Satanism, Bloody Sacrifice, etc.
-
That was a strange article.
In some odd way I can sort of agree with some of the things said by the author, even though I kinda like old Lon, Santa Claus persona and all. Yes, Lon doesn't exactly ooze the persona of a 'serious occultist'. But, so what? I also think that what was written is as much indicative of an unbalanced mind (especially in terms of language use) as it might contain some kind of "valuable insight". I'm not sure I agree with the Satanism bit. This to me, is all really just a matter of semantics. Call it what you will, give it any name you desire, it is what it is. I'd also say that Crowley's "Satanism" is a far cry from LaVey's type of Satanism.
Crowley also spent several years studying Sufism and esoteric Islam. Are we to say he was a Muslim? Should we all pray to Allah now? Again, just semantics. Thelema stands on it's own and doesn't need to be conflated with Old Aeonic ideas.
Just my opinion, as the author is welcome to his own.
-
@modernPrimitive said
"Yes, Lon doesn't exactly ooze the persona of a 'serious occultist'. But, so what?"
So, very few people ever articulate that, or that it might be a problem, especially given Lon's role as a public spokesperson for Thelema.
Someone posted the following to my blog today, complaining about the fact I had attacked the beloved "savior":
"Duquette's a nice fellow whose half-dozen well-researched, useful, and straightforward books about Thelema have played a great part in saving the religion from the dustbin of history..."
I think that is a popular view of Lon's contribution. And few people question it.
@modernPrimitive said
"I also think that what was written is as much indicative of an unbalanced mind (especially in terms of language use) as it might contain some kind of "valuable insight"."
Are you talking about Lon, or myself?
What particularly seems indicative of this? And what measure of "balance" are you employing?
@modernPrimitive said
"I'm not sure I agree with the Satanism bit. This to me, is all really just a matter of semantics."
That is not a minor matter, especially in the occult.
Thelemites may not like being associated with Satan or Satanism, but they have their prophet to complain to if they have a problem about that.
Crowley was not vague or ambiguous about worshipping Satan or being his servant or even offspring.
If a person, such as Crowley, means by "I am a Satanist", that he is really a baker, or a postal employee, then he probably needs to learn a better appreciation for the semantics of the terms he uses.
But I am sure he well understood that. And chose his words carefully, and righteously.
@modernPrimitive said
"I'd also say that Crowley's "Satanism" is a far cry from LaVey's type of Satanism."
And Jehovah's Witnesses are a far cry from Catholics. But still Christians.
@modernPrimitive said
"Crowley also spent several years studying Sufism and esoteric Islam."
And a lot of other religions and systems, which he sometimes admired, as he did Islam. But Crowley was not a Muslim.
He was a Satanist.
(jk)
-
93,
Crowley explicitly equated Had or Hadit with Set/Satan, correct.
Crowley also accepted Nuit's statement that that "to worship me is better than all things." He dedicated his life and work to following the love of Nu in the starlit heaven, but he didn't worship Hadit, who is the worshipper.
It's a Satanist's error that he/she traps him/herself in worshipping Hadit.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Tarotica said
"Thelemites may not like being associated with Satan or Satanism, but they have their prophet to complain to if they have a problem about that."
That's what I most deeply disliked about the article: It had no proportion or perspective. It made the occasional Satan references in Crowley's writings seem voluminous or a big deal. They aren't. They're rare.
If someone were to put equal zeal into, say, documenting Crowley's assertions that he's a Christian, or his many remarks about Christ-equivalencies or Christ values, it would be at least as extensive a list. But there's even more resistence by Thelemites to do that than there is to itemizing his Satan remarks.
Crowley definitely stood against organized Christianity, and therefore was going to take many opportunities to spook and smack them around. No mystery there. And what can do that better than to call oneself The Beast 666 and say something nice about Satan?
But, other than that political position, his view always struck me as much more along the lines of Hindus or some Buddhist sects (such as Tibetan in particular): On encountering some articulated supernatural being, he delighted in finding one more name and image to incorporate into his practices, one more aspect of reality to explore. People don't usually freak when he mentions Isis or an ancient Greek lesbian poet with profound emotion; but the occasional mention of Satan sends shivers through them.
"Crowley was not vague or ambiguous about worshipping Satan or being his servant or even offspring. "
I really think you didn't understand the passages you read, or the psychology of the man who wrote them, or the basic elements of syncretism. - Actually (to rephrase), I agree that he wasn't vague or ambiguous about worshipping something called "Satan," though he does appear not to have been sufficiently clear in what he meant by "Satan." I am absolutely certain, with no fear of contradiction on this point, that it had almost nothing to do with any "Satan" discussed in a Christian sermon or Sunday school.
"He was a Satanist.(jk)"
But only in the same sense that he was a Christian.
