Crowley's Originali...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley's Originality  

Page 2 / 3
  RSS

Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/09/2011 12:55 am  
"Nomad" wrote:
My apologies to Shiva and Azidonis. It seems I have made a great miss by presenting a viewpoint that is at odds with their preconceived notions. Their views are, quite clearly, derived purely from direct experience, and are completely verifiable by scientific methods.

I humbly kowtow to their absolute authority on this matter, and retreat humbly away to find someone to examine my head.

Passive aggressive doesn't suit you.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/09/2011 1:04 am  

Apart from these major culprits, whom the door should hit in the ass on the way out:

"50. Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!
51. With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.
52. I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
53. With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
54. Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds."

We have these guys which can always use a good paddling thereafter:

Lao-tzu, Siddhartha, Krishna, Tahuti, Mosheh, Dionysus, Mohammed, To Mega Therion, Hermes, Pan, Priapus, Osiris, Melchizedek, Khem, Amoun, Mentu, Heracles, Orpheus, Odysseus, Vergilius, Catullus, Martialis, Rabelais, Swinburne, Apollonius Tyanæus, Simon Magus, Manes, Pythagoras, Basilides, Valentinus, Bardesanes, Hippolytus, Merlin, Arthur, Kamuret, Parzival, Carolus Magnus, William of Schyren, Frederick of Hohenstaufen, Roger Bacon, Jacobus Burgundus Molensis the Martyr, Christian Rosencreutz, Ulrich von Hutten, Paracelsus, Michael Maier, Roderic Borgia Pope Alexander the Sixth, Jacob Boehme, Francis Bacon Lord Verulam, Andrea, Robertus de Fluctibus, Johannes Dee, Sir Edward Kelly, Thomas Vaughan, Elias Ashmole, Molinos, Adam Weishaupt, Wolfgang von Goethe, William Blake, Ludovicus Rex Bavariae, Richard Wagner, Alphonse Louis Constant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Hargrave Jennings, Carl Kellner, Forlong dux, Sir Richard Payne Knight, Paul Gaugin, Sir Richard Francis Burton, Doctor Gerard Encausse, Doctor Theodor Reuss, Sir Aleister Crowley.

(They should be hyperlinked here, if not thelemapedia does)


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/09/2011 1:17 am  
"666TSAEB" wrote:
Apart from these major culprits, whom the door should hit in the ass on the way out:

"50. Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!
51. With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.
52. I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
53. With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
54. Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds."

We have these guys which can always use a good paddling thereafter:

Lao-tzu, Siddhartha, Krishna, Tahuti, Mosheh, Dionysus, Mohammed, To Mega Therion, Hermes, Pan, Priapus, Osiris, Melchizedek, Khem, Amoun, Mentu, Heracles, Orpheus, Odysseus, Vergilius, Catullus, Martialis, Rabelais, Swinburne, Apollonius Tyanæus, Simon Magus, Manes, Pythagoras, Basilides, Valentinus, Bardesanes, Hippolytus, Merlin, Arthur, Kamuret, Parzival, Carolus Magnus, William of Schyren, Frederick of Hohenstaufen, Roger Bacon, Jacobus Burgundus Molensis the Martyr, Christian Rosencreutz, Ulrich von Hutten, Paracelsus, Michael Maier, Roderic Borgia Pope Alexander the Sixth, Jacob Boehme, Francis Bacon Lord Verulam, Andrea, Robertus de Fluctibus, Johannes Dee, Sir Edward Kelly, Thomas Vaughan, Elias Ashmole, Molinos, Adam Weishaupt, Wolfgang von Goethe, William Blake, Ludovicus Rex Bavariae, Richard Wagner, Alphonse Louis Constant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Hargrave Jennings, Carl Kellner, Forlong dux, Sir Richard Payne Knight, Paul Gaugin, Sir Richard Francis Burton, Doctor Gerard Encausse, Doctor Theodor Reuss, Sir Aleister Crowley.

(They should be hyperlinked here, if not thelemapedia does)

I was waiting for a list of Saints to show up. 🙂 What thing(s) do you think they all have in common that sets them apart from everyone else?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5048
15/09/2011 1:34 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
What thing(s) do you think they all have in common that sets them apart from everyone else?

