Crowley- Violator of others' Wills?
-
Thanks, guys, for your timely and thoughtful responses.
-
@Alrah said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm going to address your underlying question, and not the specific example.Yes, Crowley failed often - like all the rest of us. There is enormous inertia to overcome for Thelema to take root; and it won't really easily take root for any of us until it is fundamental to our society as a whole.
Meanwhile, we struggle. We war with ourselves. The highest type of people are judged as much by the force of their effort as by their successes. Yoda was wrong that there is "no try" - often there is nothing but "try," and some of those tries are successes. But some aren't.
So... being a being with a personality... he {******} up, Often. Me too.
However, he was the hollow messenger to a vital and profound Word, and its the Word that matters."
When Yoda lifed the ship out of the swamps and Luke told him he didn't believe it, he said "That is why you fail."
It's not inertia that's preventing Thelema from taking root - it's just that we haven't be looking for the key log*.
People look at a problem and it seems so large they give up, or they try while believing that a single moment in time can cause the a saturated solution to crystalise. It's true that this happens, but it often take a knock to set off the process. This 'knock' is the removal of the key log*.
"*Taraza was talking once more: "There's another useful concept that I'm sure
your mother taught you -- the key log."Odrade was very curious now. Taraza was headed somewhere important with this
conversation. Key log: a truly ancient concept from the days before suspensors
when lumbermen sent their fallen timber rushing down rivers to central mill
sites. Sometimes the logs jammed up in the river and an expert was brought in
to find the one log, the key log, which would free the jam when removed. Teg,
she knew, would have an intellectual understanding of the term but she and
Taraza could call up actual witnesses from Other Memories, see the explosion of
broken bits of wood and water as a jam was released."The Tyrant was a key log," Taraza said. "He created the jam and he released
it." - Chapter House Dune, Frank Herbert."
""For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect. "
That was the lesson I got from that scene - as in "Do or Do not, there is no TRY" -
Alrah, 93,
"It's not inertia that's preventing Thelema from taking root - it's just that we haven't be looking for the key log*.
People look at a problem and it seems so large they give up, or they try while believing that a single moment in time can cause the a saturated solution to crystalise. It's true that this happens, but it often take a knock to set off the process. This 'knock' is the removal of the key log*."
I think that's a very simplistic view of how the human mind works, rather on the lines of the Scientological fantasy that you can create 'Clears' by getting to basic-basic, the final engram in the chain. Sure you can do this temporarily, but the state of Clear lasts months, not permanently.
Catharsis does exist - I'm not denying that. But the mind is an integrated set of structures, possessed of the inertia JAE noted, and catharsis is not often a final and definitive step. It makes lasting changes more incrementally than you're saying here.
93 9393,
Edward
-
Alrah, 93,
"I was thinking more of Thelema taking root as the dominant root level ideology of the New Aeon. Social structures are built upon dependencies. When a dependancy is removed then energy is released. The establishment of Thelema can be built upon the release of that energy."
Okay. But I still see the need for lengthy alchemical transformation in order to effect that establishment of Thelema in any lasting way. Released energy dissipates unless it's focused, so the aftermath of such release is when the work starts.
I have many doubts about revolutions. Most of them end up simply changing the management, not improving the social attitudes and conditions.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
I found Crowley in my mid-teens. It seemed to me then that much of what he had written was directed at me, personally—giving me heartfelt advice on how to live and ultimately to be a man. Of course, he was long dead at the time, nevertheless, I felt his love for me as though from a loving and supportive father. This sense of his paternity is still with me. So I tend to cut him a lot of slack.
Many years later, in the eighties, I co-wrote an article about him that appeared in the now defunct Gnosis Magazine . It was called the Best of the Beast. I was surprised by the one detractor who wrote a critical letter attacking the perspective of the article, which portrayed Crowley in a positive light despite his personal failings. Stephen Bodian (spelling may be wrong), the then editor of Yoga Journal, felt it was his mission to point out that Crowley advocated the blood sacrifice of young children in magical rites. How do you defend someone against charges like that?
Of course we pointed that Stephen's opinion was ill founded on a lack of sufficient information about the whole of Crowley's life and work, but especially his literary style—there is a reference and footnote in Magick in Theory and Practice in the chapter On the Bloody Sacrifice where
"It appears from the magical Records of Frater Perdurabo that He made this particular sacrifice on an average about 150 times every year between 1912 e.v. and 1928 e.v...."
Is it reasonable to think that the majority of people on this planet will ever be able to consider the merits of Thelema without getting tripped up by the often self-serving and petty actions, not to mention his weakness for literary puzzles, of the man Crowley?