...And I find both assertions to be fairly, stylistic matters not worthy of more than a gasp or a chuckle as one reads on.
Personally, I'm a practicing Santaist.
-
@Tarotica said
"So, very few people ever articulate that, or that it might be a problem, especially given Lon's role as a public spokesperson for Thelema.
Someone posted the following to my blog today, complaining about the fact I had attacked the beloved "savior":
"Duquette's a nice fellow whose half-dozen well-researched, useful, and straightforward books about Thelema have played a great part in saving the religion from the dustbin of history..."
I think that is a popular view of Lon's contribution. And few people question it."
Well I'd have to say that Lon is a "balancing force" in terms of Crowley's work. Crowley seemed to assume that everyone had a classical education, including degrees in philosophy, a degree in Egyptology, could read and write in several ancient languages etc. How far removed are we today in this more modern era from that kind of education?
People like Lon are needed to make Crowley's work more accessible. I say Crowley's work, because I think Thelema, in term of the HBT is by default "accessible", the support structures that Crowley wrote are not that accessible. It's like if you've never studied physics before and try and jump into loop quantum gravity or the Holographic Principle and Black hole Entropy you're going to struggle. Read a "physics for idiots" book first.
@modernPrimitive said
"I also think that what was written is as much indicative of an unbalanced mind (especially in terms of language use) as it might contain some kind of "valuable insight"."
@Tarotica said
"
@modernPrimitive said
"I'm not sure I agree with the Satanism bit. This to me, is all really just a matter of semantics."That is not a minor matter, especially in the occult."
hmmm....yes and no. I think an "object" can have many names. Gematria and Notorikon aside, what is more important is the concept or archetype behind the idea than the actual name itself. Given that you're addressing an audience that is most probably under the control of the demon of fear created and perpetuated by organized Christianity, you likely need an old jolly Santa Claus type character to treat the subject light-heartedly and with a touch of humour.
@Tarotica said
"Thelemites may not like being associated with Satan or Satanism, but they have their prophet to complain to if they have a problem about that.
Crowley was not vague or ambiguous about worshipping Satan or being his servant or even offspring.
If a person, such as Crowley, means by "I am a Satanist", that he is really a baker, or a postal employee, then he probably needs to learn a better appreciation for the semantics of the terms he uses.
But I am sure he well understood that. And chose his words carefully, and righteously."
Edward hit the nail on the head.
@Tarotica said
"And a lot of other religions and systems, which he sometimes admired, as he did Islam. But Crowley was not a Muslim.
He was a Satanist.
(jk)"
Religious experimentation aside, Crowley was a Thelemite. If you really want to be technical about it, the only real Biblical story containing any definitive content about Satan is the Book of Job, and in that story Satan is simply portrayed as "an accuser", much like a court lawyer. Another detailed mention of who and what Satan is, is to be found in one of the books of Enoch, where it is said that like Lucifer, he fell from heaven and circles the Abyss. In this sense we have a correlation of Satan with Choronzon. Most other lay attributions of Satan seem to be conflations with the Devil or Lucifer, the latter most probably being a conflation based on that particular book of Enoch, simply because, like Lucifer, Satan "fell from Heaven". We also have Leviathan, and the conflations keep growing from that point onward, probably because people are too terrified to explore these ideas. I'm not sure Crowley was overtly academic about this....in fact I think he used the term Satan as it was defined and already conflated by the Christians.
Of course, we can conclude that Hadit has many things in common with Satan or the Devil or Lucifer. But then we can find commonality between Lucifer and Venus, or the Devil, Pan and Baphomet or even Lucifer and Christ (A god made manifest sounds very much like a fallen-star). If you want to conflate all of these ideas then it is probably wise to take that kind of Qabalistic exercise to the point where one can only surmise that all is one (or none).
"Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."..."Every number is infinite; there is no difference." - Liber AL.
-
@Ankh said
"
"Quote JAE: Personally, I'm a practicing Satanist."I once tried to join a group of Satanist. They turned me down because I wasn’t spiritual enough?!
"Notice that you misquoted me. Is your spell checker working overtime?
-
The term "Satanist" is so broad and ill defined that it means nothing to me. Just like "Christian." What does that mean? I have met people from both camps, some I liked and some I didn't.
I think people need to be much more aware of the cognitive distortion that goes on when you label someone. Labels cannot, by definition say anything definitive about an individual; maybe with groups in general. So Crowley, like any person, deserves to be judged on his own words and actions, not some label.
Now with regard to Satan and worshipping or venerating: He is a Deity of some sort and therefor has a role in the macro and microcosm. It is a difficult role to sort out, 'tis true, mostly because of the false dogma put out by the Black Brotherhood to confuse things and hide his role. But if any one takes the time, you will see that the office of Satan is valuable as a tester. The Egyptians catalogue various tests on the path of the initiate, and some god has to officiate them. Also, Lucifer as light-bearer, or the snake as the initiator of wisdom (knowledge of good & evil, i.e. our ruach consciousness).
