Crowley- Violator of others' Wills?
-
@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.
-
@Solitarius said
"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 (****) 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."
A vice grips and restricts.
Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world. -
Nueburg was acting as a masochist and slave, he was being a sycophant, so Crowley use him to practice his sadistic urges. There is nothing in the book of the law about not interfering with other people at all. There is the notion of minding your own business, but as for as I know it was Crowely's business to treat Neuburg as he did to learn about the psychology of masochists as well as to explore his own sadism.
I mean on the one hand he says not to practice pick pocketing because it's dishonest on the other he treats Neuburg as his slave, dragging him naked through the streets. It seems a contradiction. Then we look at why he says stealing is wrong, he says it is because it carries the notions that one is inferior to some one else, it's an expression of slave mentality and resentment of those who have money. Rather than to rise up an earn money yourself. Where as treating Neuburg as a slave was not Crowley bowing or cowering or making himself less than Neuburg. That others want to kiss your feet and act inferior to you is their fault and the consequence of their acting like slaves is that you beat them like slaves and humiliate them.
Thelema is not about liberal values of not hurting people or upsetting their feelings. It is the law of the strong. it is Nietzschean and Aristocratic. If subjugating people actually aids your Will, there is no law against it. it fact the law clearly states "The slaves shall serve"
-
@Froclown said
"There is nothing in the book of the law about not interfering with other people at all."
The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell.
So with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will.
AL I:41-42If you are thinking in the parity of left vs right, conservative vs liberal, you are quite well missing a lot of useful points. Instead it is right, it is strong, and it is juicy (meaning, it can be many flavors if you like).
To one it is the Will of man to flourish as a team, to another is the Will of man to allow him or her to flourish as an individual. I do not see these at odds. Should YOU see these at odds, I advise you to choose your battles wisely. There is many a man who would love to kill you just to watch a man die.
-
Sounds like advice not to get sex bound up with legal contracts to me. So that you are not bound by sex, religion or law, to restrict your own WILL. It is also a restriction of your own Will to worry about what your wife is doing, let her "cheat" if she wants, don't worry about what others do sexually, since that worry is itself a bond that only restricts you.
No I'm not talking what you mean by left and right politics.
I mean The Traditional in the sense of Julius Evola and Rene Geunon vs the forces of egalitarianism and degeneration to base physical needs and money power, displacing the power of higher values and virtues.I am talking what Nietzsche calls the WILL to nothingness vs the Will to power. The master vs the slave morality, and the "last man" vs the "ubermensch".
The difference between a society and culture than creates and encourages the last man (modern liberalism) vs the culture than encourages and creates the Next men, the over men.
Crowley called the last man (Troglodytes) and in the letter to probationers he called the next man or ubermensch (Christs or Geniuses) which the A.'.A.'. was the means of refining and creating. The OTO was meant to be a society that supported the values than produce these superior men and discourage the slave mentality that leads to the last men.
The GREAT WORK is the process of building such an ideal society and the ideal aristocratic men who are the highest fruits of such a society.
-
Froclown, you have a poor habit of compartmentalizing and degrading any idea to its smallest useful component. "So with thy all," and thus with everything, you reduce it to nothing of value.
I wish you the best. That's my liberalism speaking, my compassion for a fellow space/time traveler. But you're an idiot and I shall never expect a best of anything from you. That's my superiority talking.
I'm sure I'm quite right.
-