It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Crowley, what is so bad?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Crowley believed that you must push all the edges to know where you stand. How far did he go in the bad direction?

He had two children that died under mysterious circumstances.




posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by umwolves123
ok i know this is kinda a stupid question but What exactly did Crowley do that was soo bad?

i ask only because i dont really know much about him.

I know he was a member of Golden Dawn, a number of witch covens, a clandestine mason, and a big sexual deviant, however...what kind of sexual things made him so bad? was he a child molester or something?

what kind of sex magic did he get involved in?

[edited to correct title -nygdan]

[edit on 29-6-2006 by Nygdan]


Those are just public rumours about why he was "shunned" he was more hated because of his open stance on drugs and spirituality mixed... and some of the secrets he shared equated from the former... He stated in some of his books that he never participated in human sacrifice or sex with children... but its not like you'd admit to that.. so who knows right? ...
Still Crowley was only one of the many Beasts in a manner of speaking, he believed so because from his childhood he was always called the beast by his mother (but aren't we all called little devils by our moms at some point.. lol)..
Our idea of the beast is very wrong though.... we don't understand what it ALL means...


Now the production of the instructor came about as follows. When Sophia let fall a droplet of light, it flowed onto the water, and immediately a human being appeared, being androgynous. That droplet she molded first as a female body. Afterwards, using the body she molded it in the likeness of the mother, which had appeared. And he finished it in twelve months. An androgynous human being was produced, whom the Greeks call Hermaphrodites; and whose mother the Hebrews call Eve of Life (Zoe), namely, the female instructor of life. Her offspring is the creature that is lord. Afterwards, the authorities called it "Beast", so that it might lead astray their modelled creatures. The interpretation of "the beast" is "the instructor". For it was found to be the wisest of all beings.

and by no means did crowley have it all figured out... so I wouldn't call him 'The Beast' ... but he sure did give A LOT of people a jump-start.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Just commented on this elsewhere but remember the famous line by Crowley "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Well this is simply the belief that the ego is the ultimate good and that by defintion there is no evil. So if Crowley was a constant paedophile and child murderer...well if he is true to his declared belief there's nothing actually wrong with that. Or take the nazi extermination camps and the gulags. Again taking Crowley at his word, nothing whatsoever wrong with murdering millions. We should realise the implications of ideas. And Crowley was most certainly a force for evil. But then again Crowley would deny the existence of evil. The Indian write and mystic Aurobindo is very revaling about these kind of people
"It (Truth) is to great and subtle for his comprehension. His instincts call for a visible, tangible mastery and a sensational domination. How shall he feel sure of his empire unless he can feel something writhing helpless under his heel- if in agony, so much the better."

[edit on 5-7-2006 by andrew ky]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrew ky
Just commented on this elsewhere but remember the famous line by Crowley "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Well this is simply the belief that the ego is the ultimate good and that by defintion there is no evil. So if Crowley was a constant paedophile and child murderer...well if he is true to his declared belief there's nothing actually wrong with that. Or take the nazi extermination camps and the gulags. Again taking Crowley at his word, nothing whatsoever wrong with murdering millions. We should realise the implications of ideas. And Crowley was most certainly a force for evil. But then again Crowley would deny the existence of evil. The Indian write and mystic Aurobindo is very revaling about these kind of people
"It (Truth) is to great and subtle for his comprehension. His instincts call for a visible, tangible mastery and a sensational domination. How shall he feel sure of his empire unless he can feel something writhing helpless under his heel- if in agony, so much the better."


I countered this on another thread, but it will perhaps serve to comment on it here to:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" doesn't mean "do whatever you want to". Crowley was extremely clear on this, and I suggest you actually read what he says about it before vilifying him.

"Do what thou wilt" concerns following the True Will, what the Golden Dawn called "the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel". It is impossible for two Wills to be in conflict because they both come from the same One Source, which institutes Universal Balance. Therefore, if one is following the Will, he obviously will not open a concentration camp.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
[edit on 6-7-2006 by andrew ky]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by andrew ky
Just commented on this elsewhere but remember the famous line by Crowley "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Well this is simply the belief that the ego is the ultimate good and that by defintion there is no evil. So if Crowley was a constant paedophile and child murderer...well if he is true to his declared belief there's nothing actually wrong with that. Or take the nazi extermination camps and the gulags. Again taking Crowley at his word, nothing whatsoever wrong with murdering millions. We should realise the implications of ideas. And Crowley was most certainly a force for evil. But then again Crowley would deny the existence of evil. The Indian write and mystic Aurobindo is very revaling about these kind of people
"It (Truth) is to great and subtle for his comprehension. His instincts call for a visible, tangible mastery and a sensational domination. How shall he feel sure of his empire unless he can feel something writhing helpless under his heel- if in agony, so much the better."


I countered this on another thread, but it will perhaps serve to comment on it here to:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" doesn't mean "do whatever you want to". Crowley was extremely clear on this, and I suggest you actually read what he says about it before vilifying him.

"Do what thou wilt" concerns following the True Will, what the Golden Dawn called "the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel". It is impossible for two Wills to be in conflict because they both come from the same One Source, which institutes Universal Balance. Therefore, if one is following the Will, he obviously will not open a concentration camp.


I am not villifying him. I am pointing out the true substance of the content of his thought. And I am aware that he talks of the higher self. However the man talking of this higher self is one who was proud to call himself the Beast and used the moniker of 666. The best I would be inclined to say of such a man is what an immature egomaniac. So I think it very wise to wonder of the nature of such a higher being. And to many Lucifer would count as an extremely high exalted being.

"...there are beings of intelligence and power of a far higher quality than anything we can conceive of as human; that they are not necessarily based on the cerebral and nervous structures that we know, and that the one and only chance for mankind to advance as a whole is for individuals to make contact with such Beings." Aleister Crowley

This shows the true poverty of his spiritual understanding. Crowley begins with the ego and requires it to encounter higher majestical beings to ensure its own advancement. The reality is one's own consciousness is fully sufficient to one's needs for knowledge. And the surrender of oneself to Oneself is all that is needed. Or as Krishnamurti might say There is no path to knowledge. THere is no need for sexual magick or communion with other entities. And there is certainly no necessity for membership of hierarchical societies of spiritual understanding, titling themselves such childish names as Grand Master of this or that. Or calling oneslf a supreme magical authority. Such people are spiritual pygmies rather than the majestic olympians they imagine themselves to be.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrew ky


I am not villifying him. I am pointing out the true substance of the content of his thought. And I am aware that he talks of the higher self.


If you are aware he speaks of the Higher Self, why did you claim that his maxim would sanction concentration camps?




However the man talking of this higher self is one who was proud to call himself the Beast and used the moniker of 666. The best I would be inclined to say of such a man is what an immature egomaniac. So I think it very wise to wonder of the nature of such a higher being. And to many Lucifer would count as an extremely high exalted being.


In Thelema, the "Beast" is not a bad thing. Remember, the Thelemic religion is not Christianity. In occultism, the number 666 is the sum of the magical square of Sol. It is not considered "evil", but is instead a number representative of solar energies.

As to Crowley being an immature egomaniac, well, that's a different story. It's very possible to be that and at the same time be a notable scholar, artist, or whatever. The ironic thing is that Crowley himself was more aware of his own immaturity and egomaniacal phases than anyone else. He once quipped that students would always come to him seeking the Master Therion, but unfortunately would instead only find the Demon Crowley.

This understanding of his own ego problems seems to be what separates Crowley from Krishnamurti, the latter of whom seemed oblivious.




This shows the true poverty of his spiritual understanding. Crowley begins with the ego and requires it to encounter higher majestical beings to ensure its own advancement. The reality is one's own consciousness is fully sufficient to one's needs for knowledge. And the surrender of oneself to Oneself is all that is needed.


But you forget that Crowley changed his views. For example, he originally considered Aiwass to be a "separate entity", although, because he was a Buddhist at the time, I have no idea why. Regardless, he eventually came to see Aiwass as an extension of the Self / No-Self.


And there is certainly no necessity for membership of hierarchical societies of spiritual understanding, titling themselves such childish names as Grand Master of this or that.


The title of "Grand Master" isn't any more childish than "President" or "Senator". The title has its origins in medieval England to denote anyone who has mastered a certain skill. For example, there are today Grand Masters in chess.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
You call yourself Masonic Light and speak well on behalf of Crowley and defend him convincingly but am I not right in saying that he was not always complimentary about freemasons?

I would be interested in your opinion.
Osbert+



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Osbert
You call yourself Masonic Light and speak well on behalf of Crowley and defend him convincingly but am I not right in saying that he was not always complimentary about freemasons?



You would be correct: Crowley was not a big fan of Freemasonry. My speaking on behalf of Crowley comes from the fact that he was a knowledgable Qabalist and mystic, and that he's fun to read. I'm not, however, a follower or disciple of Crowley, nor do I agree with him on everything.

Therefore, I study Crowley in sort of the same way I study Trotsky and Nietzsche: with respect, but at a distance.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
In Thelema, the "Beast" is not a bad thing. Remember, the Thelemic religion is not Christianity.






Regarding Thelema


Thelemites


The phrase: "Whosoever calls you Thelemites will not commit any injustice so long as he knows the word with perfection," belongs to the Gnostic Church and is not the property of Aleister Crowley or anybody else!

And if Aleister Crowley betrayed his oath by printing the sacred rituals of the Gnostic Church for the public that is not our problem, but his! The Cosmic Law already heard his case and sentenced him.





"In the superior worlds there is a Gnostic Church, the Cathedral of the Soul. In this cathedral rituals are carried out Fridays and Sundays at dawn or whenever necessary for the good of humanity. Many devotees gather at the Praetor in Astral Bodies. There are also some athletes of the Jinn science who carry their physical body to the Praetor. Thus, all of these devotees have the fortune of receiving the bread and wine…

The Gnostic Church preserves the entire Secret Doctrine of the Adorable Savior of the world. The Gnostic Church is the religion of happiness and beauty. The Gnostic Church is the virginal trunk from which Romanism and all of the other sects that adore Christ came forth. The Gnostic Church is the only church that preserves, in secret, the doctrine that Christ taught from his lips to the ears of his disciples...

We must not forget that there are rituals of Light and of Darkness. We possess the secret rituals of the Adorable Savior of the World.

Neither we scorn nor do we underestimate any religion. All religions are precious pearls linked on the golden thread of Divinity. We only affirm that Gnosis is the flame from which all religions of the Universe come forth. That is all."

- Perfect Matrimony by Samael Aun Weor





Thelema: Willpower


"Thelema is a Greek word for willpower.

It is written in very ancient scriptures in the Gnostic rituals:

Whosoever calls you Thelemites will not commit any injustice so long as he knows the word with perfection.

Obviously the real Adept is called a Thelemite, and all those Adepts like Jesus, Moses, Hermes and Krishna, all of them are Thelemites. Thelema is our motto.

And willpower is that power that we need to exercise in order to achieve the Self-realization of the Being.

To understand this is very important because the whole work relies on willpower, on Thelema"...



..."That is why it is written, ‘Demonius est deus inversus,' Latin for ‘The Demon is the will of God inverted.' That is why in the Vedas they say that the Demons are created by Shiva, the Gods are created by Shiva, everything is created by Shiva, but also the Demons, and we say how...? ...Well in this way is how; the Essence still does not know how to exercise itself as willpower, so therefore it becomes inverted, fascinated, identified with the mind, with the senses. And inverted it is a Demon - that means that it is the same will, but aligned for devolution"...



..."It is necessary for the will of God to come down and to free Abel, and that will of God - which in this case is Moses - which of course is a development that we have to understand. We have to develop our own particular Moses in order to liberate Israel, which are the parts of the Essence that is the will of God, bottled up into the Ego, into the mind, into Cain the killer..."








Q: What can you say about the phrase ‘Do what thou wilt' and the very prominent idea that Aleister Crowley is the main teacher of Thelema?


A: Well, Aleister Crowley has just degenerated the doctrine. ‘Do what thou wilt' - well obviously the demons do what they wilt but it is inverted. ‘Do what thou wilt' - the Angels do the Will of God, their phrase should be like this ‘Do what THOU wilt' this should be the Will of God.

If you do your own ‘Wilt', who are ‘you'? Right? If you are the ego or think you are the ego and then you will end like Aleister Crowley, smoking opium and taking mushrooms and doing that and of course the will was developing, but inverted, because ‘Demonius est deus inversus,' meaning that his own will was going down, as he says which is ‘The Beast 666' which is the ego.

But ‘Do what thou wilt' in Thelema, in the right way, is to do the Will of God, to do the Will of our own Monad. That is the right phrase, in the right way.

So it could be applied in both ways, because in order to be a demon you need Thelema, in order to be an Angel you need Thelema, meaning you need the Essence, because without the Essence where is the understanding of that?

Obviously, Aleister Crowley developed evil will, his own Thelema in front of his own group, he followed the evil will, which is the will of the ego. In order to develop good will, you have to annihilate the evil will and that is ego, mechanicity.

And to develop not only on the Physical Plane, but in the Astral Plane, in the Mental Plane, Causal Plane, Buddhic Plane, Spiritual Plane and higher levels until you become a paramartasattya; that is the Will of God.

The real Thelemite is a Paramartasattya, yet, an inverted Thelemite is an "Aleister Crowley."
..






So who in us is performing Thelema?

The Will of God, Christ, Buddha?

Or the Buddha Nature(Essence) trapped within the pluralized egos?












[edit on 6-7-2006 by Tamahu]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by andrew ky
Or as Krishnamurti might say There is no path to knowledge. THere is no need for sexual magick or communion with other entities. And there is certainly no necessity for membership of hierarchical societies of spiritual understanding, titling themselves such childish names as Grand Master of this or that. Or calling oneslf a supreme magical authority. Such people are spiritual pygmies rather than the majestic olympians they imagine themselves to be.




Krishnamurti is brilliant, but the following is certainly worth noting as well:




Types of Spiritual Schools

There are four types of schools:

1. Schools that teach how to crystallize the soul
2. Schools that teach how to crystallize the soul and to incarnate the Spirit (the Being)
3. Schools that assist as a form of kindergarten to humanity
4. Schools of Black Magic.

Let us examine these four types of schools in a successive order.


Schools That Teach How to Crystallize the Soul

Every school that teaches the dissolution of the "I" is a Soul school. There are Soul schools in the teachings of Krishnamurti, Chan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Sufism, Christian "Quietude," etc. Every Soul school teaches the technique for the dissolution of the "I." Really, only through the creative comprehension of all our errors, in all the deep levels of the mind, is the "I" inevitably disintegrated.


The Soul schools also teach systems and techniques to awaken the powers of the Buddhata. The Soul schools have very effective methods to awaken the Buddhata. The Soul schools teach the science of inner meditation, through which the consciousness, the Buddhata, awakens. In this way, we attain inner illumination.

The instructors of Soul schools want the Annihilation of the pluralized "I": Satan. The instructors of Soul schools seek to have one inhabitant existing inside each human being, which is the Buddhata: the soul.


Really, the nature of Buddhata is happiness. Buddhata itself is happiness. Every school that teaches the dissolution of the "I" is a soul school, a school that teaches how to crystallize the soul and Spirit.


Schools That Teach How to Crystallize the Soul and Spirit

Every school that teaches how to create the soul and Spirit is a school of regeneration. The schools that teach only how to crystallize the soul do good work, but those that teach how to create the soul and Spirit do superior work.
.."





The Krishnamurti Case





..."There is no doubt that the Theosophist clairvoyants did a great damage to the Hindu boy. The Theosophist Hierarchs should have left the Hindu boy in peace. He would have developed himself freely in India. Then, his work would have been marvelous.

The great Buddha of Krishnamurti did not give his whole message because his Bodhisattva had a psychological trauma.

If we exam the doctrine of Krishnamurti, we see that the best of it is Buddhism. Unfortunately, he does not know the Christic Esotericism.

The Hindu body drank from the fountain of the Buddhist Gospel. It is a pity that he did not know the Christic Esotericism.

Later on, he mixed the Buddhist Philosophy with the Conventional Philosophy from the Western World.

Thus, the doctrine of Krishnamurti is the outcome of that mixture. The doctrine of Krishnamurti is Buddhism.

However, the doctrine of Aquarius is the outcome of the mixture of Buddhist Esotericism with Christic Esotericism.

The doctrine of Krishnamurti is Free Buddhism. However, the living fountain of that doctrine is the marvelous gospel of the Lord Buddha.

We are not against Krishnamurti; we only regret the fact that the Internal Buddha of that Hindu Philosopher could not give the whole message. That is all.

When a clairvoyant discovers that the Innermost (the Spirit) of someone is a Master; then, it is best for that clairvoyant to be silent, in order not to damage that person.

When somebody knows that his inner being is a Master, he becomes filled with pride and arrogance. Fortunately, Krishnamurti learned how to be humble.
.."





[edit on 6-7-2006 by Tamahu]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
In Thelema, the "Beast" is not a bad thing. Remember, the Thelemic religion is not Christianity. In occultism, the number 666 is the sum of the magical square of Sol. It is not considered "evil", but is instead a number representative of solar energies.



This may seem to contradict that Q&A session regarding Aleister Crowley that I quoted; but in "Occult Medicine and Practical Magic" Samael Aun Weor wrote something to the same effect regarding the Kabbalistic value of "666" and AUM.



The Buddha Nature is found in Tiphereth, and is also related to the 6th Arcanum of the Tarot.





This Buddha Nature, in Tiphereth, is trapped within the egos; and thus we have "Indecision"("The Lovers") in the Three Brains, 666, the Three Traitors of Christ/Hiram Abiff; Christ being the positive aspect of the Three Brains within us(which in most of us, again, is mostly trapped within the ego).






This means we have to eventually awaken positively on our own; or fall into the abyss, to be cleansed of the egos in a long, painful and mechanical way.

"Fence-sitting" can only last so long in life.


So, "666" has many interpretations; all of which, of course, I don't fully understand.









[edit on 6-7-2006 by Tamahu]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Quote " You would be correct: Crowley was not a big fan of Freemasonry. My speaking on behalf of Crowley comes from the fact that he was a knowledgable Qabalist and mystic, and that he's fun to read. I'm not, however, a follower or disciple of Crowley, nor do I agree with him on everything.
Therefore, I study Crowley in sort of the same way I study Trotsky and Nietzsche: with respect, but at a distance.
"



I like reading him too, his excessive rationality is almost a contradiction in terms but he does deliver the point very skilfully.
Do you think he was "mistaken" in giving the secret away? Can a secret belong to anyboby?
Do many people know the so called "secret"?
I am not a Mason nor do I belong to any religious order so I am quite ignorant as to how wide spread it may be..

Thank you, Osbert+



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Osbert

I like reading him too, his excessive rationality is almost a contradiction in terms but he does deliver the point very skilfully.
Do you think he was "mistaken" in giving the secret away? Can a secret belong to anyboby?
Do many people know the so called "secret"?
I am not a Mason nor do I belong to any religious order so I am quite ignorant as to how wide spread it may be..


I'm not quite sure to which secret you are referring. Crowley violated his vow of secrecy to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn by publishing their secrets in the Equinox, yet scolded Regardie for doing the exact same thing years later.
Technically, Crowley never revealed the big IX° of the O.T.O., but gave so many hints on practically every page he ever wrote that at least the general idea is obvious.

In "Magick Without Tears", a letter written to him by a female student mentions a remark he once made: "Mystery is the enemy of truth". Crowley concedes the quote is authentic, but says he still keeps the O.T.O. secret anyway as a "point of honor", because he had taken an oath to do so.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I am referring to the cicle of death and resurrection by the earthly representative of the Sun.. inri, the cross,jesus.
Osbert+



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Osbert
I am referring to the cicle of death and resurrection by the earthly representative of the Sun.. inri, the cross,jesus.
Osbert+


Ah, ok. In this, I don't think it ws much of a secret anymore by the time Crowley came along. For example, Frazer treated the subject at length in his The Golden Bough, where he terms the universal sun god myth the Formula of the Dying God.

The interesting thing about Crowley is that he tried to break the Formula. He claimed the Formula of the Dying God was the magical formula of the Aeon of Osiris, which is dated to the time when men thought the sun ws murdered and resurrected annually. Further, Crowley charged that Osirianism in its exoteric form is alive and well under a new name (Christianity), while its esoteric form was still being perpetuated by Adepts (for example, the Adeptus Minor Grade of the Golden Dawn, and Third Degree of Masonry).

He claimed that the actual magical formula of the Aeon of Osiris was "Love Under Fear", which would be replaced by that of the Aeon of Horus, "Love Under Will". His attempt to abolish or "purify" religion and occultism of Osirian influences was extremely revolutionary in a sense. And of course his natural starting point would have been to expose what he perceived as the errors of Osirian mentality before he replace them with Horusian ones.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
And was the Pharaoh worried when the tip of his pyramid was still unquarried in distant lands?
I do not think we understand each other, maybe it is inevitable...

Thank you for your patience.

Osbert+



Signature:
The Book of Invisibility.
Fragments of the Book are sometimes stumbled upon by lucky people: geeks, seers, lunatics, gold diggers, plain thinkers and visionaries but when they come to describe their experience to others they unfortunately cloak their wonder in too much vanity and importance so that the Book’s Words remain Invisible.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
He bought into the same system that he was protesting merely by being the quintessence of it’s opposite (in theory), which in reality is just another distortion through an extreme view that he was demonized for. Strangely enough his 'serving of the self' was really no different then other religions in general; it's just that he was honest about it. He called a duck, a duck instead of pretending to do things for reasons that were not in his own best interest. That honestly I admire, but he still hooked the sinker by intentionally becoming what they wanted him too. And (in my opinion) became quite delusional by the end which tainted what could be seen as a noble cause (in the sense of existential philosophy).



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance,
baffle them with bull#.

Osbert+



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by umwolves123

Originally posted by Amon_Ra
Wake up!!!

Federal Reserve



What does this have to do with the post?


OPS, wrong thread.


Sry dude!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join