Don Milo Duquette has done a nice job in the one book I have of his, "The Magick Of Aleister Crowley", as an introduction to the man and his magick, and it is just handy to have the material you want in one volume without flipping through various tomes. And I like the fact that he keeps it all basic; he doesn't try to compete with the real material that only Crowley has or can explain, being the Prophet, To Mega Therion, and the highest initiate we have had incarnate on this planet in a long time (as far as I know.)
-
If asked by someone "Are you a Satanist" or "Are you a devil worshiper?" I reply, "If you consider yourself a Christian and trust the words of the Bible, there's no other definition for me because if it isn't of Jesus, it must be of the Devil." Also, once a month I enjoy Saturday morning coffee in my living room with the regularly visiting Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not sure they can figure me out.
-
@Takamba said
"If asked by someone "Are you a Satanist" or "Are you a devil worshiper?" I reply, "If you consider yourself a Christian and trust the words of the Bible, there's no other definition for me because if it isn't of Jesus, it must be of the Devil." Also, once a month I enjoy Saturday morning coffee in my living room with the regularly visiting Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not sure they can figure me out."
I didn't know J.W. drank coffee? (or perhaps you mean it's just you drinking it.)
-
@nderabloodredsky said
"
@Takamba said
"If asked by someone "Are you a Satanist" or "Are you a devil worshiper?" I reply, "If you consider yourself a Christian and trust the words of the Bible, there's no other definition for me because if it isn't of Jesus, it must be of the Devil." Also, once a month I enjoy Saturday morning coffee in my living room with the regularly visiting Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not sure they can figure me out."I didn't know J.W. drank coffee? (or perhaps you mean it's just you drinking it.)"
Yes. They drink coffee. They aren't Mormons. (actually I take that back, one drinks coffee, the other one drinks water or juice if I have it)
-
@Tarotica said
(jk)"
Jk I consider your blog on the subject to be shitty, one-sided journalism. You invested several lengthy paragraphs defining the nature of Satan as conceived by Christians in an effort to make it appear Crowley worshipped the Satan of Christianity, while failing to quote anything Crowley wrote on the subject. Your blog is also factually incorrect in several places.
This is what Crowley thought of the Devil of Christianity: From page 277 of Magick:
"The Devil does not exist; it is a false name invented by the Black Brothers to imply unity in their ignorant muddle of dispersions."
From page 163 of Magick:
"This 'Devil' is called Satan or Shaitan, and regarded with horror by people who are ignorant of his formula, and imagining themselves to be evil, accuse Nature herself of their phantasmal crime. Satan is Saturn, Set, Abraxas, Adad, Adonai", etc.
More specifically, Crowley was interested in the Shaitan / Satan that was worshiped in ancient Sumer, and currently by the Yezidis, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the contemporary Christian view of Satan.
You state that Satan & Satanic thinking are central to Thelema as determined by the study of Liber Al, when there is no mention of Satan in Liber Al---an invented falsehood on your part.
Also, you state that Aiwass commands Thelemites to throw the Christians to the lions: Liber Al is the only Book attributed to Aiwass as an author, and in it he states no such thing--you've confused the commentary made by Crowley on Liber Al for the text itself, which underscores your poor research skills.
-
Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law
While I have been given marvelous and exalted tasks by the Creator also Am I but a Neophyte, an innocent and helpless Harpocrates Babe in an Egg, and I have much to learn. Having been raised Christian it is difficult for Me at times to accept the Greatness in His Holy Name Satan without fear of eternal fire. He has reached out to Me on so many occassions yet have I spurned Him in My childish folly. This is My labor, and mine alone, but here is what He has revealed unto Me concerning His Nature. In One Satan is the Throne upon which the King rules, Not an Adversary, but a Challenger, the consciousness of the processes of growth and evolution toward success. To fear Him is repression of the Seed by the Soil, the fear of Growth, but it is that fear which once overcome unites Us with His enduring Grace. Now know that when We break through the soil of our insecurity and emerge into the Light, Satan's Name changeth to that of Lucifer. No longer is He the Challenger, but the Bringer of Truth and Light, a Living and complete soul free from the Restrictions of the Struggle Based Genesis. A far as Christians are concerned, it is up to each Aspirant to engage in such Revelation. The Work of Satan is best defined by the Beast 666's Wonderful Poem called: "Crowley "Aha". My struggle with Satan is a struggle with Myself. He has given Me two forms of My bicameral mind, which also are Archetypes of the Nature of My Work. I was foolish and smoked cigarettes, pushing down My Life, supressing My vitality, accosting the force of My Vigor. He has delivered Me from this, but the Great and Supreme God of All Creation Will not in any way force His Child to do that which is best for Him. Therefore surrender all ye have unto Satan and ignore those whom present their folly that He is Evil. They are blind, they are starseeds, they are slaves to their own futile whims, they have potential but deny it. In this I Am Hypocrite, We must be what We are not before We can be what We are.
