Andrew Standish, ak...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Andrew Standish, aka "Amado Crowley"


 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

I just read the book "Mantauk Revisited" by Preston Nichols and Peter Moon. They talk about (among many things) the interacton of Amado Crowley -- a supposed illegitimate son of Aleister.

Has anyone read that book -- or any of the books by Amado Crowley??


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

yup- the Montauk books are a trilogy, and Amado's first mention of anything to do with it only *followed* the first one.... I have done a lot of academic research on Amado and 99.9% of his story does not add up. Proceed with all caution. He has a website, which is "interesting"


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

This may be a little blunt perhaps, but "Amado Crowley" really is a tool of the highest order. Some time ago a researcher attempted to trace the existence of a son of Crowley's (the one purported to be Amado). Ther was no evidence whatsoever, no photos, nada. Amado has previously stated times/dates etc when he was "taught" by his "father" - unfortunately Crowley's diaries fail to correlate in the slightest (and as we all know, Crowley was quite anal about recording *everything* in his diary).

Read the stuff on his website....If this is an Occult Master, then I'm the illegitimate offspring of Franz Bardon and Dion Fortune. Unless I missed something, there is not one piece of actual information on magick on the whole site - just background fluff and a great deal of huff 'n' puff trying to persuade that casual (read 'unwary' or 'undiscriminating') reader that he does, indeed, possess the knowledge to back up his grandiose claims. The sad thing is that it would appear that "Mr Crowley" somewhat believes his extraordinary claims - I hope he gets better soon (I'm assuming he's still alive and kicking and duping).

Love is the law, love under will.

Todd


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"fiat_lux_777" wrote:
Some time ago a researcher attempted to trace the existence of a son of Crowley's (the one purported to be Amado). Ther was no evidence whatsoever, no photos, nada.

93 All

My wife has just pointed out to me that the researcher was Ronald Hutton, the book "Triumph of the Moon".

93 93/93

Todd


ReplyQuote
mortimer
(@mortimer)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 32
 

Amado is a clown. End of f*cking story.

His books are appalling rubbish and, if I am not mistaken, he's the main reason Pete Carroll turned his back on Thelema and founded Chaos Magick.


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
 

Gerald Suster told me same story about Amado and Pete Caroll more than 10 years ago.

"mortimer" wrote:
Amado is a clown. End of f*cking story.

His books are appalling rubbish and, if I am not mistaken, he's the main reason Pete Carroll turned his back on Thelema and founded Chaos Magick.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

i had a very unpleasant email fight with two of Amado's devotees late last year- they were threatening me with legal action about some of my written-up (but unpublished) research about Amado that *they had not even seen*...... sigh......

Amado has, in general, been very helpful in answering questions and sending me unpublished material, but my conclusion is still that he's no relation and never met Aleister. Hope to get the full PhD published sometime in 2005 or early 2006, btw

dave


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

What happened with Pete Carroll 😕
Pardon the ignorance but havent heard about this.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Greetings

"achad" wrote:
yup- the Montauk books are a trilogy, and Amado's first mention of anything to do with it only *followed* the first one.... I have done a lot of academic research on Amado and 99.9% of his story does not add up. Proceed with all caution. He has a website, which is "interesting"

Anyone got any details where I might get a copy please?

Regards

Argentum Star


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Greetings

"achad" wrote:
i had a very unpleasant email fight with two of Amado's devotees late last year- they were threatening me with legal action about some of my written-up (but unpublished) research about Amado that *they had not even seen*...... sigh......

Amado has, in general, been very helpful in answering questions and sending me unpublished material, but my conclusion is still that he's no relation and never met Aleister. Hope to get the full PhD published sometime in 2005 or early 2006, btw

dave

Please relate questions and answers. Thank you.

Regards

Argentum Star


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

the Preston Nichols books are i think out of print, try abebooks.com or a general google search


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

G M Kelly says:
"Amado", in his book, frequently rationalizes his reasons for not giving dates and names that would, if his stories were true, verify those stories; he frequently justifies his attempts to be mysterious with tales of what can only be described as paranoid delusions, and throughout it all he says "trust me". Well, if you did you would be a fool for doing so. Even if it was proven that "Amado Crowley" is the biological son of Aleister Crowley, his book proves that he is not a Thelemite, he does not understand Thelema, he does not understand Crowley nor his teachings, and by studying the works of Aleister Crowley, one might for ones self discover more of his "secrets" than would be possible from reading or listening to the senseless babble of the man who calls himself "Amado Crowley".