(1) Crowley liked them, for some reason, so he put their names in the Gnostic Mass. Not that he had any "charter" with their names listed as being the undisputed ancestors ("lineage holders") of the Gn.'. Mass.

(2) Mostly, they were (apparently) initiates. Some were myths, probably based on some human, somewhere at some time.

(3) I would guess they all wrote a book or inscribed a scroll or did a deed that demonstrated spiritual concepts in a material world.

(4) They were not different from "everyone else," although they could be "set apart" from MOST of the other folks due to the reasons given above. I say this because I can come up with a list twice as long that meets the above criteria ... and so can you.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/09/2011 1:56 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
What thing(s) do you think they all have in common that sets them apart from everyone else?

(1) Crowley liked them, for some reason, so he put their names in the Gnostic Mass. Not that he had any "charter" with their names listed as being the undisputed ancestors ("lineage holders") of the Gn.'. Mass.

Ya, this is mainly why I avoided putting the Saints up myself. I figured if we were discussing Crowley's credentials, unless he is proven to have those credentials (which I'm slowly trying to draw out of the silence here), his list means close to nothing.

Likewise, if one accepts the "V.V.V.V.V. isn't Crowley" idea, one then has to separate everything produced from "V.V.V.V.V. and onward (including To Mega Therion)", as not Crowley's. We can see that To Mega Therion is on the list of Saints, but Edward Alexander (Aleister) Crowley is not. So if you actually do that picking apart, you are left with a man who made a list of Saints, who were

"Shiva" wrote:
(2) Mostly, they were (apparently) initiates. Some were myths, probably based on some human, somewhere at some time.

but he himself was not on the list. Of course, being that Crowley was a man who used the mottoes V.V.V.V.V. and To Mega Therion, he finally makes it onto his own list.

"Shiva" wrote:
(3) I would guess they all wrote a book or inscribed a scroll or did a deed that demonstrated spiritual concepts in a material world.

I know what you mean by this, but it's worthy of note that these people did not write just any "book, scroll, or deed that demonstrated spiritual concepts in a material world." If that were the only criteria, the modern age list of Saints would be just huge. So there has to be a certain quality to their actions/deeds that gives them the credentials needed to be a list like this, and some of those names are quite high on the "mystical/magickal food chain", indicating that the others too must have made some significant spiritual contribution to humanity. whatever that contribution may have been.

Further, since we have previously demonstrated some of Crowley's contributions, we can see that he too fits the bill of significant spiritual contributions to humanity. But surely, that's not all, is it?

"Shiva" wrote:
(4) They were not different from "everyone else," although they could be "set apart" from MOST of the other folks due to the reasons given above. I say this because I can come up with a list twice as long that meets the above criteria ... and so can you.

Ya, I could probably make quite a list, just from people I've met in my own life, let alone read about in Eastern traditions, names that Crowley was either unaware of, or for some reason or another decided not to include into his list of Saints.

Assuming he was unaware of some of those names, one cannot fault him for not including them. But if he was aware of them, he either purposefully omitted, or legitimately forgot to include them for one reason or another. Perhaps they didn't quite fit the bill in some manner, according to Crowley. Then again, Crowley could have put anyone onto that list that he wanted to, or omitted anyone that he wanted, as it was his list.

I wonder if some of those people would have put Crowley on theirs.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
15/09/2011 2:23 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Nomad" wrote:
My apologies to Shiva and Azidonis. It seems I have made a great miss by presenting a viewpoint that is at odds with their preconceived notions. Their views are, quite clearly, derived purely from direct experience, and are completely verifiable by scientific methods.

I humbly kowtow to their absolute authority on this matter, and retreat humbly away to find someone to examine my head.

Passive aggressive doesn't suit you.

While I don't support Nomads viewpoint re. V.V.V.V.V.* at all I do feel that Shiva's semantic argument pitting "believe" against "know" is little more than a rhetorical flourish. I expected better.

As for the rest: "World Teacher" is open to far too many differing definitions to have any real meaning, unless you care to clearly define the limits of the term as you are using it. Crowley's list of "Saints" is likewise a personal and idiosyncratic list based on his own opinion and prejudices (I'd bet that at different stages of his career he would have included or excluded different names).