I have nothing to really add by way of a solution to this problem. Clearly there is a significant dynamic at work for those of us who are in his camp, as opposed to those who are not. I think I recall that some writers have suggested that the barriers to accepting Crowley on some level is a kind of litmus test.
Curious.
love and will
-
Robert Allen:
*Many years later, in the eighties, I co-wrote an article about him that appeared in the now defunct Gnosis Magazine . It was called the Best of the Beast. I was surprised by the one detractor who wrote a critical letter attacking the perspective of the article, which portrayed Crowley in a positive light despite his personal failings. Stephen Bodian (spelling may be wrong), the then editor of Yoga Journal, felt it was his mission to point out that Crowley advocated the blood sacrifice of young children in magical rites. How do you defend someone against charges like that?
*I finding it surprising that an editor of any magazine could fall into the literary trap set by Crowley about his experiments with the bloody sacrifice so-called:
It appears from the magical Records of Frater Perdurabo that He made this particular sacrifice on an average about 150 times every year between 1912 e.v. and 1928 e.v....
When I read the footnote the first time I was a little startled, but then I did the math, and understood what Crowley meant without question, and that is the way to properly defend against accusations of child sacrifice. If Crowley had sacrificed a child 150 times per year for 16 years, he would have sacrificed 2400 children, making him the most prolific, notorious serial killer in the history of man, and in every area of the world that he lived in for those years, which of course there is no record of. Anyone with the most rudimentary analytical abilities would have to conclude Crowley was either lying, or making a veiled reference to masturbation.
-
@Heru-pa-kraath said
"
When I read the footnote the first time I was a little startled, but then I did the math, and understood what Crowley meant without question, and that is the way to properly defend against accusations of child sacrifice. If Crowley had sacrificed a child 150 times per year for 16 years, he would have sacrificed 2400 children, making him the most prolific, notorious serial killer in the history of man, and in every area of the world that he lived in for those years, which of course there is no record of. Anyone with the most rudimentary analytical abilities would have to conclude Crowley was either lying, or making a veiled reference to masturbation."In fact this same mathematical improbability was pointed out by the editors of Gnosis at the time, but Stephen brushed it aside, as I recall.
I suspect there was more going on than simple misinformation. One of the things we made a big deal of in the article was Crowley's willingness to experiment with all forms of attainment, citing his success with, understanding of, and subsequent incorporation of Raja Yoga into his own syncretic system. In retrospect I can imagine that we stepped on someones toes with this one—maybe Stephen saw Crowley as a competitor. I mean, why 'convert' to Buddhism or Vedanta in order to practice yoga when you can get the same thing in terms of practices, and more, from a system that doesn't require you to cut yourself off from your western roots and adopt an alien world view?
There is, I would argue, a 'theosophical' frame of mind held by most educated people interested in spiritual practice in western countries. It is a general assumption that you have to go the East to find what you need in this regard because the West has no valid system of its own. I see the same thing in theater where our history of artistic revolution with each generation is contrasted to the East where the traditions are centuries old. People are wont to project a fantasy of completeness on the East because of a sense of lack they feel about their own culture.
I'm speculating, but the pointedness of the attack was very surprising and seemed totally out of all proportion to the facts. I mean, why would he even care? Of course Stephen Bodian didn't have the depth of information about Crowley's work with Yoga to critique his efforts on that score, which may have been the sore point as far as he was concerned, so he went after Crowley's reputation instead. You don't have to be right in this respect, all you have to do is sow doubt about this person and you can safely assume that most people with little or no knowledge of the facts will not give him or his efforts a second look.
I'm not suggesting that there is some cultural/spiritual war taking place, just that some people who have given a great deal of themselves to become something other, a convert, are essentially insecure and may perhaps react aggressively when faced with something they perceive to be a challenge to their adopted beliefs.
EDIT: a rather long winded response to how you defend against this kind of thing, and why the facts probably didn't matter to Stephen, and to readers of Gnosis who previously had not formed an opinion of Crowley or his legacy.
love and will
-
Is it seen as inevitable that thelema will take root in one form or another no matter who messes up, because hoor was " let down into the animal soul of things"?
-
I think we are apt to mistrust anyone who apparently professes one creed and diverges from that creed at the apparent expense of others. We generally argue that consistency is indicative of a stable ethic or 'spiritual' state. Crowley, like many before and after him, revealed aspects of the path before he had fully absorbed or comprehended their 'truth', in terms of living them as opposed to being able to argue or intellectualize them. It terms of the 'True Will', what did he really understand? A cat that looks through the window sees the 'Garden', but does not have the freedom to delight in it, outside of its personal 'vision'. Likewise, most of us I suspect, glimpse the 'truth' of something long before we are able to put it into effective and lasting practice. The question regarding the 'Will' is perhaps more to do with the relationship between that of the individual to that which is beyond the individual will.