However, whatever our view of Mr Standish he does have a following. Do his apparently wild claims conceal a more subtle motivation? Even if he is lost in a wilderness of his own fabrications does this matter? Indeed is the chaos of his logic but a means of identifying those worthy of enlightenment? Does he not offer a path of enlightenment that might not otherwise be found?

Let us not concern ourselves with his parentage but rather rejoice if eyes are opened through his influence.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"blacksabbath" wrote:
G M Kelly says: "Amado", in his book, (etc)

Many thanks for this item.

Bill


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"blacksabbath" wrote:
Let us not concern ourselves with his parentage but rather rejoice if eyes are opened through his influence.

I think that this is an admirable statement to make.
Why are there so many criticisms of Amado by those who really no very little about him, or his teachings?

I understand that some people claim to have researched into his teachings and life, but I think it would be fair to say that they are mostly from a traditional 'Thelemic' standpoint; yet Amado himself claims to have been passed those teachings for which the traditional Thelema was just 'sugar coating'. Far fairer to investigate Amado on his own terms, or at the very least from an objective stance.

Usually the criticisms of Amado fall into one or more of the following :
a) His books are not well written.
b) His names and dates don't 'add up'
c) Aleister never mentioned him
d) There are no photos, or 'external' evidence
e) He doesn't join in with / understand the Thelemic Culture as defined by the OTO
f) He doesn't offer 'proof'.
g) His views seem 'outdated', or delusional.

Some of the more open-minded readers may be intested in the following considerations :

a) This is a matter of opinion, surely; and anyway, it is content rather than style that should be judged. There are many illiterate 'gurus' around the world that would not be criticised on the quality of their literary output. Anyway, it seems clear to me that Amado's 'conversational' tone (which is perhaps what most pretentious readers object to) is deliberate and an indication of compassion rather than ineptitude. As for actual content, there seems to me to be a lot more tangible statements, free from meaningless 'symbols' in Amado's works than a lot of other contempory occult literature. And after all that, isn't it reasonable to think that - just like Aleister - he would have focussed his main teachings privately to his own students ? Of these, of course, there has been no criticism.

b) It seems to me that this is just a non-starter. Amado explicitly points out in his books that dates and names have been changed. As for the geographical and historical details; I don't know, not being a historian. I don't think it is serious issue, however, because even if they are slightly innacurate, memory (especially old memories of one so young) is liable to accidental falsification and inaccuracies. The charitable accusation in this area would be an imperfect human memory; but still, I have never seen any actual documented proof from anyone as to actually where Amado's geographical or historical claims are wrong.

c) If Amado's claims ARE true, then Aleister would never have written openly about him: he was the 'secret chalice' who was to remain hidden until he heard the call. If Aleister DID hoax Liber AL vel Legis, then it would have been wise not to spill the beans to soon, eh ? Again, there is no need to arrogantly assume that we know what Aleister would or wouldn't have done when on Amado's own terms, he explains the absence of explicit references in his diaries etc. And by the way: Aleister's diaries are largely in code, and contain hidden references.

d) Well, Amado claims to have been raised in financially difficult circumstances, so one can understand the lack of photographic evidence - and this is augmented by Amado's loyalty to Aleister's admonition to remain hidden. As for 'external' evidence, such as what ? No one could claim to have proven that official documents DON'T exist, since a negative cannot be proven; and again, all significant dates and names have been obscured, it seems.

e) To my mind, Amado clearly understands Thelema; especially the extent to which it is tongue-in-cheek. On Amado's own terms, the details of Thelema are largely irrelevant - it being the Truth that is important. Should Aleister be criticised for not teaching in the manner of Levi ?