As I have no personal investment in seeing AC as especially elevated (he is one of a great many thinkers and explorers into the numinous that I find of interest but I tend to arrange these on a horizontal plane of 'differences' and not a vertical heirarchical scale of 'value') I am going to observe this thread with no further comment to avoid muddying the water for those who (quite legitimately) feel differently.

*Re: the originality of V.V.V.V.V. - I am pretty sure I have seen the same acronym in a pre-AC context - possibly an alchemical illustration - though as I can't provide a reference (and it could stand for several different things) I'll assume that I dreamt it. 🙂


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/09/2011 6:44 pm  
"amadan-De" wrote:
As I have no personal investment in seeing AC as especially elevated (he is one of a great many thinkers and explorers into the numinous that I find of interest but I tend to arrange these on a horizontal plane of 'differences' and not a vertical heirarchical scale of 'value')

Ultimately they are all one in the same, the main difference being their approach, and which type of student adheres to them.

This thread was not designed to "elevate" Crowley. How is it possible to elevate someone who claimed to be an Ipsissimus? The thread is simply designed to pull Crowley's core spirituality from out of the rest of well, "Crowley".

With that in mind, the aim has been 1) to establish what made him a spiritual teacher, if at all, 2) establish whether or not he fits in with other spiritual teachers. Surely, there will be more points to arise.

It's not about elevating Crowley, it's about proving his validity, and the validity of his teachings.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/09/2011 7:14 pm  
"amadan-De" wrote:
As I have no personal investment in seeing AC as especially elevated (he is one of a great many thinkers and explorers into the numinous that I find of interest but I tend to arrange these on a horizontal plane of 'differences' and not a vertical heirarchical scale of 'value') I am going to observe this thread with no further comment to avoid muddying the water for those who (quite legitimately) feel differently.

Personal exception taken and withdrawal from discussion duly noted. Thanks.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
15/09/2011 8:40 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
How is it possible to elevate someone who claimed to be an Ipsissimus?

By validating the claim? Lord alone knows how you'd determine it's truth though.

"Azidonis" wrote:
It's not about elevating Crowley, it's about proving his validity, and the validity of his teachings.

Easy for you to say, hope the others play ball. 😀
btw - That chili post is wonderful. May have to compile the 'Thoughts of Chairman Azidonis' from your posts - you give good clarity.

"Camlion" wrote:
Personal exception taken and withdrawal from discussion duly noted. Thanks.

You are very welcome.

Toodle-Pip!


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/09/2011 10:36 pm  
"amadan-De" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
How is it possible to elevate someone who claimed to be an Ipsissimus?

By validating the claim? Lord alone knows how you'd determine it's truth though.

Ya, I'm just saying if he was an Ipsissimus, he cannot possibly be elevated any higher, is all. 🙂 The intnetion of the thread is not to put Crowley on a pedestal.

"amadan-De" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
It's not about elevating Crowley, it's about proving his validity, and the validity of his teachings.

Easy for you to say, hope the others play ball. 😀

Me too... I'm trying. I believe that if Crowley can eventually become validated in so many ways, we might actually be able to see college courses on "Thelema", and such. As it is, one of my professors, a Dr. specializing in Eastern studies, once advised me to, "Stay away from Crowley, or if you use him as a source, be very careful." That is to say, if you are going to do it, be scholarly, but I took it to mean also that he had submissions in the past that weren't quite so.

I took a course on Contemporary Religious Studies, and it was focused around the works of Joseph Campbell. All credit due to Campbell, but there was so much more that could have been added to such a course by at least acknowledging Crowley.

I'm not saying his name should be mainstream or anything, or maybe it should be. I just think that if he is indeed in the same category as some of the other great spiritual teachers mankind has seen, we should find a way to point that out, and can start by pointing out what makes him a part of that class of people.

"amadan-De" wrote:
btw - That chili post is wonderful. May have to compile the 'Thoughts of Chairman Azidonis' from your posts - you give good clarity.