-
@Atzil said
"The question regarding the 'Will' is perhaps more to do with the relationship between that of the individual to that which is beyond the individual will."
You've just fallen into the most common trap here.
There is no individual will. There is only an appearance of it. (For a light-hearted treatment of this, see Prologue 2 in Visions & Voices if you choose to get it.)
-
"You've just fallen into the most common trap here.
There is no individual will. There is only an appearance of it. (For a light-hearted treatment of this, see Prologue 2 in Visions & Voices if you choose to get it.)"
Ok I will choose my language more carefully
Even though I might know there is no individual will, nevertheless in the context of the thread and perhaps bearing in mind the many converstations I have had with individuals I know who are active thelamites, both in and out of Orders, it would be difficult not to refer to the individual will in terms of how that stage on the path is perceived. I might also argue as a traditional kabbalist that since there there is none else besides Him, there is only His Will. Ironically, what I was pointing to is that many misinterpret the idea of "doing one's True Will" ultimately in egoistical terms, for various reasons.
Simply pointing out to someone "there is no individual will. There is only an appearance of it" requires an
explanation...precisely how it is that the 'individual will' appears in relation to the 'reality' behind it; a philosophical concept that has engaged some of the greatest minds from various spiritual disciplines.
Thanks for the reference. I would be interested to understand more about Crowley's ideas on the nature of
the Will, particularly in how he derived it and in relation to the kabbalah that was available to him at the time. -
For me there is no trap in the context we are talking about.
However, please explain why you think there is -
That only works if you if you agree to that definition
-
"Exactly what are the limits one can attain to in this life? Why should we assume Crowley didn't reach that limit in his time, because of our ethical considerations of him... insomuch that we should say he didn't understand true will??
What is the trap?
Thinking that what incarnates it's "self" as "you", is really "you".
This is not a strictly Thelemic concept, as I'm sure Crowley was aware."
These questions are, of course, very difficult to answer. And I am not proposing I can answer them. The question of 'ethical' consideration is usually a common benchmark, but I have no way of proving or disproving that such considerations are justified or true with regard to Crowley or anyone. It could be argued that my own view on Crowley or anyone is formed by what I have read, my own experience, prejudices and needs in terms of my own development. I am inclined to feel that Crowley wasn't completely 'liberated'. He may have 'understood' True Will, but understanding is, in my experience, only one component of liberation. Then again I am no adept and do not have the faintest idea of what that term is supposed to mean, despite the thousands who claim its title.
Yes, there are many variations on that theme of the trap. The Buddhist and Nyaya-Vaisesika debated extensively
on this very subject, along with numerous other schools of Indian thought. At the end of the day, we have to make a choice between the various solutions offered to escape the 'trap'. Often we change our point of view as we go along. Its an adventure, where we can sometimes share the same vista or not, or explore the limits of our own
view by debating and sharing with others from different paths. -
Here is the relevant passage (taken out of a larger essay) of the p.o.v. I referenced above:
“Will power” **at the personality level **is an illusion in exactly the same way that independent, willful action by my computer is an illusion. However, something the personality does have quite a lot of is Won’t Power. Personalities can make obfuscating choices. Obstinacy is one of our strongest “powers.” [...] This “getting in our own way” is the most skillful means we have of not listening and not responding to proper Supernal input or instruction.
-
i prolly shouldnt be replying here because i havent read all the posts. but if someones true will consists in "shedding," as it were, false ego conceptions, and especially if someone came to crowley asking him to help them find their true wills, i.e. to shed false ego conceptions, and if in fact that process was taking place at least in part due to circumstances the beast initaited... would he really be violating their will.
think about cefalu. we know things werent ideal there, as far as hygiene and stuff, and i feel for raoul loveday..... but crowley did not murder him, and regardless of what his wife an family later said, i doubt mr. loveday, if indeed he could look down on us today, regrets what went on there.
someone we all admire is jane wolfe... i cant help but wonder what transformations her true self underwent, realized, initiated, etc, sitting in that room with the "demonic murals", a sort of qliphotic vault of adepts.
i wish i had been there.
93 93/93
(not to say crowleys relationship with nueburg wasnt flawed......)
-
"“Will power” at the personality level is an illusion in exactly the same way that independent, willful action by my computer is an illusion. However, something the personality does have quite a lot of is Won’t Power. Personalities can make obfuscating choices. Obstinacy is one of our strongest “powers.” [...] This “getting in our own way” is the most skillful means we have of not listening and not responding to proper Supernal input or instruction."
Yes, I would agree.
Thanks for the quote
Atzilut
-
"Crowley- Violator of others' Wills?"
