Crowley- Violator of others' Wills?
-
@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.
-
@Stag-Nation said
"
@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."
I truly don't know what you mean. The word "child" doesn't appear anywhere in the Cry of the 23rd Aethyr, and the word "children" only appears in par. 8 in the sentence, "Come ye unto me, my children, and be glad."
I'm just trying to find out what, in the Cry of the 23rd Aethyr in The Vision & the Voice, is the base of the particular characterization that you're giving to that specific vision. (I'm now wondering if you possibly meant a different aethyr, and it's not the 23rd at all.)
"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."
Not knowing what specific passage you mean, I have no idea whether or not I would agree with you. I suppose I agree in broad principle, but can't find anything resembling this in the vision you named.
"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."
I'm not asking about Liber Aleph. You specifically said that the 23rd Aethyr was one of two examples of lamentation, and you subsequently called it "whiney." I'm merely expressing my puzzlement at your characterization because I can't find anything in that specific vision that appears to me to be either of those things. Nor am I questioning your personal reaction, just trying to find the passage to which you had that reaction. Could you please quote the exact sentences in the Cry of the 23rd Aethyr which match your description of it?
-
The 'whiney' reference was Liber Aleph. Forgive my lack of precision in explanation. Section 22 is what you're looking for, keeping in mind the keyword iteration.
This visceral disquisition has come to an end.
-
@Stag-Nation said
"Section 22 is what you're looking for, keeping in mind the keyword iteration."
Apparently this is the passage ("iteration" does not appear anywhere in the 22nd Aethyr, so I'm going back to quoting passage on "child" - in an effort to simply have quoted here the exact sentences that have drawn the characterizations above):
"All this while the dewdrops have turned into cascades of gold finer than the eyelashes of a little child. And though the extent of the Æthyr is so enormous, one perceives each hair separately, as well as the whole thing at once. And now there is a mighty con-course of angels rushing toward me from every side, and they melt upon the surface of the egg in which I am standing in the form of the god Kneph, so that the surface of the egg is all one dazzling blaze of liquid light.
Now I move up against the tablet, – I cannot tell you with what rapture. And all the names of God, that are not known even to the angels, clothe me about.
All the seven senses are transmuted into one sense, and that sense is dissolved in itself…. (Here occurs Samadhi.) … Let me speak, O God; let me declare it… all. It is useless; my heart faints, my breath stops. There is no link between me and P.… I withdraw myself. I see the table again. [...]
And all the table burns with intolerable light; there has been no such light in any of the Æthyrs until now. And now the table draws me back into itself; I am no more. [...]
The voice of the Crowned Child, the Speech of the Babe that is hidden in the egg of blue. (Before me is the flaming Rosy Cross.) I have opened mine eye, and the universe is dissolved before me, for force is mine upper eye-lid and matter is my lower eye-lid. I gaze into the seven spaces, and there is naught.
The rest of it comes without words; and then again:
I have gone forth to war, and I have slain him that sat upon the sea, crowned with the winds. I put forth my power and he was broken. I withdrew my power and he was ground into fine dust.
Rejoice with me, O ye Sons of the Morning; stand with me upon the Throne of Lotus; gather yourselves up unto me, and we shall play together in the fields of light. I have passed into the Kingdom of the West after my Father.
Behold! Where are now the darkness and the terror and the lamentation? For ye are born into the new Æon; ye shall not suffer death. Bind up your girdles of gold! Wreathe yourselves with garlands of my unfading flowers! In the nights we will dance together, and in the morning we will go forth to war; for, as my Father liveth that was dead, so do I live and shall never die."
Totally self-loathing and lamenting.
-
Is it plausible that there may be in fact 5 planes of existence? A plane more dense than the one in which we exist?
aethyr 23 section 22... 
edit: aethyr 22 ismighty fine...
-
@Stag-Nation said
"Is it plausible that there may be in fact 5 planes of existence? A plane more dense than the one in which we exist?
aethyr 23 section 22... edit: aethyr 22 ismighty fine..."
Yes, that's one valid way of modelling it. Usually, though, this Q'lippothic realm is regarded as a very dense part of Assiah; but, as a mental construct, it's often functional to think of that as a denser world of its own. (Consider the category of "adolescence," where those adolescents in high school clearly think of middle school / junior high kids as existing on a lower plane <g>.)
(PS - Aethyr 23 only has 16 paragraphs.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"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."
Hi Jim,
This is probably needs a long complicated answer, but in keeping with the thread topic - I'm curious how those who are spiritually advanced (adepts, masters, even those just a bit above the average joe) are able to have personality faults. I have read Eye in the Triangle and Regardie makes some statement to the effect that the daily personality and preferences don't change (he lists a food preference as an example) after enlightenment. I'm trying to get a sense for what separate's one's personality before and after enlightenment, or just spiritual advancement of whatever significant sort. For example, I am assuming there is much more compassion for people and the world in general, yet I'm also going to bet that adepts, etc. get just as furiously pissed off when people cut them off driving or attack their egos as they did before their advancement. I'm wondering fundamentally about the personality's relationship to one's spiritual progress. -
deleted
-
Escarabajo said:
"I'm wondering fundamentally about the personality's relationship to one's spiritual progress."
