‘Pure’ Thelema vs ‘Crowleyan’ Thelema?

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 116 total)

Home Forums Thelema Thelema ‘Pure’ Thelema vs ‘Crowleyan’ Thelema?

  • Author
    Posts
  • #108180

    elitemachinery
    Participant

    @elitemachinery said:

    Thelema exists with or without Crowley theoretically.

    then changed his stance to opine:

    Thelema and pure WILL obviously exist without Crowley

    Thelema to me implies action as opposed to non-action. I don’t know much about Hinduism but it doesn’t seem similar.

    WILL is an active force that has a path and trajectory like the SUN or like an arrow shot into the sky. It doesn’t have to be violent or disruptive but it often is.

    add these to the list (pure will unassuaged of purpose):

    Sex Pistols/John Lydon (asshole sarcastic non musician John Lydon was just a punk kid who hated Pink Floyd…out of nowhere he created the prototype for Punk Rock and was suddenly thrust to Rock Star status..many were pissed off…he then denounced rock stardom and started PIL “We’re not a band we’re a company.”

    Arab Spring (people responding to decades of oppression act out in violence demanding freedom and succeed in overthrowing their government. Not pretty and still going on)

    #108184

    Shiva
    Participant

    EM: Thelema and pure WILL obviously exist without Crowley, but once you call it Thelema I think you have to acknowledge the elephant in the room.

    Aleister Ganesha

    Little Richard (same as above…gave the doo doo doo to the dung rolling Beatles)

    Nobody cold scream so loud and play piano so effortlessly t high speed like Richard. A 9=2 in the musical hierarchy.

    #108228

    Anonymous

    I love Ganesh he’s such a happy god .. sad whats happening to him though from mankind ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony

    #108291

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    Sonofthoth: “I […] find it [= Thelema] to be closet Hinduism(with Taoist flirtation) strutting around in robes and doing Kabbalah.” (Source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/pure-thelema-vs-crowleyan-thelema/page/2/#post-108147)

    The ‘Law’ called ‘THELEMA’ presented by Aleister Crowley in his The Book of the Law (Chapter I, verse 39. “The word of the Law is THELEMA.“), appears to be inspired by concepts found within Hinduism and Kabbalah. Concepts that Crowley due to his life experiences up until 1904 – which is the year that he claimed this book was dictated to him – then could have had first-hand acquaintance with.

    Crowley is unlikely to have had first-hand acquaintance with Taoist concepts before he visited China for the first time in 1905-6. Can you Sonofthoth demonstrate Taoist flirtation within the text of Crowley’s The Book of the Law?

    For more on ‘closet Hinduism’ within Crowley’s The Book of the Law: http://www.billheidrick.com/tlc1999/tlc1099.htm — (text between the headlines: The Fall of the Great Equi-N.O.X., and The Monster Must be Destroyed), and https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/my-quotes-from-comment-to-download-timothy-moss-squaring-the-circle/ — My quotes from, & comment to, download Timothy Moss: “Case of the Cairo Working”

    #108295

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    (The second posting in this thread from the one who started it:) Martialis: “The original intention of my posting was to indicate how sometimes all things Crowley are seen as all things Thelemic which, I don’t think is always necessarily the case. For instance, the phrase “Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel” and the uses of the names “Babalon” and “Chaos” while they perhaps fit well in a Thelemic context are not necessarily integral to it’s understanding or application.” (Source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/pure-thelema-vs-crowleyan-thelema/#post-30265)

    The “Silent” or “True Self”, is in Crowley’s The Book of the Law symbolically expressed as Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-paar-kraat, Heru-pa-kraath, and Heru-ra-ha. And “the Great Work” or “The Great Work accomplished”, is refered to with the cipher or codeword ‘Abrahadabra’, as “the reward of” this “Silent” or “True Self”, in the first verse of this book’s third and last chapter:

    “Abrahadabra; the reward of Ra Hoor Khut.”

    It does from this appear that the existence of the said “Silent” or “True Self” is necessarily integral to the understanding of the ‘THELEMA’ presented by Aleister Crowley in his The Book of the Law, or to the application of this ‘THELEMA’ in manifesting the said “Silent” or “True Self”.

    #108306

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    Sorry for chain posting!

    I have added the text in bold to this quote from the last paragraph of my preceding posting in this thread, to make it more nuanced:

    “It does from this appear that the existence of the said “Silent” or “True Self” – or the belief in the existence of the said “Silent” or “True Self” – is necessarily integral to the understanding of the ‘THELEMA’ presented by Aleister Crowley in his The Book of the Law, or to the application of this ‘THELEMA’ in manifesting the said “Silent” or “True Self”.”

    #108334

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    @wellreadwellbred

    Crowley is unlikely to have had first-hand acquaintance with Taoist concepts before he visited China for the first time in 1905-6.

    What do you signify by “first-hand acquaintance”?

    #108342

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    Crowley is unlikely to have had first-hand acquaintance with Taoist concepts before he visited China for the first time in 1905-6. Can you Sonofthoth demonstrate Taoist flirtation within the text of Crowley’s The Book of the Law?

    in the absence of any contribution in response from the secret child of Tahuti, and so that wrwb doesn’t have to continue to keep on posting ad infinitum or at least indefinitely (and whilst I personally hesitate about the employment of a noun such as “flirtation” here), how about I:28 for starters — where “None” = the Tao, and “Two” is made up out of Yin & Yang (those inscrutable oriental twins)?

    N Joy

    #108385

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    Michael Staley: “What do you signify by “first-hand acquaintance”?”

    firsthand = “obtained personally, or directly from someone who is personally involved in something:” (Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/firsthand)

    acquaintance = “[ U ] formal knowledge of a subject:” (Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/acquaintance)

    Akin to how Aleister Crowley was given his “first groundings in mystical theory and practice.” by the guru Shri Parananda (a Hindu), and by Bhikkhu Ananda Metteyya (Charles Henry Allan Bennett, a Buddhist monk, and former member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and a close associate of Aleister Crowley), in 1901 (well before 1904 and the “dictation” to him of his The Book of the Law). As describe by him in the INTRODUCTION to his The Tao teh king: Liber CLVII : a new translation by Ko Yuen (Aleister Crowley). (Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib157.htm)

    #108782

    qliphoth
    Participant

    Greetings,

    I agree that there is an anarchistic aspect to Thelema but I hardly see any of those musicians/bands or business’ as being Thelemic.
    Thelema is not tyrannical either, lol.

    93/93

    #108784

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    @wellreadwellbred

    The definition you give of “first-hand acquaintance” is in my view inadequate, though I concede that you have stitched tigether a Frankenstein’s monster from dictionary sources. There is nothing “formal”, for instance, about the experience of samadhi, or magical and mystical experience in general. You seem to be referring to the acquisition of knowledge through study, which accords with the quasi-academic style of your posts.

    In my opinion, experiences such as dhyana and samadhi, combined with the study of and meditation upon relevant books in for instance Muller’s series of Sacred Books of the East, would have given Crowley a great deal of insight into, and “first-hand acquaintance” of, the nature of Taoism.

    #110911

    runelogix
    Participant

    My two cents since I take exception to this statement:

    first-hand acquaintance with Taoist concepts before he visited China for the first time in 1905-6.

    Nor would he have even in Imperial China. Taoist teachers would reside in remote areas, be completely inaccessible, and as unlikely to speak English then as now. There is basically nothing Taoist about Chinese metropolitan areas where foreigners are expected to have the most interest in. Taoism as an ancient philosophy of living in harmony in nature is basically as remote from the daily lives of Chinese and Westerners as Stoicism or neo-Platonism is to average person today (and even less so in anti-religious China today). BTW I recommend visiting China, the people are by and large pleasant, modest people and the upper classes are very educated and curious (but do so with a native speaker). Crowley’s writing on the topic leave little doubt he met no more teachers than the peaceful mountains, and really is anything more than them needed?

    “When I walked across China in 1905-6, I was fully armed and accoutred by the above qualifications to attack the till-then-insoluble problem of the Chinese conception of religious truth. Practical studies of the psychology of such Mongolians [wtf really Mr Victorian?] as I had met in my travels, had already suggested to me that their acentric conception of the universe might represent the correspondence in consciousness of their actual psychological characteristics [ that is a very bold and ultimately unjustifiable preconceived idea]. I was therefore prepared to examine the doctrines of their religious and {2} philosophical Masters without prejudice such as had always rendered nugatory the efforts of missionary sinologists and indeed all oriental scholars with the single exception of Rhys Davids. Until his time translators had invariably assumed, with absurd naivite, or more often arrogant bigotry, that a Chinese writer must either be putting forth a more or less distorted and degraded variation of some Christian conception, or utterly puerile absurdities. Even so great a man as Max Muller in his introduction to the Upanishads seems only half inclined to admit that the apparent triviality and folly of many passages in these so-called sacred writings might owe their appearance to our ignorance of the historical and religious circumstances, a knowledge of which would render them intelligible [humbleness with ignorance is an admirable trait].

    During my solitary wanderings among the mountainous wastes of Yun Nan, the spiritual atmosphere of China penetrated my consciousness, thanks to the absence of any intellectual impertinences from the organ of knowledge. The TAO TEH KING revealed its simplicity and sublimity to my soul, little by little, as the conditions of my physical life, no less than of my spiritual, penetrated the {3} sanctuaries of my spirit. The philosophy of Lao Tze communicated itself to me, in despite of the persistent efforts of my mind to compel it to conform with my preconceived notions of what the text must mean. This process, having thus taken root in my innermost intuition during those tremendous months of wandering across Yun Nan, grew continually throughout succeeding years. Whenever I found myself able once more to withdraw myself from the dissipations and distractions which contact with civilisation forces upon one, no matter how vigorously he may struggle against their insolence, to the sacred solitude of the desert, whether among the sierras of Spain, or the sands of the Sahara, I found that the philosophy of Lao Tze resumed its sway upon my soul, subtler and stronger on each successive occasion.”

    Sounds like a nice walk but for what higher purpose? IMO I only know of Bhagwan Rajneesh (aka Osho) to provide excellent discourses on Taoist thought.

    #110917

    Shiva
    Participant

    rl: I take exception to this statement: first-hand acquaintance with Taoist concepts before he visited China for the first time in 1905-6.

    Okay. But at least you could have cited who made the quoted statement, and probably it would have more meaning if you hadn’t cut off the first few words of the quoted sentence.

    #110918

    runelogix
    Participant

    Okay. But at least you could have cited who made the quoted statement, and probably it would have more meaning if you hadn’t cut off the first few words of the quoted sentence.

    I specifically did not quote him since I did not want to come across as accusative. And since I did not want to add more meaning to the comment, and wanted to focus on a specific statement, I cut it off. Thank you for your kind advice.

    #110922

    ignant666
    Participant

    Do you even realize that that Charles Manson was Shiva’s personal kill slave, runelogix?

    I would advise more respect for your elders and betters, son. And more respect for citing clearly.

    Perhaps you were never told as child to enter a room with your ears open, and your mouth shut, and to use a standard citation format?

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 116 total)

You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.