Page 5 of 6 « First<23456>
Topic Options
#61613 - 11/19/11 11:20 PM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: LeftHandonFeet]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
It's rather poor taste to make such claims with no intention to substantiate them.

But if I had a quarter for every time I ran into someone claiming to be a long-lost descendant of Crowley.... I'd have $1.75.


Edited by The Zebu (11/19/11 11:20 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#61615 - 11/20/11 12:01 AM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: LeftHandonFeet]
FemaleSatan Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/11
Posts: 556
Loc: The Dirty South
I'm confused. How would the super secret serial grandson of Crowley know what was what when it comes to Crowley? Being unknown or illegitimate implies not really knowing Crowley, so another non authority on the subject matter, trying to show expertise.

Anyway, Crowley was a Thelemite, not a Satanist or a Luciferian. \:\)
_________________________
http://female-satan.blogspot.com


Top
#61630 - 11/20/11 05:23 PM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: FemaleSatan]
LeftHandonFeet Offline
member


Registered: 11/05/11
Posts: 109
FS- you missed the point of my initial post all together- many ask rather Crowley was Right or Left Handed due to the fact that he was formerly a Mason. Notice I used Crowley literature and not speculation to show evidence of his transition? On the topic of "expert", I cant help but wonder who called you an expert but Im not so sure they are experts themselves. Nice try though!
_________________________
"I’m just another hardline psuedo-statistic
Can you feel this?" Slipknot - The Blister Exists


Top
#61637 - 11/20/11 10:30 PM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: LeftHandonFeet]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
many ask rather Crowley was Right or Left Handed due to the fact that he was formerly a Mason.


I don't think his Masonic involvement (which in turn is disputed) would be relevant to this question, since Masonic mysticism varies radically among different rites and lodges.

As for the orientation of Thelema, Crowley's ideas clearly have elements of the LHP, such as sex magic, self-deification rites, taboo-breaking, etc. (Of course, Crowley had a flawed definition of the "left hand", owing mostly to Blavatsky.) Conversely, there are also RHP influences, such as dualism and contemplative meditations.

Whether Crowley himself had achieved spiritual mastery through such radical practices is another question altogether. (I personally think that his relationship failures, drug addiction, legal squabbles, and magus-complex suggest the negative, but having not known the man, I cannot speak with ultimate authority on the matter.


Edited by The Zebu (11/20/11 10:30 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#61660 - 11/22/11 10:41 AM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: LeftHandonFeet]
FemaleSatan Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/11
Posts: 556
Loc: The Dirty South
Do they have sarcasm where you come from Left? You came in this thread and when questioned cited lineage. Then when questioned on it, went super vague. Your lineage is nothing, it doesn't show your knowledge on this subject.

I still don't see what Crowley being a Mason (which is disputed and he frequently mocks Masonry in his writings) has to do with him being LHP or RHP.

As for my stating that Crowley was a Thelemite, he was. \:\) Thelma rides the line between LHP and RHP, so I feel Crowley did to.
FS3.0
_________________________
http://female-satan.blogspot.com


Top
#61662 - 11/22/11 12:44 PM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: FemaleSatan]
LeftHandonFeet Offline
member


Registered: 11/05/11
Posts: 109
This is very true that the Beast mocked Freemasonry in his writings- but anyone deep enough in the Masonic Temple to have acheived the 33rd Degree will inevitably have lots of white magic influence in their selves. This includes their way of thinking, their speech, their writings and all their habits. As you said, the Thelema does seem to have a bit of a grey area in some of their tendencies- this of course comes from the Beasts influences pre-1903. As he grew older, it was very unusually obvious he was a pure Left Handed magician- he was even called the Worlds Wickedest Man. No Mason would want to be called wicked, thats for sure- Crowley enjoyed the title quite thorougly. : )
_________________________
"I’m just another hardline psuedo-statistic
Can you feel this?" Slipknot - The Blister Exists


Top
#61698 - 11/23/11 10:19 AM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: LeftHandonFeet]
Vlad Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/09/10
Posts: 21
Loc: Virginia
The Masonic Lodges Crowley belonged to were not orthodox Lodges. He never once belonged to a Lodge that was accepted by the Grand Lodge of England and as such, to any true Freemason, Crowley is not considered a Mason. The Masonry practiced in the Lodges attended by Crowley are by no means related to actual Freemasonry or the Scottish Rite. Crowley petitioned the Grand Lodge of England to have the right to join and attend any Lodge based on his prior experiences, however, no response was given due to the irregularity of his Lodges.

Crowley's 33rd degree was nominally given to him by various radical, breakaway lodges. To call him a Mason or Masonically oriented is doing a great disservice to the occult philosophies the man put forth as well as to the body of Freemasonry as a whole. The whole notion of a 33rd degree is foolish as well. There is no degree higher than Master Mason, which is the degree held by ALL Masons. The other degrees do not denote hierarchy but involvement with the Scottish Rite (of which Crowley could not have been a part of due to his involvement in irregular Lodges). The Scottish Rite is simply a means of better understanding the ideals and philosophies of Freemasonry, nothing more. The degrees do not have to go in order, nor do they have to come one at a time. The 33rd degree is not even part of the Rite, but rather an honorary title bestowed upon Masons who have, through positions in higher areas of society, showcased Masonic principles and helped the world at large. Only a very small number of people hold this title, as so few people are in a position to exemplify it.

A little better understanding of Freemasonry is in order before we can start making comments on the organization as a whole or someone's involvement with it.

Now, Crowley was neither Satanic in the sense used by most here nor was he particularly Luciferian. He was simply a Western occultist whose ideas were rooted in the various initiatory and ritualized Hermetic organizations of the time. His Thelema was a libertine religion with influences from a wide range of occult practices including the Kabbalah, the Tarot, alchemy and ritual magick.

Top
#80910 - 10/06/13 07:19 PM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: The Zebu]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
"Satanic, yes. Satanist, no." I'd call that a tribute of the highest order ;\)

You are aware that we have a rule against one line posts? I'm getting tired of cleaning up after you. Fix it, please.


Edited by Fnord (10/17/13 01:12 PM)
Edit Reason: Information/Warning
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#81225 - 10/17/13 03:12 AM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: FemaleSatan]
Maikl Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/04/13
Posts: 36
 Originally Posted By: FemaleSatan
Anyway, Crowley was a Thelemite, not a Satanist or a Luciferian. \:\)


Beat me to it, lol.

He was occultic, sure. He dabbled in areas and discussed spirituality or philosophy relevant to both Luciferians and Satanists. But it does take a claim or intentional devotion which I could deem him, satanist, luciferian etc
_________________________
Metaphorical fuckwit

Top
#91806 - 08/15/14 10:52 AM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: Maikl]
luz Offline
member


Registered: 08/06/14
Posts: 136
This is somewhat of a meaningless post, but I'll make it anyway to bump up the thread. If Crowley revealed magick secrets than these are for the use of anyone including Satanists. It does little matter whether he himself was one.
I also have a personal reason for being interested. He is my husband's favorite author \:D And also I printed 20 pages of Magic Without Tears and am looking for the peace to sit and read them.
So exciting to be on this forum and to have the opportunity to share my experiences and perceptions on my way.

Top
#114471 - 09/24/17 07:01 AM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: Jake999]
Obitus Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/20/17
Posts: 25
In reply to Jake999's claim Crowley viewed his "Holy Guardian Angel" as merely a reference to his own self:

A far younger, far more naive and inexperienced Crowley was content to flirt with the idea that spirits and gods are nothing but parts of the mind. But, experience tends to cure one of false notions. And in Crowley's case, this certainly happened as he grew in knowledge and experience. Crowley's dealings with Aiwaz-Satan, his "Holy Guardian Angel," over the course of many years from 1904 onwards, made him convinced of the external reality of his HGA. This is probably the Crowley quote that bothers alot of his fans more than even his admissions that Aiwaz is THE DEVIL:

“The Holy Guardian Angel is not the 'Higher Self' but an Objective Individual. . . . He is not, let me say with emphasis, a mere abstraction from yourself; and that is why I have insisted rather heavily that the term ‘Higher Self’ implies ‘a damnable heresy and a dangerous delusion.’ . . . He is not to be found by any exploration of oneself. It is true that the process of analysis leads finally to the realization of oneself as no more than a point of view indistinguishable in itself from any other point of view; but the Holy Guardian Angel is in precisely the same position. However close may be the identities in millions of ways, no complete identification is ever obtainable. But do remember this, above all else; they are objective, not subjective, or I should not waste good Magick on them.”

Taken from "Magick Without Tears," Crowley's final work, this statement represents Crowley's final position on the matter. A position informed by decades of living with the spirits, and not an opinion formed while he was still wet behind the ears and experimenting with the Golden Dawn system. While I'm aware most love early, "seeker" Crowley, it's more than worthwhile to see where all that seeking eventually took him. And where it took him was a rejection of mere symbolism.


Edited by Obitus (09/24/17 07:03 AM)

Top
#114475 - 09/24/17 01:26 PM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: Obitus]
Phoenician Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/16/17
Posts: 55
Loc: CA
 Quote:
A far younger, far more naive and inexperienced Crowley was content to flirt with the idea that spirits and gods are nothing but parts of the mind. But, experience tends to cure one of false notions. And in Crowley's case, this certainly happened as he grew in knowledge and experience.


Sigh. Then the young Crowley was right and his "knowledge" was a mindfuck. Leave it to societal archetypes and the imprinting of superstition to turn a projection of ones own unconcious into "spirits and god".

 Quote:
Crowley's dealings with Aiwaz-Satan, his "Holy Guardian Angel," over the course of many years from 1904 onwards, made him convinced of the external reality of his HGA. This is probably the Crowley quote that bothers alot of his fans more than even his admissions that Aiwaz is THE DEVIL:


See above response.

This bullshit needs to walk off an occultnik cliff.

One a side note, my "Aiwass" (and about 7 others) are always queued by me. Motherfuckers can't even tell me the time when I ask them for it. Must be a trade off for the periodic antagonism.

 Quote:
A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ?

An angry junkie faggot.
_________________________
14 6

Top
#114491 - 09/25/17 12:09 PM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: Obitus]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
Crowley was neither Satanist nor Luciferian, he was the 'great pretender' in occult circles. If I were to give him a category, I'd say he was the grand troll, until he lost his focus from heroine use and misunderstanding of Yogic teachings. I have a pretty vast collection of his books. I'd say the one thing that stands out to me the most through those pages, was his desire to be remembered. That speaks of something inept to me. As if he longed for something he did not attain while he was living. Some deficiency. Perhaps it was a general rejection by his so-called 'peers' but even then, that's just more evidence for a coveted acceptance. Most likely the reason he poured so much passion into that endeavor that it became his religion. Thelema certainly wasn't it.

_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#114508 - 09/27/17 11:53 AM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: SIN3]
Vigilia_Matutina Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/12/17
Posts: 8
Loc: Las Vegas, NV
Crowley on the spectrum is more likely placed on the LHP if you follow the more liberating aspects of his ideology. He believes that magick is simply in the mind and through it, you could create interesting results that bends whatever target to your will.

That sounds more liberating than believing that the Gods, God, or any malevolent or non-malevolent forces out there control many aspects of your life. Sounds a bit more Luciferian, but as clearly stated Crowley is a thelemite.
_________________________
- Superstes et Vigent

Top
#114510 - 09/27/17 02:56 PM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: Vigilia_Matutina]
Obitus Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/20/17
Posts: 25
 Originally Posted By: Vigilia_Matutina
He believes that magick is simply in the mind and through it, you could create interesting results that bends whatever target to your will.

That sounds more liberating than believing that the Gods, God, or any malevolent or non-malevolent forces out there control many aspects of your life.


"Destiny is an absolutely definite and inexorable ruler. Physical ability and moral determination count for nothing. It is impossible to perform the simplest act when the gods say 'No.' I have no idea how they bring pressure to bear on such occasions; I only know that it is irresistible. One may be wholeheartedly eager to do something which is as easy as falling off a log; and yet it is impossible." - Confessions

And even though I just put this one above, I figure I might as well repeat it since everybody pretends they didn't hear this one, including Thelemites:

“The Holy Guardian Angel is not the 'Higher Self' but an Objective Individual. . . . He is not, let me say with emphasis, a mere abstraction from yourself; and that is why I have insisted rather heavily that the term ‘Higher Self’ implies ‘a damnable heresy and a dangerous delusion.’ . . . He is not to be found by any exploration of oneself. It is true that the process of analysis leads finally to the realization of oneself as no more than a point of view indistinguishable in itself from any other point of view; but the Holy Guardian Angel is in precisely the same position. However close may be the identities in millions of ways, no complete identification is ever obtainable. But do remember this, above all else; they are objective, not subjective, or I should not waste good Magick on them.” - Magick Without Tears

Crowley was only into the idea that it's "all in your head" when he was young. Everyone and their momma ignores like there's no tomorrow the rest of his career.

Top
Page 5 of 6 « First<23456>


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.