f) Those people who have complained that Amado has not offered 'proof' should confront two basic questions: first, what level of 'proof' would satisfy them, given they loyalty to the Infallibility of Liber Al ? second, why would Amado offer his 'proof' to those he sees as closed minded and antithetical to his teachings ? He says clearly in his books that he has no time for arrogance, and teaches only those who are humble enough to see his light.
His students presumably don't hang around for no-reason at all: one might assume that sufficient proof has been offered to those sufficiently open.

g) Well, didn't Aleister's ? Should we ask every prophet to agree with his teacher on every point ? Didn't Aleister extol the virtues of working with the times, and thinking for oneself ? I'd be more suspicious if Amado just rehashed what Aleister said. Also, didn't Aleister's public writings act as both a 'test' and a 'sheild' ? Let us ask: against which type of person, or entity ?

After all that: it'd be fair to mention a few 'clues' that Aleister DID leave that point to Amado's authenticity:

1) The author's note of Moonchild clearly hints that he created a secret Magical Child, and was ostentatious about a 'false' Magical Child. I don't know whether frater OIVIO/Achad was deliberately made out to be the 'heir', but I think I'm right in saying Aleister changed his mind about him. If so, that leaves the distinct possibility that Aleister did have a 'secret' heir hidden away. Amado is the only one to have claimed this, and it was published during the year of Amado's conception.

2) The Book of the Law was described as a hoax by Aleister. Explicitly in The Comment (re-read it with an open mind, and you'll see that this is the clear message). And implicitly in the description of it's genesis (should we really believe that those chapters took an hour to scribble down ? should we really believe that the Messenger would allow verses of Holy Writ to be re-worded on a whim ? etc etc)

3) The book of the law speaks about a magical child. At a stretch this could be interpreted as 'occult' child, or in translation 'hidden child', but at the end of the 3rd chapter "as the sun of midnight is ever the son" is quite a whopping hint, I think. Oh, and 'from no expected house cometh that child' ? hmmm

4) I believe that the name of every Holy Book is in pure Latin, except constructed names. Liber Al would be the exception, unless 'al' is a Latin word too. If this is so, then the only two candidates would be alius (abreviated as 'al' as in 'et al') or alter. In translation this would render the full title as 'The other book, or possibly the law' (Liber al vel legis). Amado, rather mysteriously referneces an obscure detail of etymology in one of his books (Wrath, I think), showing that the word for 'second' should have been 'other'. Now, as we know, Aleister was keen on etymology and we should assume that he would have known this. Should we perhaps then interpret the name of LL as 'the second book' ? In which case, which was the FIRST ? The book of Desolation, perhaps ? But, oh no, what an abomination that would be !

That'll do for now, I've written enough and my hands are tired. But let it be last said that this is the tip of the iceberg, except perhaps to point out that there are surprisingly few EX-student's of Amado's with such negative views of him !

We as Occultists don't need emnity amongst ourselves: we have enough trouble keeping our name clean in mainstream society without having to deal in internal back-biting. Shouldn't we all take the view as expressed so elegantly by 'Black Sabbath' and just humbly recognise that there is a part of each of us that knows it does not know ? We might actually have a chance of realising Aleister's and the other Masters' dreams that way.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Who are you arae_aquae ?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

93 arae_aquae,

He says clearly in his books that he has no time for arrogance, and teaches only those who are humble enough to see his light.

Hmmm.... and only those who trust him. A lot. 😕

FYI, the "AL" of "Liber AL" is Hebrew, אל, not Latin, and is pronounced "el". It may be of Sumerian origin. It occurs frequently in the bible, as well as being suffixed to names of angels such as "Raphael" and prefixed in the god-name "Elohim", and is related to similar words in Chaldee, Aramaic and Arabic. The same spelling "AL" can mean "not" (as well as by reversal in the word "LA", which taken together is/was considered by many -- including Crowley -- to be the key of the book). Of course this would be regarded as mumbo-jumbo by "Amado", but then the universe is a magickal mirror...

G.M. Kelly has posted a review of one of "Amado"/Andrew Standish's books here. 'Nuff said.

93 93/93
Ian


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"VictimofChanges" wrote:
Who are you arae_aquae ?

Well, just in case you are wondering: I am not Amado.