Thanks. I dunno what I would be Chairman of? Wookies? I could be Chairman of Wookies, but I know absolutely nothing about them expect that they are hairy, bipedal, and make weird noises... oh, and don't they carry guns? 🙂


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5048
16/09/2011 5:11 am  
"amadan-De" wrote:
... I do feel that Shiva's semantic argument pitting "believe" against "know" is little more than a rhetorical flourish. I expected better.

Sorry to have not met your expectations. I am not sure what "rhetorical flourish" means. You see, I have a Pavlovian response that is triggered by the word "believe." I re-read the post in question (maybe not "in question," but perhaps "under the microscope") and I thought I even justified (back-up, reinforced) my position with a Crowley quote.

So, I have done the same thing that Nomad did. He stated his position based on some other guy's book. I "backed" up my position with a reference to another guy's book. I am the pot, calling the kettle Black.

On the other hand, I believe 🙄 that people who believe things that they read in books need to be awakened. Unfortunately, (or fortunately), this is not a "teaching" website. On the third hand, as I stated, people who believe in Jesus, V-5, and the Virgin Mary, belong in some church - or they should attend the "reality check" that I prescribed.

Did you know that Buddha's mother was impregnated by a cozmic elephant with 6 tusks? [nic?]["number in-correct?]

Let me re-phraze my pozition:

V.V.V.V.V. was that level of Aleister Crowley's consciousness at what we call Binah. As such, he/it is not subject to any scientific proof. However, V.V.V.V.V. has disappeared along with Mr. Crowley and his many other names and mottos.

This is not to say that V.V.V.V.V. will not be back again amongst us, or our descendants, at some time in the future. However, it is likely that he/she (the members of the A.'.A.'. are women) will probably not be using the same name (V-5).

Returning to the topic: A.C. was original (unique) in that he had a buddhic sheath called V.V.V.V.V. - At least I never saw or heard about V-5 before, anywhere, even in Eastern scrolls.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/09/2011 9:01 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
V.V.V.V.V. was that level of Aleister Crowley's consciousness at what we call Binah. As such, he/it is not subject to any scientific proof. However, V.V.V.V.V. has disappeared along with Mr. Crowley and his many other names and mottos.

(Does “who am I” mean who I am?)

The ring of V.V.V.V.V.

"And the voice comes: Why art thou there who art here? Hast thou not the sign of the number, and the seal of the name, and the ring of the eye? Thou wilt not."

25th Aethyr

(Of the ring of the eye)

16. For the Magistry of this Opus is a secret magistry; and the sign of the master thereof is a certain ring of lapis-lazuli with the name of my master, who am I, and the Eye in the Midst thereof.

Liber LXV, V. 16

___________________________________________________________

And just for fun:

V FOR VENDETTA

Written by

Larry and Andy Wachowski

Based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore

INT. SHADOW GALLERY

Evey, alone in the Shadow Gallery, stares up at the
inscription above the crooked staircase.

EVEY
V, v, v, v, v.

V
I hear your summons, my lady. And
obey.

She jumps, V suddenly appearing behind her.

EVEY
Oh, V, you scared me.

She turns back to the carving.

EVEY
I was reading the inscription.
What is it?

V
A Latin quotation. A motto. "Vi
veri veniversum vivus vici." "By
the power of truth, I, while
living, have conquered the
universe."

She nods.

EVEY
Yes, I suppose you have. This
place is the only universe I have
right now.

V
Does that bother you?

EVEY
I don't know. I'm so grateful to
you -- I just feel I should help
you, you know, the way you're
helping me. I mean, that's the
deal, isn't it?

V drifts over to the big old Wurlitzer, fingers scanning the
song list.

V
No deals, Evey. Not unless you
want them.

She looks up at the inscription as an old blues song begins
to play.

EVEY
I think I do. Part of me wants to
stay here forever and never have to
face what's going on outside. But
that's not right. Is it? That's
not taking responsibility. Not
conquering my universe.

She turns to him.

EVEY
I want to help you, V. I want to
do something. Can we make a deal?

V
Yes. I think we can make a deal if
you like. I think I know a way you
could help me very soon indeed.

Evey smiles nervously.

EVEY
Good. That's that, then.

The blues song curls in the air around them like a heavy
incense.