This is indeed a complex one. Different schools have different answers, not only about what the personality is, but its place in the scheme of things or not as the case may be. Early Buddhist theories, for example, generally argue that the personality is an aggregate, skandha, made up of various parts whose very existence is attributed to the concept of dependent origination, at whose root lies ignorance and attachment/desire. Since the doctrine of a permanent self is rejected, the question of one's spiritual progress is defined by uprooting both attachment and desire. The state of Adeptship or being an Arhat is one in which both subtle and gross forms of personality traits are relinquished by stages. Thus, in the Theravada system where I studied in Ceylon, genuine practitioners and monks nearly always strived for equinamity, whatever the provocation or circumstance. The ethic is, therefore, is strongly tied to the idea of progress within the stages of enlightment.
Other schools of Indian thought argue that displays of anger etc are permitted when they serve a lesson to the
student, or in order to integrate with their environments. Then, only the student can determine whether or not
his teachers anger etc was justified by the lesson learnt. There are some amusing anecdotes which recount sages
flying in a rage and beating students for their stupidity. On the other hand, there are those who eschewed this practice altogether. Unless one operates in total seclusion, which is more customary in places such as India etc,
it is likely that we are going to engage with the 'personality' at some level.
Other schools of thought regard the personality as an essential part of the 'redemptive' process and therefore our
relationship is one of bringing out its hidden and underdeveloped state and 'correcting' it, as part of the divine plan. Theosophy, and Bailey for example, argued that only at the fourth initiation, does one finally consciously fully realise the unbroken link that has existed between the Monad and the Personality. the personailty and not the soul, in this case, remains intact and reflects the Monadic Will.
Whichever way we look at it, the personality, even if nominally, survives in some sense. To what degree we can
assume whether or not such a personality has achieved a certain spiritual state is difficult to know beyond the basic rudimentary ethics. What one personality may reveal to you when you meet, may not be the same for me.
Some relationships have an almost unique ability to bring out in one other the depths that lie within. Others, no matter what we hear about their status etc, they leave us cold and unmoved, at that time. What is magical though is never knowing who, and under what circumstances, will walk through that door and effect you in a profound and maybe life-changing way. -
I started thinking about this topic again and felt the need to express my opinion in a more complete form. Much of what I'm going to write is implied already or previously stated by someone else. It's a kind of summing up—it's also my opinion and how I basically understand the initial question.
What to do when the saint or master doesn't measure up to our idea of an enlightened soul?
Not just Crowley, but many so-called masters have been disappointing on this score. It almost seems required that a great teacher also be a complete prick, or cunt as the case my be.Is it just a modern perspective that places so much importance on the personality, or is this bias much older? I suspect it is a fairly recent development. The personality is the outer most sheath, apart from the body, which is also used as an indicator of worth—the physically beautiful are treated as angels by the masses even though we know them to be no such thing.
Chances are, every master had foibles and failings on the personal plane. In this regard, Crowley is unique historically because he seems to be the first really significant figure to have had his every nose-wipe documented and commented on. I don't think Blavatksy was subjected to anything like this. This sort of hyper scrutiny is now the norm for every public figure, no matter the field—spiritual, political, royal, entertainment.
I am of the opinion that the bad stuff proves nothing. There is another way of dealing with this conundrum than simply being scandalized: look at the achievements, and only look at the bad stuff if you can justify this exercise for reasons other than being mean-spirited. The truth is that Norman Mudd's suicide, probably as a result of some slight he received from Crowley, does not affect me at all. On the other hand I can point to any number of things Crowley did and was instrumental in creating that I make constant reference to and profiting from. His bad-boy antics will never change this fact.
For the most part I don't see any benefit in worrying over spilled milk—was Crowley a good person or a bad person. Frankly, I'm am more interested in why someone would bring up this sordid history—what is their agenda? The reasons can be listed.
- Entertainment value, Crowley's biographies are generally good reads because of all the juicy personal details...
- It might be important to use Crowley's life to make a point about the relationship of personal development and spiritual progress—that there is in fact very little connection...
- Simple confusion, the initial post of this thread...
- Or, to hurt Thelema and Magick. Because popular bias wants to assume the enlightened must also be 'good,' Crowley's personality is the easiest most ready weapon to hand. The underpinnings of this criticism need not be true in any deep sense, it just has to play to popular prejudice. In this way the most superficial facts about Crowley's circumstance, his upbringing as an upper class English bigot or misogynist, normal for the period and place of his origin, are used to marginalize a work that clearly transcends any limitation encompassed by his personality.
In this regard, Crowley could perhaps be criticized because he didn't protect his public image better than he did, leaving a big mess that continues to impact his real work in negative ways. But there is little to be done about it now. Better to simply leave each to his/her own ability to see past the trivial and hopefully acknowledge the stuff that really matters. At the very least this ability will separate the freer brethren from the others.
...the slaves shall serve.
Love and Will
-
I think it can boil down to "personality worship" is so old-aeon. If you have enough self-loathing in yourself to see hate in you when you look at another personality, that's not liberation.
-
Yes.
Crowley (like Blavatsky, for example) had the distinction that no sane person would want to emulate being like him. "Living a Crowley-like life" is not a part of the new dispensation! That's highly advantageous.
There is a traditional view that being more spiritual means setting a higher standard of "being good." However, understanding "more spiritual" as "having access to higher levels of consciousness," makes it immediately obvious that this is a dubious assumption. For example, it should be pretty obvious that being smarter doesn't mean that one sets a higher standard of "being good." Being a superior athlete doesn't mean that one sets a higher standard of "being good." Playing the trumpet awesomely doesn't mean that one sets a higher standard of "being good." And "being more spiritual" is simply a different human capacity taken, by innate talent or training, to a higher level of performance.
One can see farther than everyone else and still make wrong choices!
-
true/true
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
-
"There is a traditional view that being more spiritual means setting a higher standard of "being good." However, understanding "more spiritual" as "having access to higher levels of consciousness," makes it immediately obvious that this is a dubious assumption. For example, it should be pretty obvious that being smarter doesn't mean that one sets a higher standard of "being good." Being a superior athlete doesn't mean that one sets a higher standard of "being good." Playing the trumpet awesomely doesn't mean that one sets a higher standard of "being good." And "being more spiritual" is simply a different human capacity taken, by innate talent or training, to a higher level of performance.
One can see farther than everyone else and still make wrong choices!
"Now this is interesting as a topic...
-
I have often thought about the this, Crowley was a man that grew and changed as we all do, spiritual experience may create change, also it may effect each individual differently. Maybe he felt messing with the profanes head's would not create any problem for his view of the big picture. There seems to be cause and effect with All, and I personally feel that we would not have came into the physical if we did not have work to do.
Sometimes it seems the bigger the mistake the more I learn, and people who preach being good seem to do otherwise. As far as who holds the Light, it seems that the Light matters more than it's bearer. I personally could care less what faults one has, if they have something I can learn from. I shy away from criticizing those who I don't know everything about, everyone usually justifies there actions and feels they had a reason.
Maybe I am careless or could care less, I stopped fearing "evil" a long time ago, ignorance scares me most, mostly my own.
peace
-
@MagickMason said
"As far as who holds the Light, it seems that the Light matters more than it's bearer."
Kind of like the zen quote "If one points a finger at the moon, the fool looks at the finger."
I think there's a certain poetic brilliance to an Aeon that starts off with a person who could be so eye-rollingly melodramatic and arrogant as it's chief prophet. Really seems to help drive home the point that "heaven" isn't just for the boys and girls that fold their hands in class and smile sanctimoniously.
It's taken me 5 years to get over that, myself. I'm reading his Confessions right now, and I'm finally at the point where I can just laugh at him, and still accept him, and still be amazed at what he dared to do, and still be dumbstruck by thelema as a philosophy.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Jim Eshelman said
"One can see farther than everyone else and still make wrong choices!
"Nice!
I would even go as far as to say, "One can make wrong choices because one can see farther than everyone else."
It would seem its our own guilt and apprehensive inclination to classify every experience as either good or evil, right or wrong, beneficial or not, etc. that's generally most restrictive to Our Will.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
Where in the book of the law does it say we can't abuse or hurt other people. Neuburg obeyed Crowley's sadistic demands, so Crowley treated him like dirt. "Strike hard and low, to hell with them"
Thelema is not liberal humanism, the values of thelema are not aimed at making people comfortable or reducing displeasure or hurt. They aim at making people more confident, stronger, developing hubris, and removing all guilt, self doubt and hesitation. It is teaching to use logic and strength to achieve goals and not be distracted by feelings and biases, it is about learning for yourself by direct experience and challenging your limits, if it makes you feel disgusted, guilty, or unclean, Thelema says force yourself to do it until you can do it with NO such reaction. (That includes kicking the dog and not feeling sorry for it, even if the Dog is Victor Neuberg).
-
You are an idiot
Crowley treated Neuburg the way he did "Because" he obeyed his sadistic demands.
Apart from the fact that Crowley admitted that being the first Thelemite he was also more or less the worst Thelemite.
If you think that Calling yourself a Thelemite is an excuse to treat people like shit for the sake of it then you need your head seeing to.
Compassion is the vice of Kings, I,e, if you are indeed a King then you can allow yourself the vice of compassion; if, on the other hand your are not a King, then your sole business is to mind your own affairs, and you have no right whatsoever to meddle in the affairs of others.
The slaves shall serve.