Is the philosophy of Thelema really serious ?
-
Greetings,
Have you ever seen this wikipedia page ?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_of_Ecclesia_Gnostica_CatholicaI saw it a few months ago, and I have to say that it seems to be a little bit special to me... How can you put Moses, a mainstream jewish prophet, with Priapus ? How can you unite a few gnostic religious men without including Jesus in that conception ? And at the end, the fact that the Ecclesia considers Nietzsche and Buddha as saints has something hurting for me : what does a wise man teaching how to live without passion and desire has to do with a philosopher that taught us about self will ?
Maybe I don't know enough on Thelema to judge it myself, but all those names seem a little bit messy to me
-
@Diogenos said
"How can you put Moses, a mainstream jewish prophet, with Priapus ?"
From the structure of your question, you seem to think that the particular religious code matters. It doesn't. (At least, within Thelemic perspective it doesn't: all doctrines eventually subsume into a few common principles, however much they seem to diverge outwardly.)
That said... Judaism, at root, is perhaps the most tantric religion (for lack of a better phrase) in the west, certainly of the mainstream.
The bigger issue here is that Moses may not have existed historically (but then, neither did Priapus literally, most likely). But the mythic value is there.
"How can you unite a few gnostic religious men without including Jesus in that conception ?"
There is serious question of whether Jesus actually existed. However, for mythic power, Crowley did lump the numerous Jesus-like prophets and figures of the eastern Mediterranean world under the general heading of Dionysus.
"And at the end, the fact that the Ecclesia considers Nietzsche and Buddha as saints has something hurting for me : what does a wise man teaching how to live without passion and desire has to do with a philosopher that taught us about self will ? "
See my first answer above: You seem to think that the particular religious code matters. It doesn't. (At least, not from the point of view from which the list was compiled.)
By the way, that's just one list, though something of an "orthodox" list. In contrast, here is the list Temple of Thelema employs in its Thelemic Mass. You will see similarities and differences. These are, as the ritual indicates, those who contributed to bearing the light to us down through the generations:
Krishna, Thoth, Mosheh, Lao-tze, Gautama, Dionysus, Mohammed, and To Mega Therion. With these also: Hermes, Chiram, Horus, and Melchizedek; Apollonius of Tyana, Bardaisan, and Hippolytus that transmitted the Light of the Gnosis to us their successors and heirs; Dante, Michelangelo, and Leonardo da Vinci; Raymond Lully, Nicholas Flamel, Robert Fludd, and Paracelsus who labored in the Work of the Sun; Prince Rakoczy le Comte de St. Germain, Dr. John Dee, “Christian Rosencreutz,” Michael Maier, and Thomas Vaughan who upraised the Rosy Cross; Giordano Bruno, Miguel de Molinos, Richard Maurice Bucke, and Swami Vivekananda; Dr. Paul Foster Case, Dr. Israel Regardie, Dr. William Wynn Westcott, George Cecil Jones, Edward Alexander Crowley, and Karl Johannes Germer.
Shekinah, Shakti, Sophia, Athena, Iymma, Isis, and Hé Kokkiné Guné. With these also: Sappho, Hypatia, Medea, Miriam, Fatimah, and Guenevere; Joan of Arc, Hildegard von Bingen, Caterina Benincasa, Teresa of Ávila, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Rebecca Cox Jackson, who bore the labarum of Light through the darkness. And these also: Eva von Buttlar, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Ida Craddock, Anandamoyi Ma, and Vivian Godfrey Barcynski; “Anna Sprengel,” Florence Farr, Violet Firth, and Ann Davies, who nurtured a Golden Dawn; Rose Edith Crowley, Leah Hirsig, Sarah Jane Wolfe, and Phyllis Evelina Seckler.
-
The philosophy of Thelema represents a particular mythos sought to be understood. But it understands and accepts the broader category of Mythic Truth found in all ancient mythoi.
It chooses a direction, yet it learns from the other directions as well in the process, even intentionally, consciously examining them. As such, it can recognize Philosophical Truth in "other religions" while staying "theologically" free from their dogmas.
-
@Diogenos said
"Greetings,
Have you ever seen this wikipedia page ?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_of_Ecclesia_Gnostica_CatholicaI saw it a few months ago, and I have to say that it seems to be a little bit special to me... How can you put Moses, a mainstream jewish prophet, with Priapus ? How can you unite a few gnostic religious men without including Jesus in that conception ? And at the end, the fact that the Ecclesia considers Nietzsche and Buddha as saints has something hurting for me : what does a wise man teaching how to live without passion and desire has to do with a philosopher that taught us about self will ?
Maybe I don't know enough on Thelema to judge it myself, but all those names seem a little bit messy to me
"93,
The short answer to your question is that the list contains people who either (a) represent a tradition and/or (b) brought the 'Light of the Gnosis', i.e. some form of truth, to humanity. They do not all represent facets of some logically consistent philosophy but are all contributors to mankind's self-knowledge and liberation.
93 93/93
-
I studied the philosophy of Thelema those days and I know it better now than before ; nevertheless, somethings is a little problem to me. Did Crowley really know oriental philosophy ? I remember that in the first chapter or Liber 4 he talked about Samkhya as being a man, whereas it is an indian philosophical school in reality...
What do you think about that ? Is the core of his spiritual message really relevant or was To Mega Therion teaching some things that he didn't really know ?I was pretty disappointed when I discovered that since Thelema is something pretty interesting for me... Or as we say, "Errare humanum est" ?
-
He really understood Eastern philosophy, yes.
I don't remember the passage U mentioned in Book 4. Could U cite it, please?
-
I think here Diogenos is misinterpreting something. Beyond the point, he has misspelled Sankhya. Crowley, in one sentence in the section titled Asana mentions a man who is the "leading authority" on Yoga. That man's name is (was) Patanjali (which is not a terribly uncommon name and many authors on Yoga have that name). Then, in a following sentence Crowley writes, "Again, Sankhya says, "Posture is that which is steady and easy." And again, "any posture which is steady and easy is an Asana; there is no other rule." Any posture will do." He does not there say that Sankhya is a man, he is saying Sankhya says. Skepticism says be wary of even your own theories.
-
Thanks. It's a convention of language, then. It's as correct to say "Samkhya says" as to say, "Democracy requires" or "Christianity says," etc.
-
@Takamba said
"I think here Diogenos is misinterpreting something. Beyond the point, he has misspelled Sankhya. Crowley, in one sentence in the section titled Asana mentions a man who is the "leading authority" on Yoga. That man's name is (was) Patanjali (which is not a terribly uncommon name and many authors on Yoga have that name). Then, in a following sentence Crowley writes, "Again, Sankhya says, "Posture is that which is steady and easy." And again, "any posture which is steady and easy is an Asana; there is no other rule." Any posture will do." He does not there say that Sankhya is a man, he is saying Sankhya says. Skepticism says be wary of even your own theories."
My bad for the mispelling ; nevertheless, my remark was pretty relevant to me since I only possess a french translation of libert 4 (Yes, I'm a froggy) in which it was explained in the commentary that To Mega Therion was considering Sankhya as a man in his work about yoga... I misunderstood the meaning of that commentary. I guess original version is always better when studying that kind of document.
That seemed to be unlogical, but I see clearly now
-
@Diogenos said
"My bad for the mispelling ; nevertheless, my remark was pretty relevant to me since I only possess a french translation of libert 4 (Yes, I'm a froggy) in which it was explained in the commentary that To Mega Therion was considering Sankhya as a man in his work about yoga... I misunderstood the meaning of that commentary. I guess original version is always better when studying that kind of document.
That seemed to be unlogical, but I see clearly now"I'll post the original English here (highlights mine):
@Liber ABA said
"The word Asana means "posture; but, as with all words which have caused debate, its exact meaning has altered, and it is used in several distinct senses by various authors. The greatest authority on "Yoga" is Patanjali. He says, "Asana is that which is firm and pleasant." This may be taken as meaning the result of success in the practice. Again, Sankhya says, "Posture is that which is steady and easy." And again, "any posture which is steady and easy is an Asana; there is no other rule." Any posture will do."
Never trust a French translation, they can be a bit froggy.