EVEY
V, you said that Latin thing was a
quote. Who said it?

V
Nobody you'd have heard of. A
German gentleman named Dr. John
Faust.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5048
17/09/2011 2:10 pm  
"666TSAEB" wrote:
Does “who am I” mean who I am? "...with the name of my master, who am I, and the Eye in the Midst thereof."

Without a "?" after who am I, I would say this is mystical lingo for "it's me!"

Surely, I musy have read this long ago, but who I am [me] obviously does not have a photographic memory. Anyway, you have found the "proof."

"Proof" is in quotes because this "proves" nothing, because it's merely hearsay. But then it's written hearsay (heresy?) from the man himself, and as such it surely must be one of the keys to the mysteries.

Anyway, good show. You have won an all-expenses-paid trip to Lhasa - if you can leave in the next 8 hours.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
17/09/2011 7:05 pm  

good show

Agreed! I laughed outloud at the end of that post. Poor post-mortem AC will be hit from every angle in a deconstructive duck-shoot. I think there is a liberation in this target practice...the "Demon Crowley" has its reflex in the "Angel Crowley." Grovelings before "The Prophet." Submission to the "authority" of "666." It's just a reality tunnel, albeit a much better one than that offered by the dominant religions of the world. Still, like all orthodoxies, it will bind and restrict the individual and idiosyncratic genius called by many names (including True Will).

I recall running into the adage "If you meet the Buddha on the road..." I thought to myself that this was unnecessary. If one has actually entered into the determination to swing that blade, the real breakthrough is made. Erstwhile, Siddartha may make for a great conversation over coffee.

Having let go of AC as any more significant than my own self (or yours!), I re-enter his (unoriginal) works to glean, not something "new under the sun," but rather an extraordinary human penetration into mystery beyond the limits which yet encrust the mentality of the masses. Having put AC beneath those truly inventive poets (including Yeats), I find in his verse a remarkable and almost superhuman command of language, brought to serve an explorative urge which might be rivaled but has not been surpassed.

Liber Aleph was a work of pure genius...but it wasn't written for the "Child" of 666. The Beast only has Brothers.

Really enjoying this thread and, as always, Shiva's posts are wonderful.

Kyle


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/09/2011 9:14 pm  

As regards his being Eliphas Levi: a soul can incarnate into the womb as late as the sixth month after conception. As high of a soul as Crowley was/is, this is completely reasonable. He most certainly was Eliphas Levi.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/09/2011 9:37 pm  
"metacarpalruse" wrote:
He most certainly was Eliphas Levi.

"What do I mean when I say that I think I was Eliphaz Lévi? No more than that I possess some of his most essential characteristics, and that some of the incidents in his life are remembered by me as my own. There doesn’t seem any impossibility about these bundles of Sankhara being shared by two or more persons. We certainly do not know enough of what actually takes place to speak positively on any such point."
--Aleister Crowley, Magick Without Tears XXXVII (emphasis added)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/09/2011 10:53 pm  

And I tell you with certitude that he was. Much was hidden from Crowley in that incarnation, and for good reason. As to how I know this for a fact, I am not at liberty to divulge. You'd be surprised at many of his previous incarnations.


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 655
17/09/2011 10:59 pm  

What were many of his previous incarnations than, according to you?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5326
17/09/2011 11:01 pm  
"metacarpalruse" wrote:
As to how I know this for a fact, I am not at liberty to divulge.

🙄

It's more than possible that you've inadvertently joined the wrong website.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/09/2011 1:10 am  

It's according to him, not me. And, again, above my pay-grade. I just wanted to come in and set a few things straight 😉 None of you will believe me, which makes it even more satisfactory. The things I could tell you would blow your miiiiiiiinddddsss.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/09/2011 1:53 am  
"metacarpalruse" wrote:
It's according to him, not me. And, again, above my pay-grade. I just wanted to come in and set a few things straight 😉 None of you will believe me, which makes it even more satisfactory. The things I could tell you would blow your miiiiiiiinddddsss.