I haven't read very much of Crowley but the little i have seems to point to a certain passivity regarding aspects of his work which would qualify as a VIOLATION by inaction or predestination; necessity. The 23rd Aethyr makes this presumption crystal - at least in my own peculiar circumstance.
Rarely, in fact twice only, have i experienced lament from Therion and this aethyr was one and his rather 'whiney' run in with inertia, the other *.
I would say that even the Beast, himself, was a victim of incapacity and sublimated the realization beneath the shiny veneer of destiny.
-
@Stag-Nation said
"I haven't read very much of Crowley but the little i have seems to point to a certain passivity regarding aspects of his work which would qualify as a VIOLATION by inaction or predestination; necessity. The 23rd Aethyr makes this presumption crystal - at least in my own peculiar circumstance."
I'm curious what you mean by that. Despite my having recently written 3,400 words on the 23rd Aethyr, your point isn't self-evident to me and, perhaps, therefore is not so clear to others either.
"Rarely, in fact twice only, have i experienced lament from Therion and this aethyr was one and his rather 'whiney' run in with inertia, the other *."
Again, I probably need your help to sort this out for me. I find mostly the opposite weakness. The first eight paragraphs (nearly all of the Bull section) are proud and self-exalting. (I think falsely so, but it's the p.o.v. of the Osirian idea of masculinity.) Paragraph 9 does allude directly to lament - of Crowley? - specifically regarding change. (It's rather Buddhist, in fact.) Here is that paragraph:
@23rd Aethyr said
"For the whirlings of the universe are but the course of the blood in my heart. And the unspeakable variety thereof is but my divers hairs, and plumes, and gems in my tall crown. The change which ye lament is the life of my rejoicing, and the sorrow that blackeneth your hearts is the myriad deaths by which I am renewed. And the instability which maketh ye to fear, is the little waverings of balance by which I am assured."
The "whirlings of the universe" are the "Primal Whirlings," or Primum Mobile, which are Kether in Assiah (Rashith ha-Galgalim). The remainder of the paragraph, regarding "change" and "sorrow," refers to the Buddhist doctrines of anikka and dukkha, corresponding to Chokmah and Binah, respectively.
Is this the passage you meant? Or another?
The remaining half of the vision switches to the Eagle, and is quite glorious and rapturous.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Stag-Nation said
"I haven't read very much of Crowley but the little i have seems to point to a certain passivity regarding aspects of his work which would qualify as a VIOLATION by inaction or predestination; necessity. The 23rd Aethyr makes this presumption crystal - at least in my own peculiar circumstance."I'm curious what you mean by that. Despite my having recently written 3,400 words on the 23rd Aethyr, your point isn't self-evident to me and, perhaps, therefore is not so clear to others either."
I'm referencing an iteration of the magical child and the unavoidable coarsity endemic to its development. To be culpable insofar as knowledge of an intended corruption but being unwilling or incapable to voice protest [necessity?] which sounds as quiet lament; even pity. Of course the aethyrs are highly subjective and selective with regard to whom or what the full depth of their implication is revealed.
@23rd Aethyr said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Stag-Nation said
"Rarely, in fact twice only, have i experienced lament from Therion and this aethyr was one and his rather 'whiney' run in with inertia, the other *."Again, I probably need your help to sort this out for me. I find mostly the opposite weakness. The first eight paragraphs (nearly all of the Bull section) are proud and self-exalting. (I think falsely so, but it's the p.o.v. of the Osirian idea of masculinity.) Paragraph 9 does allude directly to lament - of Crowley? - specifically regarding change. (It's rather Buddhist, in fact.) Here is that paragraph:"
For the whirlings of the universe are but the course of the blood in my heart. And the unspeakable variety thereof is but my divers hairs, and plumes, and gems in my tall crown. The change which ye lament is the life of my rejoicing, and the sorrow that blackeneth your hearts is the myriad deaths by which I am renewed. And the instability which maketh ye to fear, is the little waverings of balance by which I am assured."
@Jim Eshelman said
"The "whirlings of the universe" are the "Primal Whirlings," or Primum Mobile, which are Kether in Assiah (Rashith ha-Galgalim). The remainder of the paragraph, regarding "change" and "sorrow," refers to the Buddhist doctrines of anikka and dukkha, corresponding to Chokmah and Binah, respectively.
Is this the passage you meant? Or another?
The remaining half of the vision switches to the Eagle, and is quite glorious and rapturous."
I make mention of only two instances in which i experienced the 'humanity', [frailty] if you will, of Crowely. Overall he was certainly a model of attainment. The Liber Aleph citing was in reference to the shame he experienced as a consequence of his willful ignoble pursuits.