Complete Magick Curriculum of the Secret Order G.'.B.'.G.'. and Sex Magick? You might find that interesting.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
06/06/2009 6:24 pm  

do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law

hello dont mean to sound docile, but im rather new to Thelema
ive read Moonchild, but what exactly are "moonchildren"?
id b very obliged to know
Alazeron
418


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
06/06/2009 10:19 pm  
"Alazeron" wrote:
hello dont mean to sound docile, but im rather new to Thelema

Just for the record, "Alazeron" submitted a News item "announcing the successful formation of the Order of the Zodiac..."

I declined to publish it and he sent me a delightful note apparently resigning from the site:

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
07/06/2009 6:03 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"Alazeron" wrote:
hello dont mean to sound docile, but im rather new to Thelema

Just for the record, "Alazeron" submitted a News item "announcing the successful formation of the Order of the Zodiac..."

I declined to publish it and he sent me a delightful note apparently resigning from the site:

The sad thing is that people probably follow him/are in that silly Order.

As for Moonchildren, chances are Crowley took this idea and exaggerated it for his book for a good read. He certainly had kids but one thing is for sure, he certainly did not obsess over or repeatedly try to get actual 'moonchildren'

IAO131


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1264
07/06/2009 6:29 pm  

Crowley took this idea and exaggerated it for his book for a good read

I suspect that most of what Crowley did, or said he did, was probably intended for the purposes of his writing.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
11/06/2009 3:25 pm  
"SethRose" wrote:
"moyal" wrote:
may be of some interest:
-> http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/fs3.htm

Thanks a lot moyal, that is of great interest to me in two important ways:

    It proves I'm not delusional and at least some other people have heard of this before.

    The subject of this article is almost precisely my area of interest.

Unfortunately, it's full of Koenig's disbalanced editorializing, like the rest of his site. The man has assisted in the perpetuation of frauds and mistruths and is the antithesis of an unbiased researcher.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/06/2009 11:41 pm  

93,

Let's see, moonchildren...

Crowley spent a good part of his life dealing with C.S. Jones, who could have been considered a "moonchild", but his birth doesn't fit the description in the book.

It appears to me that Crowley's idea of a "moonchild", as presented in the novel of the same name, is mainly a fictitious account. In the book Cyril Grey set up a virtual temple with all things Lunar for his child to be. That's really where the name came from, I think. What is more important than that aspect of the book, is the example it lays down. One could create the atmosphere for a "Juipterchild" too if one wanted. It's all based on different correspondances, with the main theme of having an unborn child developed in a certain atmosphere.

On that note, it would be worth considering the term "unborn child" and relating that term to the Great Work itself. The novel may make more sense then.

At any rate, it's great reading!

As for Crowley's actual children, you can find out about them with simple searches I'm sure.

Happy hunting!

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
27/09/2009 9:11 am  

I would like to know too...

I would like to know who a scarlet women is, especially.

I am seriously affected by my confusion. All I know is that it would be scary to jump into conversation with crowley when you are thinking straight. how can you be talking so clearly and not care about the consequences of being normal.

It all just seems extremely weird.. but I am really trying to get over that. I want to know what would be classified as the scarlet woman... is it the gold and red women riding on a beast? Who?!

I've had dreams about a woman in red and figure that, to me, would be a scary [Expletive deleted by moderator] scarlet woman.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3948
27/09/2009 4:22 pm  
"FergetTravleCo." wrote:
I am seriously affected by my confusion. All I know is that it would be scary to jump into conversation with crowley when you are thinking straight. how can you be talking so clearly and not care about the consequences of being normal.

Sorry about veering off topic, but why would it be "scary to jump into conversation with crowley when you are thinking straight". What is it that you mean by "talking so clearly" and yet not caring "about the consequences of being normal"?

โ“

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 655
28/09/2009 1:11 am  

Do not understand also why you would be so scared 'to jump into conversation with Crowley when you are thinking straight' and how 'you can be talking so clearly and not caring about the consequences of being normal'. I do not think one should think so easely from oneself that h(s)e is normal, why are you concerned with the concept of 'being normal', do you think for one moment life is normal, life is just one kind of 'a Monthy Python's Flying Circus.' Anyway that being said, I think Crowley would love to being into conversation with someone who's thinking is straight.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
29/09/2009 6:36 pm  
"FergetTravleCo." wrote:
I would like to know too...

I would like to know who a scarlet women is, especially.

That depends.

THE Scarlet Woman is Babalon.

*A* Scarlet Woman is a Priestess of Babalon. It is an office as well as an individual.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/09/2009 5:24 pm  

I'll wager it was the MAN MYTH & MAGIC series of Time/Life books. We have it at our library-I'll see if I can locate your quote.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/09/2009 5:51 pm  
"xtianzombie" wrote:
ISorry-checked M,M & M, & the article (a longish one) is by Symonds & there's no mention of MOONCHILDren or even 'Magical Children'. Other than the Hubbard/Parsons working, I'd say the Grant article (infra-Cavendish) is the likely source. British jazz/rocker of the late 60's/early 70s, Graham Bond CLAIMED to be a magical & biological child of 666 & recorded Thelemic Psychedelic music but his claims are nowhere supported.

ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 319
30/09/2009 9:44 pm  

Walterfive wrote: "*A* Scarlet Woman is a Priestess of Babalon. It is an office as well as an individual."

Not just any priestess of course...the office was held by only a small number of initiatrixes in Crowley's life, the ones who were gifted as oracles.


azizsahar liked
ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
30/09/2009 10:04 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Walterfive wrote: "*A* Scarlet Woman is a Priestess of Babalon. It is an office as well as an individual."

Not just any priestess of course...the office was held by only a small number of initiatrixes in Crowley's life, the ones who were gifted as oracles.

Your mileage may vary. Many Thelemic Priests and Magicians I've known over the years have sought a Scarlet Woman. Some have found one.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 319
30/09/2009 10:35 pm  

"Many Thelemic Priests and Magicians I've known over the years have sought a Scarlet Woman. Some have found one."

Yes, well, that is all well and good for them, but there is L, 1:17...also Crowley was pretty clear on the matter:

"...there is a special incarnation of Nuit and Hadit for the Beast and the Scarlet
Woman, as opposed to the general truth that every man and woman are images of these
ineffable Beings."


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
01/10/2009 1:12 am  
"Walterfive" wrote:
Many Thelemic Priests and Magicians I've known over the years have sought a Scarlet Woman.

Yeah, many I've known as well. Too bad so few are worthy Beasts.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
01/10/2009 4:40 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
Many Thelemic Priests and Magicians I've known over the years have sought a Scarlet Woman.

Yeah, many I've known as well. Too bad so few are worthy Beasts.

Well ya gotta admit, 'those are some pretty tall boots to try and fill' as we'd say here in Texas. Not only does it take an indomitable Will, but it takes a rather wide Masochistic streak.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
02/10/2009 12:17 am  
"Walterfive" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
Many Thelemic Priests and Magicians I've known over the years have sought a Scarlet Woman.

Yeah, many I've known as well. Too bad so few are worthy Beasts.

Well ya gotta admit, 'those are some pretty tall boots to try and fill' as we'd say here in Texas. Not only does it take an indomitable Will, but it takes a rather wide Masochistic streak.

Not really. If it's in your nature, then the boots simply fit. There is no "trying", there's just living according to your Will.

Just like, if it's not in your nature to enjoy eating spinach, someone else eating spinach seems to be a masochistic act requiring an indomitable Will. But if it is in your nature, eating spinach is essentially effortless, requiring nothing other than putting leaf to mouth.

The problem here is people who fantasize about being 'the Beast' (or 'Scarlet Woman') and fantasize about getting their very own 'Scarlet Woman' (or 'Beast') as if these are roles in some Magick RPG they can slip in and out of.


ReplyQuote
Perdurex
(@perdurex)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 35
02/10/2009 1:14 pm  

Why would anyone want to create a moonchild in the first place?


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
02/10/2009 5:16 pm  
"Perdurex" wrote:
Why would anyone want to create a moonchild in the first place?

To convince themselves that they're breeding due to some "higher purpose" and not merely making babies as a result of succombing to instinct, genetic programming or their basic animal nature.

That, or it's just a pick-up line.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
02/10/2009 6:39 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
Many Thelemic Priests and Magicians I've known over the years have sought a Scarlet Woman.

Yeah, many I've known as well. Too bad so few are worthy Beasts.

Well ya gotta admit, 'those are some pretty tall boots to try and fill' as we'd say here in Texas. Not only does it take an indomitable Will, but it takes a rather wide Masochistic streak.

Not really. If it's in your nature, then the boots simply fit. There is no "trying", there's just living according to your Will.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. However, historically speaking, Crowley spent five years in uncertainty from 1904 to 1909 before deciding that *he* could fill them himself. And even he didn't apparently do it sucessfully, as many of the prophecies of Liber Al Vel Legis went seemingly unfulfilled... and neither (apparently) did Jack Parsons, who underwent the Dark Pilgrimage instead of the successes fortold in the Book of Babalon. So let's not make presumptions on the Will of another, shall we? For it may be that taking the challenge of filling the office of Beast is one's Will. It certainly is that.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
02/10/2009 7:17 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
Not really. If it's in your nature, then the boots simply fit. There is no "trying", there's just living according to your Will.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. However, historically speaking, Crowley spent five years in uncertainty from 1904 to 1909 before deciding that *he* could fill them himself. And even he didn't apparently do it sucessfully, as many of the prophecies of Liber Al Vel Legis went seemingly unfulfilled... and neither (apparently) did Jack Parsons, who underwent the Dark Pilgrimage instead of the successes fortold in the Book of Babalon. So let's not make presumptions on the Will of another, shall we?

Speaking of making presumptions on the Will of another, who are you to judge that Crowley and Parsons did not successfully follow theirs?

"Walterfive" wrote:
For it may be that taking the challenge of filling the office of Beast is one's Will. It certainly is that.

The only challenge that exists is to not be distracted by all the fantasies that pull a person away from one's Will. Thus, if filling the office of Beast is your Will, that office itself is not challenging, nor masochistic, nor some kind of indomitable feat. The difficulty arises when *not* doing it, or when convincing yourself you *shouldn't* or *can't* do it for some imaginary reasons. Or, as I said before, being the Beast or Scarlet Woman would seem tremendously difficult if you convinced yourself that is your Will when it really isn't.

Following one's Will, whatever that may be, is inherently not challenging, by definition. That's the point. It's your nature. You just do it, with as much ease as eating, pooping and sleeping.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
02/10/2009 9:33 pm  

Excuse me? I never said they didn't sucessfully follow their Will.

I said that Crowley appearantly didn't completely fill the bill as The Beast because he didn't fulfill the prophecies of Liber Al Vel Legis, a shortfalling that *many* before me have noted, up to and including Kenneth Grant. It's a valid observation-- they're there in Black & White.

Also valid is pointing out Crowley's efforts to obscure what actually happened in this respect, during the period of 1904-1910, I'd point you in the direction of David Hulse's "Genesis of the Book of the Law" Vol. II for an erudite outline of them, but it's sadly out of print.

Similarly, I said that Parsons didn't achieve the the successes fortold in the Book of Babalon-- a matter of simple observation-- he died in an explosion before those successes were achieved.

It might be someone's Will, such as Crowley's or Parsons', to pursue such objectives. Achieving them is a completely different matter. These are the apparent shortcomings of two of the greatest Magicians of the 20th Century. They were men, and not supermen. If they were Gods, is it because "there is no God but Man." Their successes were provisional.

Achieving one's Will is obviously not as simple a matter, or done with such "ease as eating, pooping and sleeping." The mere act of *discovering* one's True Will is an accomplishment that not one Magician in ten who starts out with the goal appears to achieve in the long run. Some people take decades of their lives to accomplish this, and there's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps Buddha finally achieved his Will and attained enlightenment after sitting under a Banyan Tree for a mere 49 days, but it didn't happen until he was 35, and had already spent many years in devotion and self-preparation.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1825
02/10/2009 10:13 pm  

The mere act of *discovering* one's True Will is an accomplishment that not one Magician in ten who starts out with the goal appears to achieve in the long run.

And sometimes this is due to being all embroiled in being a "Magician" as opposed to having a simple grasp of what "Discovering and Doing" one's Will entails. I think there are lots of things that purport to the fuel the Path to Attainment while actually encumbering it.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
02/10/2009 10:52 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
I said that Crowley appearantly didn't completely fill the bill as The Beast

Yes, you said that, in response to my statements about the situation where being the Beast is one's Will. Thus, your comments about Crowley and Parsons not successfully filling the role of the Beast were judgments about their ability to live according to their Wills. Or are you now claiming that your response to my post didn't actually have any relevance to anything I wrote?

To be clear: living according to one's Will *is* achieving one's Will. Judging someone's "success" in following his or her Will based on an arbitrary standard, such as "that book foretold X happening and this book prophecied Y happening, and those things didn't happen, therefore those people failed!" is a retreat into presumption and fantasy land. Failed at what? Accomplishing what the books said they should accomplish? How is a book's description of how becoming the Beast or Scarlet Woman might manifest more relevant than how those 'offices' naturally manifest through a person who is living according to his or her Will?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
05/10/2009 4:04 am  

hey, I'm a scarlet women. lol

"Nu conceals Had because He is everywhere in the Infinite, and She manifests Him for the same reason . . . Every individual manifests the whole; and the whole conceals every individual. The soul interprets the universe; and the universe veils the soul. Nature understands herself by becoming self-conscious in her units; and the consciousness loses its sense of separateness by dissolution in Her."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
05/10/2009 4:08 am  

"Why would anyone want to create a moonchild in the first place" lol!

Everyone thinks it would be a little devil.. or that's what it seems like. haha. Why the [Expletive deleted by moderator] would you wanna do that?! lol, I know... It's magnificent. that's why I want to have a conversation with Crowley. But I don't think he knew what he was doing most of the time. or that's what it seemed like, because he just worked the whole time. I wish I knew him.

Guess what I just heard!!! His last words were... "Sometimes I hate myself"... eeh? yeaaaaah..


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3948
05/10/2009 9:56 am  
"FergetTravleCo." wrote:
But I don't think he knew what he was doing most of the time. or that's what it seemed like, because he just worked the whole time. I wish I knew him.

I've always had the impession - based partly on his articularcy - that Crowley knew what he was doing most of the time.

"FergetTravleCo." wrote:
Guess what I just heard!!! His last words were... "Sometimes I hate myself"... eeh? yeaaaaah..

There's many versions of his last words or of his death. What is it that inspires you about these particular words?


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 319
05/10/2009 3:02 pm  

Walterfive wrote: "I said that Crowley apparently didn't completely fill the bill as The Beast because he didn't fulfill the prophecies of Liber Al Vel Legis..."

Not all of the verses address the prophet. Anyway it's far too early to judge...the Old Aeon didn't even get off the ground until three centuries in.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1825
05/10/2009 3:09 pm  

Guess what I just heard!!! His last words were... "Sometimes I hate myself"... eeh? yeaaaaah..

Highly doubt those were AC's last words based on all the available evidence and accounts. But if they were? What sane person doesn't soberly assess their life from time to time and, looking through the eyes of wisdom, find that past inclinations no longer gel with a refinement in consciousness?

Crowley had already well understood the infinitude of vicissitudes that make up any "self" there is to embrace or disdain.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
05/10/2009 10:15 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
I said that Crowley appearantly didn't completely fill the bill as The Beast

Yes, you said that, in response to my statements about the situation where being the Beast is one's Will. Thus, your comments about Crowley and Parsons not successfully filling the role of the Beast were judgments about their ability to live according to their Wills. Or are you now claiming that your response to my post didn't actually have any relevance to anything I wrote?

No, I'm stating that you obviously didn't understand what I meant. ๐Ÿ™„

"mika" wrote:
To be clear: living according to one's Will *is* achieving one's Will.

No, that rather puts the cart before the horse, and real life is rarely that linear any way. It may be my Will that a Pawn become a Queen in a chess-game. But in order for the change to actually occur, I must move the Pawn according to the rules of the game, prevent it from being captured, and move it all the way across the board to my Opponents back line. If I have done this before the game ends, only then have I achieved my Will concerning this pawn. If I am a skilled player, I might be running two or three gambits at the same time, only one of which might be "the Pawn becomes a Queen", another one of them might require me to sacrifice the Pawn in question-- one cannot know for sure until one's opponent has made his move(s) which gambit will bring the fruition of one's True Will. The means may change, the ends (winning the game) remain the same. And then there is the reproduction of effort to take into account-- a painter may Will to paint each painting, but only one will ultimately be their Masterpiece.

"mika" wrote:
Judging someone's "success" in following his or her Will based on an arbitrary standard, such as "that book foretold X happening and this book prophecied Y happening, and those things didn't happen, therefore those people failed!" is a retreat into presumption and fantasy land.

Viewing the historical and magickal record of Jack Parsons or Aleister Crowley objectively is hardly a 'retreat into presumption.' The records exist, written by the men themselves, and by those who knew them. The rulers by which they are measured were laid down by the great men themselves. One has only to read the records in question to draw conclusions based upon fact, not 'fantasy land.' Ipso Facto, a Baker is rated by the goods he bakes, a Mason by how straight his walls level and plane; ergo a Prophet is rated by the accuracy of his prophecies. This is hardly an 'arbitrary' standard, it is a standard that goes back literally Aeons to ancient Babylonia, when . Crowley brought us Liber L. Parsons brought us The Book of Babalon. If "There is no God but Man" then it stands to reason that one can surmise much about the messenger from the message he heralds. One does not have to limit ones self to Mr. Parsons or Uncle Al; enough of the teachings and sayings of both Jesus and Simon Magus exist to execute similar syllogisms-- all of them fell short of their aims.

"mika" wrote:
Failed at what? Accomplishing what the books said they should accomplish?

These books, if "There is no God but Man" are the product of their own Anima or Animus (if you're Jungian) or Super-Ego (if you're Freudian).
The prophecies in question therefore were their own. And they did not fulfill them.

"mika" wrote:
How is a book's description of how becoming the Beast or Scarlet Woman might manifest more relevant than how those 'offices' naturally manifest through a person who is living according to his or her Will?

That is a good question! As I understand it, on one level, the Book of the Law speaks directly to those who initially recieved the work, Crowley and Rose (this is what Kenneth Grant is talking about when he supposes that Crowley did not speak the Word of the Aeon), while on another more impersonal level it speaks to us today concerning those 'offices', if I understand your question correctly. (And it must be pointed out that the Holy Books all have different levels of meaning, one for a Neophyte, one for an Adeptus, and one for a Hermit/Magus) But it's not a question of how they "might manifest." Prophecies *are* "written in stone." Either they are fulfilled or they are not. Certainly, apologists may try to reinterpret them (as people are wont to do with Nostradamus, for example), but the words themselves remain unchanged.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
05/10/2009 10:59 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
It may be my Will that a Pawn become a Queen in a chess-game.

That's not Will, that's a desired result. Will is action, not the result of action.

"Walterfive" wrote:
one cannot know for sure until one's opponent has made his move(s) which gambit will bring the fruition of one's True Will. The means may change, the ends (winning the game) remain the same.

Patently obvious lust for results.

Any and every move you make is the fruition of your Will. How the game ultimately ends is irrelevant.

"Walterfive" wrote:
Ipso Facto, a Baker is rated by the goods he bakes, a Mason by how straight his walls level and plane; ergo a Prophet is rated by the accuracy of his prophecies.

A baker's skill at baking, a mason's skill at masonry, and a prophet's skill at prophesy are rated by the results of their work, however, none of those judgments regarding level of skill have any relation to whether or not the people doing the baking, masonry or prophecy are successfully living according to their "True Will". If a person's Will is to bake, and he bakes, then he is manifesting his Will, regardless of whether or not other people enjoy the fruits of his labor.

Again, living according to one's Will *is* achieving one's Will. The end results, if any, are irrelevant. To argue otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the nature of (and warning against) lusting for results.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 450
11/10/2009 7:34 pm  
"mika" wrote:
Again, living according to one's Will *is* achieving one's Will. The end results, if any, are irrelevant. To argue otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the nature of (and warning against) lusting for results.

While I very much disagree with Mika's last sentence, I am in complete agreement with her essential thesis, that "living according to one's Will *is* achieving one's Will." I would consider Crowley as responsible for some confusion regarding this issue, but mostly because he was - Prophet or not - also a cultural product of his times and a successor to a rather linear understanding of the nature of the Great Work as formulated in a bulk of the teaching of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. There is thus - in my current understanding - a continuous subtext that one may equate with 'the lust of result' in Crowley's opus: you do certain things and then certain results follow. I have always considered that some of the Buddhist teachings understood the nature of the practice (the Great Work) in the most sophisticated manner. Thus Dogen: you do not practice in order to become enlightened; the practice itself *is* enlightenment. Kensho is not "looking into one's self" - the *looking* itself is one's self. Consequently, to achieve Great Work means to be engaged in the Great Work. Practice and achievement are one and the same thing viewed from the two different angles.

And while I think that Crowley's writing is not always clear on the subject, there is no doubt in my mind that he realized this, that he knew this. And, occasionally, he was able to express it. As far as I am concerned, and if we don't count Holy Books as his conscious writing, I think that the whole of Crowley's mature philosophy is in 22 poems associated with 22 Tarot Atus - he published them twice, first time in The Heart of the Master, and second time in The Book of Thoth. The poem that corresponds to the Atu Magus states: "The True Self is the meaning of the True Will: know Thyself through Thy Way." Your way, your activity, the things you do, that is your Self and that is your Will. Our True Self, our Will, is not who we are, but what we do. In that sense, I agree with Mika that living according to one's Will *is* the achievement of one's Will. (I do now know nor claim, however, that Mika agrees with my interpretation.)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/10/2009 9:01 pm  
"Iskandar" wrote:
While I very much disagree with Mika's last sentence, I am in complete agreement with her essential thesis, that "living according to one's Will *is* achieving one's Will." I would consider Crowley as responsible for some confusion regarding this issue, but mostly because he was - Prophet or not - also a cultural product of his times and a successor to a rather linear understanding of the nature of the Great Work as formulated in a bulk of the teaching of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. There is thus - in my current understanding - a continuous subtext that one may equate with 'the lust of result' in Crowley's opus: you do certain things and then certain results follow.

The admonition of "lust of result" is often mistakenly read to promote a complete disinterest in results at all, but it doesn't mean anything like this. A statement that "the end results, if any, are irrelevant" is far too strong.

To continue an earlier analogy, one cannot sensibly play a game of chess without trying to win, since it is the objective of winning which provides the context within which a "good move" can be judged. In the same way, one can't sensibly learn to play a musical instrument without deliberately trying to get better at it. On an even more banal scale, nobody would ever drop a couple slices of bread into a toaster without having the end result of toast in mind.

The important point is that nobody makes the mistake of thinking that if they win this particular game of chess that they're playing right now, all their problems will go away. While you are playing, you definitely want to win, but it never occurs to you to think that winning this game will have much of any significance to your life once you've won it. Once it's won - or lost - it's done, and you move on to the next thing. It should be clear to anyone that although the objective of winning is of critical importance to playing a game of chess, it is the act of playing that is ultimately of worth to one's life - as a form of enjoyment, or intellectual stimulation, or whatever - and not the winning. You'd be suffering from "lust of result" if you started believing that there was something inherently valuable to winning games of chess in and of itself, which - naturally - very few people believe, not least because winning a game of chess is all the evidence you need to show you that there isn't.

This is often not the case with "spiritual practice". Certainly it is true that practice is directed towards an end. One might engage in meditation to improve concentration, or to engender a feeling of relaxation, or just to enjoy the process of meditation itself, for that matter. It is not indicative of "lust of result" to work towards an objective when you do such things. However, where people start going wrong is when they start believing that if they "practice" enough or if they "attain" to a particular level then they will become enlightened beings and all their problems will go away. They won't. Just like when you win a game of chess, all that will happen is that you'll be in a new place with new things to do; at that point, any "success" you had will be in your past, and it won't matter a whole lot to what you are going to do next.

All "lust of result" illustrates is the obvious truth that static things don't bring satisfaction or enjoyment. It doesn't mean that the end result is unimportant to what you are doing now and should be studiously ignored; it just means that the end result is not important in and of itself. Results are only valuable insofar as they provide context for action; once they are achieved, they really won't matter much to anyone, because you'll be acting in a different context, but a major part of "enjoying the journey" is indeed deliberately striving towards the goal. All "conquering lust of result" entails is realising that when your brain starts telling you that everything is going to be great if only you can achieve this result or another, it's telling you an outrageous fib. Realising this then naturally enables one to focus on the real life instead of the imaginary one, and enables one to prevent one illusory pipedream after another from continually distracting one's attention from what actually is happening now.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2009 7:45 pm  

One wonders at our tendency to fix hard and fast rules to matters so fluid and varied. At times the immediate and deliberate outcome of our activities is essential, while at other times it is totally irrelevant. Judgment of the actions or inactions of another should be made only in relation to our own concerns; so with Crowley and Parsons or anyone else. Sometimes seemingly trivial events will have tremendous importance to us, while at other times drawing such conclusions would be an overstatement of the facts.

The imposition of standardized codes of conduct, beyond "Do what thou wilt," properly understood at an individual level, or the imposition of universally applied boundaries of human behavior, and most especially of mandatory guidelines for the judgement of the conduct of others, are the antithesis of Thelema. It would be nice if life was that simple, and that such debate could ever be more than banter, but that is not the case. The best that can be done is to clear any major and obvious obstacles to individual liberty, and leave each individual to it.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
12/10/2009 9:41 pm  

Iskandar, that's pretty much what I was getting at. Yes, there is this pervasive attitude among hermetic magicians, not just that "you do certain things and then certain results follow", but that particular results *must* follow as indicators of "success". Hence the endless debates about whether or not Crowley really crossed the abyss or became the Beast (or whatever), and if he truly succeeded in his work, why did he die poor and a drug addict (and whatever).

Erwin, I appreciate your commentary on lust for results. Yes, my statement "the end results are irrelevant" was too extreme, or too broad. I meant specifically as an indicator of magical attainment. Naturally, end results are relevant for other reasons. Developing skills, playing games, basic human functioning... My point was, while I certainly wouldn't see a doctor who didn't pass the medical licensing exams, that failure doesn't provide any useful information regarding whether or not that person has achieved Master of the Temple (or whatever other magical experience).


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
13/10/2009 9:33 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
"Iskandar" wrote:
]

"mika" wrote:
Again, living according to one's Will *is* achieving one's Will. The end results, if any, are irrelevant. To argue otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the nature of (and warning against) lusting for results.

While I very much disagree with Mika's last sentence, I am in complete agreement with her essential thesis, that "living according to one's Will *is* achieving one's Will."

The admonition of "lust of result" is often mistakenly read to promote a complete disinterest in results at all, but it doesn't mean anything like this. A statement that "the end results, if any, are irrelevant" is far too strong.

Quite so. Frankly, her analogies in this thread have sometimes been rather sophmoric. 'Achieving one's Will is as easy as eating or pooping...' Certainly in saying "Will" one says "It is my Will to eat and drink." but the ritual does not end there-- one answers twice to the question "To what end?" taking the tranference of one's Will from the Microcosm to the Macrocosm. But I digress...

Certainly it is true that how one achieves one's Will is important. The ethos one embodies in achieving one's Will can be restraining, but it often focusing as well. In such a case, the ends do not justify the means. Sometimes the means are counterproductive to the cause: Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity, at least below the Abyss. Thesis cannot achieve antithesis. Magnetically polar opposites do not attract. They cannot. One can change the poles, but they remain opposites.

Therefore when one goes about living according to one's Will in a manner that is counterproductive to achieving one's Will, (as I have unfortunately seen well-intentioned brothers and sister do time and time again) living according to one's Will is emphatically not achieving one's Will. I specifically have in mind some of our substance addicted brothers and sisters, who merely substitute one addiction for another, or replace one self-destructive habit for another equally as destructive, most often in the name of their Will: Recovery or Sobriety; although I suppose the same stone could be cast at those with Sexual Addictions.

Some people may think this is a harsh point of view, but I can see no point in making a difference between one crutch and another crutch. However, these *are* the complications that life sometimes hands one.

"Erwin" wrote:
To continue an earlier analogy, one cannot sensibly play a game of chess without trying to win, since it is the objective of winning which provides the context within which a "good move" can be judged. In the same way, one can't sensibly learn to play a musical instrument without deliberately trying to get better at it. On an even more banal scale, nobody would ever drop a couple slices of bread into a toaster without having the end result of toast in mind.

The important point is that nobody makes the mistake of thinking that if they win this particular game of chess that they're playing right now, all their problems will go away.

Erwin, that is very appropo advice to the matter of addiction.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
13/10/2009 11:46 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
Certainly it is true that how one achieves one's Will is important.

Important in what way, exactly? "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". The whole of the Law does not address *how* you do your Will, it does not even address the concept of some ultimate level of "achievement" of your Will, it simply states that you *do* it. That is all.

*Doing* is the whole of the law. If you are living according to your will, you are doing your will, thus you are, by definition, achieving your will.

Where, specifically, do you think "how one achieves one's Will" is addressed in Thelema docs or by Crowley?

"Walterfive" wrote:
Therefore when one goes about living according to one's Will in a manner that is counterproductive to achieving one's Will.

Are you seriously claiming that it's possible to simultaneously live according to your Will and at the same time live in a manner that's counterproductive to achieving your Will? That's really what you believe? You honestly don't see a contradiction in that statement?


ReplyQuote
Share: