Masons...

What are your thoughts on Crowley and Thelema?

Just read The Book of the Law and am wondering why someone who is very famous in one religion can go off and create his own....

Bit new to all this, so feel free to dumb it down

reply to post by Beavers


As a non mason I think that Crowley is a nut bar.....If trying trying to possess goats with demons doesn't make you one then I don't know what does....

Originally posted by Beavers
What are your thoughts on Crowley and Thelema?

Just read The Book of the Law and am wondering why someone who is very famous in one religion can go off and create his own....

Bit new to all this, so feel free to dumb it down

I've got some Crowley books, but it really isn't my thing. (I'm more into modern chaos magick, personally...)

ATS user Masonic Light is our resident Crowley expert, and I'm sure he'll chime in here in a bit. But for the most part, Crowley really doesn't have much to do with Masonry. He was a member of an unrecognized lodge, so he would have been forbidden to have Masonic communication with "regular" Masons. He may have styled some of his degree structures off of Masonic ritual, but the reverse didn't happen. He had no influence on Masonry as a whole.

Crowley is quite misunderstood. He was incredibly smart and had some very interesting thoughts and ideas. He has been mis-characterized as a demon by some, mostly because that is what he wanted everyone to think. I think he was hugely egotistical and a bit power hungry. He was also quite strange in his sexual escapades. But he wasn't quite the devil history has tried to make him be.

He also wasn't a regular mason. He thought he was joining a legitimate body, but later found out that he joined a clandestine organization and would not be recognized by regular masonry. He was a bit pissed about that. He was a member of the Golden Dawn and there is some very interesting history about how he tried to (and kind of did) take that group over.

reply to post by network dude


I find a lot of Crowley's escapades very interesting, was amazed he was one of the first to climb Kilimanjaro. I think the way in which Jimmy Page used his teachings is fascinating if anyone is familiar, kinda controversial but its dynamite (read a book on this recently).

He was a very inspirational man Crowley was, although I do still find his general philosophy to be rather insidious, makes me very uneasy. I've read some pretty crazy stuff about it, there was some serious stuff going on with Crowley and what he conjured up, its no joke (which is why I think he is such a nut bar, a very interesting one, but still a but bar)

Seems to be a big interest in Masons lately here on this board. Lots of new threads and curiosity. And while ATS remains a good resource for myriad of topics, the best way to learn Masonry is to become a Mason.

GMHA RIP

Capo

reply to post by Beavers


Crowley had in influence with the Rite of Memphis, not sure if he created it or not, but was a major contributor.
Its similar to the ritualistic side of masonry, but places its own spin on it. They claim to practice the "ancient" form of the craft. Things a "regular" mason would learn in Royal Arch degrees, they would learn during the second degree. Unlike regular masonry, Fellows of the Craft really are their label. They have the same prevledges as a Master Masons. Also instead of having just 33° they go to 95°

Crowley is one of those people in history i wish i could meet. From my understanding he met the spirit of horus in the pyramid of giza channeled through his wife at the time. Also he said that he wrote the book of the law all through dictation of this entity that looks sort of like a gray alien. All this baffles me thats why i would love to meet him. He seemed like a very smart individual with some very nasty personality flaws or something more sinister.

reply to post by sir_slide


There is enough stuff describing his magikal side that make you uneasy. The stuff about Page buying his place on Loch Ness is very interesting. I remember a thread not long ago stating that Crowley summoned Nessie. It sounded like a joke thread, but after looking into it, wasn't too far from factual. (at least his side) He sounded like an arrogant ass, but interesting just the same.

reply to post by network dude


He sorta reminded me of Anton Levay(sp), "Do what thou wilst, but harm none" "Satanist" realy were'nt worshiper of satan but of the flesh. Both of them held the concept of please self, just not harming others in your antics

reply to post by network dude


They had psychics and priests and all kinds of people go into that place and loads of them totally freaked out. Without getting too full on, Jimmy used that magic for his own reasons, he couldn't handle what he was doing and some really bad things happened to people around him. It didn't help that he had groupies lined up around the corner waiting to practice crowleys teachings, but what I want to say is that he messed in areas he wasn't ready to mess in and things happened.

There is a room in that house where Crowley would practice his magic, well Jimmy would also compose in there if you get what I'm saying. The solo with the violin bow was a magic ritual, a spell, I may sound like I'm going a bit kooky but it is the truth, its not to be taken lightly.

reply to post by sir_slide


yea, I don't "believe" in magic, but I respect the idea that I may be wrong enough not to try doing things that might open the wrong door.

Kind of like the saying "don't ask the question unless you are ready to hear the answer."

There is enough history about all that to make it interesting if nothing else.
Don't go looking for the devil. you might find him.

Thanks for the replies, interesting to find out even more strange tales!

To be honest, I'd never heard of him until I watched the documentary about 'Paul McCartney's death in 66' and his two appearances on the front cover of St Peppers..... adding Jimmy Page to the mix is fascinating!... I'd heard tales of Page dabbling in the dark arts but always thought it was more him getting his kicks with groupies than anything real...

I googled him after the beatles thing and everyone was rambling on about The Book of the Law.... so i 'amazoned it' and was a bit shocked by what i got! Some of it made sense (amongst the gibberish!) and reminded me a little of 'the secret' and other things i've read about recently, like synchronicity, laws of attraction etc .... right up until it suggested sacrificing children to make purfume out of their fresh blood.... that woke me up a bit!

any tips on what to read next then, or are they all as bonkers as this? someone suggested pike too.. a better choice maybe?

I respect the idea that I may be wrong enough not to try doing things that might open the wrong door.

Kind of like the saying "don't ask the question unless you are ready to hear the answer."

There is enough history about all that to make it interesting if nothing else.
Don't go looking for the devil. you might find him.

Top Advice

reply to post by network dude


it is possible that he was indeed a legitimate mason, however; the masons wanted their reputation and public view not hindered by crowley's reputation, infamy and all that he 'did', thus the claim that you brought forth is initiated and masonry is safe from all that crowley was a part of

it is possible

reply to post by indigothefish


No, it isn't. That's not how Freemasonry works; you don't just go in with some guy down the street and find out later what he belongs to. We know exactly which jurisdiction Crowley became a member of, and it had been irregular since before his birth.

Originally posted by Beavers
right up until it suggested sacrificing children to make purfume out of their fresh blood.... that woke me up a bit!

Sacrificing babies was Crowley's euphemism for masturbation. Nothing more sinister than that.

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by Beavers
right up until it suggested sacrificing children to make purfume out of their fresh blood.... that woke me up a bit!

Sacrificing babies was Crowley's euphemism for masturbation. Nothing more sinister than that.

I'm not convinced... this would be totally out of context!

'23. for perfume mix meal & honey & thick leavings of red wine : then oil of Abramelin and olive oil, and afterward soften down with rich fresh blood. 24. The Best blood is of the moon, monthly : then the fresh blood of a child, or dropping from the host of heaven : then of enemies ; then of the priest or of the worshippers : last of some beast, no matter what.'

And earlier on 12. Sacrifice cattle, little and big : after a child !!!!!!

Don't get me wrong, we all like to knock one out, but this seem more ritualistic than a quick hand shandy

reply to post by Beavers


This is a quotation from a Thelema Lodge O.T.O. newsletter that has a section on the "Cakes of Light: recipe that you mentioned.

"The best blood is of the moon, monthly: then the fresh blood of a child, or dropping from the host of heaven: then of enemies; then of the priest or of the worshippers: last of some beast, no matter what." --- AL III,24:

Thelema Lodge Calendar

1. Menstrual blood has probably been most popular, but it is not considered a good health risk for a congregation. Menses have a chance of containing the female and other principles. See #3 for the male principle.
   
2. The actual blood of a child, a human minor, is never used under any circumstances. Metaphorically, this ingredient is taken to be a mixture of natural secretions, which in the normal course of nature might contain the elements of conception. This is dangerous in mixed company; aside from any pun, it can act as a vector of disease. See Crowley's comment to the verse; "...applying the knowledge which reposes in the Sanctuary of the Gnosis of the Ninth Degree of O.T.O. The 'child' is 'BABALON and THE BEAST conjoined, the Secret Saviour', that is, the Being symbolized by the Egg and Serpent hieroglyph of the Phoenician adepts."
   
3. "Blood" dropping from the host of heaven has a special meaning, suggested by Crowley as being the male secretion --- also not appropriate for general congregational use. Crowley's comment again; "The second kind is also a form of BAPHOMET, but differs from the 'child' in that it is the Lion-Serpent in its original form."
   
4. Blood of enemies might be appropriate for a soldier in the heat of battle, but seems unsuited to a friendly gathering.
   
5. Blood of the priest or the worshippers is the suggestion of the Bishops in 1983 e.v. Bring your own, neatly baked.
   
6. Blood of any beast is appropriate for cakes in general communion. It should not be obtained by sacrifice or deliberate bloodletting, but from your friendly local butcher shop. This is a common food commodity, without which it would be impossible to make an impressive line of sausages and dainties available in any well-stocked delicatessen. Sacrifice of animals only makes sense when slaughter for food is a common part of a culture. It is no big thing to say a prayer of thanks over your pot chicken before you swing, bop, chop or snick it. If you live on a farm, why not. Just don't go killing anything for O.T.O., thank you. Hunters generally don't get the time to be fancy. For more on sacrifice, see "From the Out Basket" in this issue.
   

Thanks!