Love is the Law, Love under Will.
-
@Student Aleph 9 2 said
"Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law
While I have been given marvelous and exalted tasks by the Creator also Am I but a Neophyte, an innocent and helpless Harpocrates Babe in an Egg, and I have much to learn. Having been raised Christian it is difficult for Me at times to accept the Greatness in His Holy Name Satan without fear of eternal fire. He has reached out to Me on so many occassions yet have I spurned Him in My childish folly. This is My labor, and mine alone, but here is what He has revealed unto Me concerning His Nature. In One Satan is the Throne upon which the King rules, Not an Adversary, but a Challenger, the consciousness of the processes of growth and evolution toward success. To fear Him is repression of the Seed by the Soil, the fear of Growth, but it is that fear which once overcome unites Us with His enduring Grace. Now know that when We break through the soil of our insecurity and emerge into the Light, Satan's Name changeth to that of Lucifer. No longer is He the Challenger, but the Bringer of Truth and Light, a Living and complete soul free from the Restrictions of the Struggle Based Genesis. A far as Christians are concerned, it is up to each Aspirant to engage in such Revelation. The Work of Satan is best defined by the Beast 666's Wonderful Poem called: "Crowley "Aha". My struggle with Satan is a struggle with Myself. He has given Me two forms of My bicameral mind, which also are Archetypes of the Nature of My Work. I was foolish and smoked cigarettes, pushing down My Life, supressing My vitality, accosting the force of My Vigor. He has delivered Me from this, but the Great and Supreme God of All Creation Will not in any way force His Child to do that which is best for Him. Therefore surrender all ye have unto Satan and ignore those whom present their folly that He is Evil. They are blind, they are starseeds, they are slaves to their own futile whims, they have potential but deny it. In this I Am Hypocrite, We must be what We are not before We can be what We are.
Love is the Law, Love under Will."
93
I loved the entire post and in many ways feel the same exact way. I grew up catholic and went to catholic schools the vast majority of my childhood and teenage years. The initial breaking of those chains may be one of the most beautiful things to have transpired in my life.
I also enjoy telling christians "May Lucifer free you from your bondage." I find it humourous that they in no way understand what I am talking about and they tend to become fearful or try to convince me to become that way.
93 93/93
-
@Student Aleph 9 2 said
"Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law
While I have been given marvelous and exalted tasks by the Creator also Am I but a Neophyte, an innocent and helpless Harpocrates Babe in an Egg, and I have much to learn. Having been raised Christian it is difficult for Me at times to accept the Greatness in His Holy Name Satan without fear of eternal fire. He has reached out to Me on so many occassions yet have I spurned Him in My childish folly. This is My labor, and mine alone, but here is what He has revealed unto Me concerning His Nature. In One Satan is the Throne upon which the King rules, Not an Adversary, but a Challenger, the consciousness of the processes of growth and evolution toward success. To fear Him is repression of the Seed by the Soil, the fear of Growth, but it is that fear which once overcome unites Us with His enduring Grace. Now know that when We break through the soil of our insecurity and emerge into the Light, Satan's Name changeth to that of Lucifer. No longer is He the Challenger, but the Bringer of Truth and Light, a Living and complete soul free from the Restrictions of the Struggle Based Genesis. A far as Christians are concerned, it is up to each Aspirant to engage in such Revelation. The Work of Satan is best defined by the Beast 666's Wonderful Poem called: "Crowley "Aha". My struggle with Satan is a struggle with Myself. He has given Me two forms of My bicameral mind, which also are Archetypes of the Nature of My Work. I was foolish and smoked cigarettes, pushing down My Life, supressing My vitality, accosting the force of My Vigor. He has delivered Me from this, but the Great and Supreme God of All Creation Will not in any way force His Child to do that which is best for Him. Therefore surrender all ye have unto Satan and ignore those whom present their folly that He is Evil. They are blind, they are starseeds, they are slaves to their own futile whims, they have potential but deny it. In this I Am Hypocrite, We must be what We are not before We can be what We are.
Love is the Law, Love under Will."
Somebody's been reading Liber Aleph, if I am not mistaken....
I also was raised in a Christian home, and am happily Emancipated. For a While I embraced the other Extreme, touting Satan as Supreme Lord. However, I Discovered after a Short Period of Time that this was only a Reaction to the Imbalance of my Childhood, and soon Realized that the best Path is that of Balance. It the Characteristic Predisposition of Youth to Over-React in any given Direction. Thankfully, my Vigor is no longer Accosted.
Sorry about that Jim.