I am someone who is very disappointed about the way in which some Occultists are being so factional and aggressive to each other - especially some people's attitudes towards Amado.

Reading even just his public material, he seems like a good man; a man all the better and more noble for his refusal to embrace pride, and his dismissal of power-games. He speaks as a true sage. No one should be attacked so groundlessly as he has been done, when all he seems to be doing is teaching truth and wisdom.

I can understand why some Thelemites have reacted they way they have: quite simply, Amado makes explicit that the sub-culture and 'mumbo-jumbo' of Occultism and traditional Thelema should not be taken quite so seriously as they are sometimes are. This reaction is not excusable though, Aleister took the whole thing tounge-in-cheek and the admonition not to mistake the finger for the moon has been around for a while too. A lot of people could learn a lot from Amado, but they chose to dig their heels in and call names without getting to understand him for themselves. Such a shame.

I don't imagine Amado feels the loss very much though: speaking for myself, when I have seen people behave offensively against innocent third parties, I am quietly glad that I did not make them my friends.

I read the review by Kelly that the other poster linked to, by the way. I doubt the author has actually had any contact with Amado or his students; it sounds like a gut-reaction-review to me: I believe my previous post covers all his points quite nicely.

Incidentally, I did notice a page on Thelema on the same site - strange how some of the sentiments jarred with me after reading that review...

"it also means that one is not permitted to interfere with the Will of another. This tends to make the GENUINE Thelemite one of the most polite and law-abiding members of society."

"the TRUE Thelemite will only knock down or push aside the opponent if there is no way around that person, who, by his or her actions, PROVES that in all probability he or she is NOT doing his or her Will"

"A GENUINE Thelemite cannot help him- or herself and MUST feel compassion for all since the Thelemite REAL-izes that "every number is infinite: there is no difference" (CCXX I.4), that we are all, in fact, closer than brothers and sisters."

"Anyone who objects to the Law of Thelema, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law", must either be objecting out of ignorance and arrogance or because he or she is religiously intolerant"

"which implies an essential bond of love, respect and fraternity, struggle out of love rather than hate, and at least the modicum of politeness and consideration due a member of the same fraternity...The human fraternity. "The Brotherhood of Man". "

But perhaps these sentiments don't apply to teachers who try to give constructive criticism ?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

excuse the double post, but it seemed appropriate to stick this one near the others on this topic: i thought the following link might prove significant to open-minded readers. it is fundamentally 'pro' thelema, but i'd like to draw particular attention to a couple of the paragraphs under the 'criticisms' section of the discussion: it casts reasonable doubt upon the 'official line' of the 'reception' of the book of the law, and mentions the (now well-known) april fool's day connexion. given amado's teachings, i should think these connexions might be seen as 'significant'.

http://www.geocities.com/firebrand93t/cairo.html

given the current topic, i thought this might prompt people to start their own independent research. i have no conscious association with the author of the linked site, nor did i read it in depth; i just happened to note the previously mentioned section.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

93,

This is ridiculous. All Standish ever talks about is how much everyone's supposed to loathe him... which is simply a ploy to try to prevent people from criticising him, as well as being a good way of making out he's famous and controversial when he's not. In fact, very few people (if any) actually give a damn about the bloke (check out the forum on his website if you can stand the tedium); and this conspiracy nonsense he puts about has no foundation in fact.

Sorry, Thelemites just aren't this gullible, and I for one am not going to play this boring game. What's more, I couldn't care less if it feeds Standish's paranoia or gives him a scrap to help him flesh out his insanity. This forum is for the discussion of subjects related to Thelema, and so far as I can see, Standish is neither a Thelemite nor espouses any views which discernably relate to Thelema. Topic closed.

(BTW, arae_aquae, I see you've just mentioned the nonsense about the "faking" of the reception of Liber AL. The various theories have been conclusively debunked both here and on the T93-L list. The relevant link in this case is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelema93-l/message/16027. Check your facts.)

93 93/93
Ian

P.S. If anyone does have anything useful or interesting to add to this Standish thread then Paul or myself can be contacted via pm & the thread can of course be opened again. Propaganda for Standish doesn't count 😉


ReplyQuote
Share: