The Origins of Aleister Crowley's Thelema, and the possibility that its an elaborate hoax.

reply to post by Cuervo


Yes very well said. I myself practice 'white thelema' the father of wicca. I think you are fooling yourself however if you don't realise that the book of the law's rules do allow for hedonism. They allow for whatever a star wants, no holds barred. Choices our ours. The doctrine leaves the gates very much open.

Living for the 93's and not just the 93 is commendable. It is the way of the wise. The way of the love magickian.

It's a big scary world out there though!

You've done very good research and reporting of that research. Stars and flags and geese. What's more important is the passion you bring to finding answers and then digging deeper to answer the questions your research has led you towards. Onwards and upwards.

The Book of the Law is not a true hoax even if there was nobody literally whispering over Al's shoulder. It "feels" like a true writing frenzy that Crowley was "meant" to do, and it had specific guidelines as to length of time, etc. Rose probably helped him along the way with a couple of visits to his "writing table" during the process.

Crowley went mad at the end, some say? "The Book of Thoth" counters that argument quickly, and with all the yoga training and life activity C had I doubt there was a mad bone in him - more like fun and humor and playing along the way.

reply to post by Masonic Light


Whilst i agree that he was not insane, i don't think it was as quite as charming as you portray.

As to the book of law, he didn't only not understand it entirely but down right rejected it for years. Very interesting time he went through.

reply to post by Aleister


How can you be so sure? I myself am questioning the authenticity of the stele itself. Could Crowley have had more power to create hoaxes than we even realise! ?

reply to post by Lagrimas


Well sure. I haven't looked into the steale as much as you have, and maybe a few phone calls to the museum itself will lead you to a couple of professional staff people or Egyptologists to talk this over with (you can refer them to this thread, so they know you are serious and sharing your data). And maybe check the sources on wikipedia, as I remember a guy came in and edited the Steale article long ago, and I haven't looked at it in a couple of years so maybe backtrack on its history and see if some misinformation has creeped in. Another idea, there are a couple of people at wikipedia who keep good track of the Crowley stuff, maybe drop them a note too. This is a good and worthwhile study, and who knows what benefits it will bring you as you seek the answer to "Hoax or Something Else" along your path.

reply to post by The 5th

Crowley rejecting his own writings could all be part of making it believable, if its part of his greatest hoax. Part of his masterpiece is in the way he carried the hoax through to the end. Joker. Not mad. Fantastic.

reply to post by Lagrimas


Good for him. I reject all my writings too.

Another thought I will just have now, did Crowley hoax himself, or, what came first, the Steale or the (pulling of the) leg?

reply to post by Aleister


I absolutely agree that the authenticity of the stele of revealing is absolutely integral in coming to a conclusion on this subject. As such I would very much like to contact the museum in Cairo find out what they know, and if it seems necessary petition for the stele to be independently carbon dated etc to verify that it is indeed what it claims to be. Fascinated.

reply to post by Lagrimas


Now you're cooking. Please let us know what you find, and contact numbers shouldn't be too hard to obtain nowadays. An interesting project for sure. A thought - maybe you can ask them to send you a rubbing of the steale's writing, or some clear new high res photos of it. Possibilities possibilities...

reply to post by Lagrimas

this whole subject just seems odd, because i just recently started re-reading the 'confessions of aleister crowley!
yes it is a hard book to get through,as it was written by himself ad he can be a pompous ass! or a self loathing/self loving piece of work!!!

but the book is pretty good.
as for thelema being a hoax,well thats a lot of dedication to put into something that most people wont even get a chance to study! its almost been 100 years since it was published,and even today the average person on the street have no knowledge of this book/belief! even a lot of the magickal community is unfamiliar with it! they just know the name crowley and call him a satanist!
its funny because i have a baby picture of my son with his hands up to his face like crowley doing the sign of pan in your post pic! it was eerie when i first seen it,he is 13 now,and when i look at that photo i always think the same thing!
anyway,cool knowing there are like minded people like me out there getting tired of having to explain things to 'normal' people!

reply to post by TiM3LoRd


those who have studied crowley's writings know exactly what the op is talking about. google aleister crowley,then start learning you are a star!

reply to post by Dimithae


and now for the real truth....... and not the newspaper headlines of the time!
DO WHAT YE WILL,BE IT THE WHOLE OF THE LAW. LOVE IS THE LAW.
when you can understand this statement,you will know who crowley was,and you will be on your path to thelema!

reply to post by reficul


Thanks for the enthusiasm.
Thelema is certainly glorious and joyful for those of us that follow the path towards our true will.
Do what thou wilt, and don't go 'on tilt'.

1. I think, going from memory, that even when AC said it, it was "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will." A little more respectable.

2. There's no proof of magic(k) actually making any physical change, ever, whether performed by AC or anybody else. But the guy knew how to create the life he wanted, despite the nonsense he came out with. Think of Richard Hoagland, but set in a world of sex, drugs, fame and mountaineering.

I've come to the conclusion that Crowley was a spy.

Which is not to say that he did not have occult interests. He did. AND it was the perfect cover.

It was 'magick' how he always found a benefactor so he could continue on.
Funny, but that's the way it all works.

Dr. John Dee was the original 007. You know how easy it is to hide codes and communications in occult writing? Sigils and numerology and even astrology.

Open up a book, it's all occult nonsense.

OR IS IT.

reply to post by Lagrimas


It wasn't due to a hoax but the deeper meaning that it held which he couldn'y accept and intergrate with his own psyche.

I have not had time to read this post fully yet but i will take a deeper look tommorow.

reply to post by The 5th


I think that what you are trying to say is that you believe Aleister Crowley to be a legendarily clever guy, who got delivered a gift from some 'entity' called Aiwass. A book, dictated from a GOD via a messenger, all because his [A.'.C.'.] wife had led him to a Stele (of revealing). in 1904.

A book which the Buddhist Gentleman would promote ravenously, while claiming to be confused about. Til the end.

I claim that it was all Crowley's big plan and game. A good one and one that's worth being a part of, but a humanly constructed Hoax nevertheless.

'

1. I think, going from memory, that even when AC said it, it was "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will." A little more respectable. 2. There's no proof of magic(k) actually making any physical change, ever, whether performed by AC or anybody else. But the guy knew how to create the life he wanted, despite the nonsense he came out with. Think of Richard Hoagland, but set in a world of sex, drugs, fame and mountaineering.

reply to post by Snippy23


93's. Yes. You've got it. Of course its... 93 93/93. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will.

But you know? When you're having fun with words. Twisting and winding them, using them in new ways, being poetic and being flamboyant and flippant with them, then you're being as close to Crowley as you could ever be.

So its hardly something to phone home about that I'm pushing poker terminology next to thelemic advice.

reply to post by Lagrimas


never trusted Crowley's stuff when reading of the grimmores & and goetia always of mind to stick with the wayyyy older stuff, mabey feeling but hey you confirmed it (-: great post!

reply to post by DaughterOfARevolver


Crowley's "Book of Lies" contains more truth than all the lies ever told. And more lies than you can find at a political party meeting accidently held in the Vatican. So his older stuff is fun to read, for they are from a time where some things had to be hidden and not talked about except in symbols. Much like today.