So, lemmie get this "straight" you must've "talked" to him then? You're not the first one here to claim to be able to perform such a feat. But I have a question then, for those of you who "talk" to him....you do realize that his Will was to be reincarnated as an asian female, so what makes you think that he "changed his mind, er Will"? So that you all could just have a chat?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/09/2011 2:52 am  

He's not an Asian female, I'll give you that much. And, again, there was much that he did not know about his role in the Bigger Picture. You also seem to have a rather stunted view of Will. Another mistake Thelemites often make is underestimating the true stature of 666. I've already said too much.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/09/2011 2:53 am  

I have oaths to keep - I'm just enjoying my position.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
18/09/2011 2:59 am  
"metacarpalruse" wrote:
I have oaths to keep - I'm just enjoying my position.

Oaths, to what? Oh come on. You've already stepped into this wonderful thread and began the tirade, why not finish it? Oaths to what?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/09/2011 3:39 am  

metacarpulruse,

I seem to have a stunted view of Will? No, you seem to have an over-exaggerated sense of self importance. You dare to tell me that I don't understand Will when I haven't put forth my views on Will anywhere in this thread. I merely related what A.C. himself is purported to have said regarding his next life. Now look here you pompous little fucker, I don't appreciate the snide insult, especially from a noob who doesn't seem to be mature enough to be out of highschool! You seem to be implying that you know more about A.C. than he knew about himself. You're another one of those crazies that believe that they are A.C. reincarnated aren't you? Let me assure your diseased ego that you are, in fact, not in possession of any "secrets" that will "blow our minds". You are on Lashtal.com The Home of the Aleister Crowley Society, and we as a group of people know more about the life and legacy of Aleister Crowley than anyone else. So, when you come here spouting all this nonsense and you were bound to have some questions asked to you and when instead of attempting to give an answer you pull the Oath card and fling insults, you're just going to get put in your place. Keep it up and your account will be deleted.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/09/2011 4:07 am  

You're right, I have no idea what I'm talking about. As for deleting my account, go for it. If you only knew... Lol


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/09/2011 4:09 am  

And delete my posts, as well. I've obviously made a mistake.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
18/09/2011 4:13 am  
"metacarpalruse" wrote:
If you only knew... Lol

If we are so ignorant, why not enlighten us?


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2618
18/09/2011 4:20 am  

This was such a nice thread until page 3...


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
18/09/2011 5:11 am  
"christibrany" wrote:
This was such a nice thread until page 3...

A lesson in Anicca, no doubt. 🙂


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5048
18/09/2011 3:51 pm  
"metacarpalruse" wrote:
It's according to him, not me. And, again, above my pay-grade. I just wanted to come in and set a few things straight 😉 None of you will believe me, which makes it even more satisfactory. The things I could tell you would blow your miiiiiiiinddddsss.

Troll Alert!
(Sirens, whistles, magickal bells and assorted ding-dongs).


ReplyQuote
Markus
(@markus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 258
18/09/2011 5:18 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:

I find in his verse a remarkable and almost superhuman command of language, brought to serve an explorative urge which might be rivaled but has not been surpassed.
Kyle

Crowley certainly had an exceptionally strong grasp of the English tongue. However, in his poetry he tends to sacrifice poetic tension and vigour to rhyme and metre. I therefore do not consider him a great poet, though there are exceptions, of course.

Liber Aleph was a work of pure genius...

Linguistically I fully agree. The contents do not strike a chord with me, and perhaps I do not understand this book. The extraordinary succinctness of his prose, coupled with the fact that it is written in stunningly beautiful English is certainly evidence of his originality. Liber Aleph ought to be required reading in higher education since it is, IMHO, the most gorgeous prose since Thomas De Quincey.

Markus


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
18/09/2011 6:57 pm  

Markus-

I agree with your assessment of AC's poetry...I wouldn't bend over backwards to argue that he was a significant poet in the sense of carrying things to new levels. His work feels very much in line with an outmoded "standard" for the reasons you mention and calls a bit more attention to itself for the extremity of content which periodically emerges. However, in the present era-where we've read the many moderns who've pushed the envelope and broken with classical form-it can feel a bit restricted.

Still, I have come to appreciate AC's verse more with the passing of time. Within the restraints he worked (tight metre, rhyme), he continuously pressed his spiritual aspiration, expressing themes that raised the content far above the familiar while wildly weaving perversities into the poetic politics of the polite. It does create a very unique, if not stunningly original, read. Coupled with his prose and life's work, we can also see AC's work as a poet to underlie and form the framework for his prose. Aleph, for example, rises fearlessly to the occasion of extreme condensation, clarity and beauty. This work could not be written by one who did not have deep insight into all of his encyclopedic themes or such mastery of language to deliver it with flair devoid of frivolity.

Part of the point of my post was to express the joy and value we can draw from Crowley's writing once we've eliminated the need to "put it into its place." I have personally used several of his poems in the "Collected Works" to evoke energies and states of consciousness in a magical setting...the words alone, read outloud, functioned as total ritual, sublime and stabbing through veils...

His poem "Kali," for example, is one of the most passionate and poignant I've ever read. I have repeatedly read the stanza:

"The cruel teeth, the steady sneer,
The marvelous lust of her I bring
Unto my body bright and clear
(dropped poison in a water spring!)
To fill me with the utmost sense
Of some divine experience."

This is simply glorious and speaks deeply to the passions which drove Crowley through all of his eccentric and extreme adventures.

Again, Crowley's aspirations, methods and means were not unique to him...but he does stand as a unique and highly individual character among the unique specimens of the species who have been driven with intensity far beyond the "Animal Realms" of the Buddhists...

I like the guy.

Kyle


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 453
18/09/2011 7:59 pm  

As for originality, donning the role of the Beast 666 and being hailed as a prophet by Egyptian gods while doing so, and receiving a holy text that exceeds where all others fail, meaning there is evidence as to when, where, and by whom it was written, as well as the original manuscript being intact, I would call all of those things quite original.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
19/09/2011 4:40 am  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Indeed Herupakraath! Your post must not be glossed over.
I think you are absolutely spot on.

One thing takes precedence in my mind. That if by original,
we mean being provably the first at something
verifiable through literature, --to be something,
no one else did before us,
....I would have to say the declaration of being The Beast 666.

I am not meaning,
to imply that which had possibly been uttered in some secret place,
by any past individual or individuals.
Rather I am meaning,
to arise query to the existence of, any once published document,
from anyone other than he, ...making such bold pronouncement.

Anyone?
Other than he?
Was he or was he not,
the first Man---unto the world proclaiming,
in his published works, ...To Be The Beast?

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
19/09/2011 6:10 am  
"sonofthestar" wrote:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Indeed Herupakraath! Your post must not be glossed over.
I think you are absolutely spot on.

One thing takes precedence in my mind. That if by original,
we mean being provably the first at something
verifiable through literature, --to be something,
no one else did before us,
....I would have to say the declaration of being The Beast 666.

I am not meaning,
to imply that which had possibly been uttered in some secret place,
by any past individual or individuals.
Rather I am meaning,
to arise query to the existence of, any once published document,
from anyone other than he, ...making such bold pronouncement.

Anyone?
Other than he?
Was he or was he not,
the first Man---unto the world proclaiming,
in his published works, ...To Be The Beast?

Love is the law, love under will.

Pretty sure he's the one. Also, the extent of Qabalah that he went to in order to expound on the idea of the Beast, especially in relation to the sun is, I would say, unique.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5048
21/09/2011 2:51 am  
"sonofthestar" wrote:
... no one else did before us, I would have to say the declaration of being The Beast 666 ... in his published works, ...To Be The Beast?

Well, yes and no.

This small quote posted under right of "fair use" in order to question your question from:
Kenneth Grant. Beyond the Mauve Zone. p.22. Text (c)1999 Kenneth Grant.

This book is (even right now) for sale by lashtal on lashtal.com.

There is nothing new under the sun (Horatio).


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
21/09/2011 8:04 pm  

Or the Little Sunshine?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/09/2011 9:14 pm  

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

I'd suggest Grant's account has been gushed by The Willows to some extent. But I wouldn't say it was misleading... on the contrary!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/07/2012 11:13 pm  
"anpi" wrote:
One of the big things about Crowley was that he synthesized a lot of stuff and presented it in an original way and style. I wouldn't have got interested in all that Golden Dawn stuff and lots of other things if it wasn't first brought to my attention by him.

Agreed. I think that he is kinda like Bikram Choudhury in that aspect. He took things from different areas and combined it into a system that people seem to like/enjoy. Sure, all of the 26 asanas and two breathing exercises in Bikram's Sequence existed long before Bikram but did they exist in that order with the added interspersing of Savasanas? Additionally, who had the idea of regulating how long each pose is held and how to assist students who aren't getting into the pose right?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/07/2012 12:53 am  
"OnTheOtherHand" wrote:
Additionally, who had the idea of regulating how long each pose is held and how to assist students who aren't getting into the pose right?

I doubt you will find the answer to these two questions in history books.


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 165
08/07/2012 1:11 am  

Somewhere in this thread, italics became a constant (is it in Proteus' signature?).

Anyway, I just wanted to chime in and suggest that my article on AC2012 entitled "Science and Religion" might be edifying, or at least of interest, concerning some of Crowley's original contributions in that direction: http://ac2012.com/2012/03/31/science-and-religion/


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/07/2012 1:58 am  
"thiebes" wrote:
Somewhere in this thread, italics became a constant (is it in Proteus' signature?).

Anyway, I just wanted to chime in and suggest that my article on AC2012 entitled "Science and Religion" might be edifying, or at least of interest, concerning some of Crowley's original contributions in that direction: http://ac2012.com/2012/03/31/science-and-religion/

Interesting article. Unfortunately, nothing really rang a bell saying, "Crowley was definitely the first to posit this!" Perhaps I missed something. Would you be so kind as to point it out?


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 165
08/07/2012 3:13 am  

Azidonis, do you know of individuals who have posited the various points in that article prior to Crowley? I'm sure it's quite possible and I would love to know if so.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/07/2012 5:46 am  
"thiebes" wrote:
Azidonis, do you know of individuals who have posited the various points in that article prior to Crowley? I'm sure it's quite possible and I would love to know if so.

Sure. I'll go through it for you at a later date. Let it suffice for now, that there is a lot to learn from Buddhism in all its forms.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
30/08/2012 5:56 am  

Crowley's genius was his Dilettantism.  You may think I'm being sarcastic.  But I'm not.  That was it.  That is the new Aeon.  No tragedies, no answers, no seeking, no finding.  The first Samadhi, the first Bardo, The first Sephira.  etc...

He stayed just long enough in any one mystical field to get the cream of that field and then didn't bother to float down into the less than cream in that particular field.  He got the cream and ignored the meme. 

Aum Crowley!


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
01/09/2012 7:06 pm  
"ApeOfTheApeOfThot" wrote:
That is the new Aeon.  No tragedies, no answers, no seeking, no finding.

I'm not sure you understand your own words.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4059
01/09/2012 9:32 pm  

Me too, but without the element of uncertainty. It's crap from start to finish.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5326
01/09/2012 10:13 pm  
"thiebes" wrote:
Somewhere in this thread, italics became a constant (is it in Proteus' signature?).

Thanks for pointing that out: it was, as you suspected, a redundant italic tag in Proteus' sig. Now fixed.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2012 9:19 pm  

Well, it would seem to me that the most important thing the AC did has not been mentioned.

he actively reminded women that we are by nature sexual beings, that woman have sexual appetites, and that we are not  only orgasmic,  but mulitorgasmic.
He gave us the Scarlet Woman,  and revealed Babalon,  embracing the divine feminine as best he could in the climate of Vicorian England.

I personally think that the liberation of womens sexuality,  and the destruction of vicorian attitudes about sex and pleasure are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Okay, so we know he was a pioneer in the mountaineering business. He still holds world records to this effect. We know he was a great amateur chess player, and is even famous in some circles for his moves in that scenario. We know that Crowley claims to have been a spy, and that he supposedly invented the "V for victory", etc. The list could go on with the things Crowley did or ideas he came up with... physically.

But where magick and mysticism is concerned, the science and art of enlightenment, what new things did he bring to the table? We can say the Holy Books are new and unique, but what else?

Thus, the topic of this thread, especially for those of you advanced in the magick and mysticism department, and also those who are scholars of Crowley's life and works. What did he do/bring that was new? Be as specific as possible, please.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: