Page 6 of 6 « First<23456
Topic Options
#114511 - 09/27/17 03:17 PM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: Berruelle]
Obitus Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/20/17
Posts: 45
This is an abridged form of an article I wrote about this whole "Was Crowley a Satanist" thing. Maybe somebody will find it useful:

In Magick in Theory and Practice, Crowley famously stated the oft-quoted line:

“The Devil does not exist. It is a false name invented by the Black Brothers to imply a Unity in their ignorant muddle of dispersions. A devil who had unity would be a God.”


Many see this line, rejoice that they have finally found the truth about Crowley’s views on Satan, and consider the case closed. Obviously, anyone who comes to such a conclusion from this line neglected to read the footnote to this passage on the very same page:

“’The Devil’ is, historically, the God of any people that one personally dislikes. This has led to so much confusion of thought that THE BEAST 666 has preferred to let names stand as they are, and to proclaim simply that AIWAZ, the solar-phallic-hermetic ‘Lucifer,’ is His own Holy Guardian Angel, and ‘The Devil’ SATAN or HADIT, the Supreme Soul behind RA-HOOR-KHUIT the Sun, the Lord of our particular unit of the Starry Universe. This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade ‘Know Thyself!’ and taught Initiation. He is ‘the Devil’ of the Book of Thoth, and His emblem is BAPHOMET, the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of arcane perfection. The number of His Atu is XV, which is Yod He, the Monogram of the Eternal, the Father one with the Mother, the Virgin Seed one with all-containing Space. He is therefore Life, and Love. But moreover his letter is Ayin, the Eye; he is Light, and his Zodiacal image is Capricornus, that leaping goat whose attribute is Liberty.”

Now, for some reason, many of those who have noticed this supremely important footnote have seemed to somehow either not comprehend the gravity of this short statement, or purposefully try to downplay the importance. It is clear here that Crowley is not saying that an entity popularly known as “The Devil” does not exist. He is saying that the Judeo-Christian concept of a supremely powerful deity of pure “evil” does not exist. Crowley clearly does not believed that the “God of any people that one personally dislikes” is non-existent just because you don’t like them. What does not exist is the false Christian idea of anti-God of evil. Also, Crowley is certainly not trying to say that Hadit does not exist in the footnote. Nor is he implying that it is a case of mistaken identity between Hadit and Satan; nobody made that identification but Crowley himself.

What Crowley is referencing here by “confusion of thought,” and what has led to it, is the long, complicated, and often muddled definitions of who and what the Devil is. Crowley was more than acquainted with this long history and its confusions, and therefore opted to “state simply” who and what “Satan” and the “The Devil” is to him. And, to Crowley, Satan is Aiwaz, the author of the Book of the Law, and is equated with Hadit, and also the “Spiritual Sun” behind Ra-Hoor-Khuit. It is easy to see why this passage is targeted out as being some sort of joke or blind, when there is nothing to suggest such a thing. Crowley is not arguing a case of mistaken identity here, he is arguing a case of mistaken character. He is not saying that it’s silly to equate Thelema with Satan because Satan is a concept of evil not shared in Thelema. He is saying that it is silly to equate Satan with a concept of evil not shared in Thelema.

Many will still object that the passage refers not to the individual Spirit known as “The Devil” popularly, but to etymological roots of concepts. I really hate having to repeat and emphasize parts of this footnote that everyone is familiar with, but I don’t really know what else to do in this instance. “Satan.” “Lucifer.” “The Devil.” One could get away with turning it all into a reference to Roman venusian deities, Hebrew slurs, and Arabic demonology, if it were not for the fact that all three terms were used deliberately by Crowley in the same sentence. Crowley was more than aware of the history of those terms, and knew very well that if you use all three labels together for the same entity, (in this case for Aiwaz,) it makes it unmistakeable who and what he means.

The uncomfortable (for many) conclusion, if one takes Crowley’s words seriously, is that Satan is literally the heart of Thelema. Oddly enough, nobody seems to have much of a problem at all with using the Greek Pan as an alternative figurehead for the religion of Life, Love, and Liberty, and we all know how often the name of Pan is uttered in the Book of the Law: absolutely none.

It is often objected that “Crowley never calls his religion Satanism.” This we will concede; he never did. However, Crowley’s vehement reactions to being labelled a “Black Magician” are legendary. Yet, for all the times he was openly called a “Devil Worshipper,” and the religion he preached, “Satanism,” Crowley’s righteous indignation is nowhere to be found. One of the men who wrote in the papers that Crowley and his followers were “Devil Worshippers” was William Seabrook, a personal friend of Crowley’s, both before and after the “inflammatory” article was published.

I am not implying that Crowley was dishonest and his entire religion really is an inverted Christianity devoted to the worship of a fallen rebel from the court of JHVH. I am instead insisting that Crowley, while identifying the central deities of his religion with Satan, was teaching a radically different notion of who and what this being is, while maintaining that it is indeed the same being.

I think it would be useful to add a selection of excerpts from Crowley's diary entries during his stay at the Abbey of Thelema. Published in the rarely seen The Magical Record of the Beast 666, these diary entries exhibit even further Crolwey's complete identification of Aiwaz with the Devil:

“She certainly gave me what I've been losing. Youth's intensity, its craving, the soul-priapism, huge lust and fierce to her, clamour for her to realize with me that mightiest marriage-dream, that Sacrament of Satan that may be consummated only beneath Night's dome, in utmost silence, because its Elements are not symbols of things, but They themselves.”

“When I was Levi, I drew myself as Ayin or Baphomet, 'The Devil' with Beast's Head. This is the Beast throned, crowned, exalted; the leaper, the erect, the butter-in. Her womb is my city, Babel. This Ayin is then my phallic will, my Holy Guardian Angel, Aiwaz, who was afterwards called Satan.”

“Come, Come, Come, Aiwaz! Come, thou Devil Our Lord!”

“My light! O my father the Devil! It hath made all things one, being perfect, even as doth the Darkness!”

“And Her Concoction shall be sweet in our mixed mouths, the Sacrament that giveth thanks to Aiwaz, our Lord God the Devil, that He hath fused His Beast's soul with His Scarlet Whore's, to be One Soul completed, that It may set His image in the Temple of Man, and thrust His Will's rod over them and rule them. And that imperléd sea, dark with that oozy shore-mud which it washed, shall wash us, body and mind, of all that is not He, moisten our throats and loosen our loud Song of praise, Thanksgiving unto Him.”

“I sing for God, our Devil, our Lord, Aiwaz.”

“. . . and know that all my joy, perfect, transcending sense, is given of Aiwaz, whom we call the Devil, whose name is Will, loud-uttered by cocaine, is Love.”

“Our Lord the Devil's their Word, the Word Thelema, spoken of me The Beast.”

“I with Alostrael alone - we shall do Magick unto our Lord the Devil such as the Earth hath never known.”

“Yea! as I loath, I lust; I prostitute myself to thee, perversely prurient - Wilt thou not make this night the nameless nuptial, the Devil thy Lord and mine at Our Black Mass?”

“I invoked Aiwaz, was shown a phantasm of Baphomet, and suddenly determined to recognize this for Him!”


And from Liber Samekh:

“Thou spiritual Sun! Satan, Thou Eye, Thou Lust! Cry aloud! Cry aloud! Whirl the Wheel, O my Father, O Satan, O Sun! Thou, the Saviour! Silence! Give me Thy Secret! Give me suck, Thou Phallus, Thou Sun! Satan, thou Eye, thou Lust! Satan, thou Eye, thou Lust! Satan, thou Eye, thou Lust! Thou self-caused, self-determined, exalted, Most High!”

“Now this word SABAF, being by number Three score and Ten, is a name of Ayin, the Eye, and the Devil our Lord, and the Goat of Mendes. He is the Lord of the Sabbath of the Adepts, and is Satan, therefore also the Sun, whose number of Magick is 666, the seal of His servant the BEAST.”


To this we may add further from Magick in Theory and Practice:

“The exalted “Devil” (also the other secret Eye) by the formula of the Initiation of Horus elsewhere described in detail. This “Devil” is called Satan or Shaitan, and regarded with horror by people who are ignorant of his formula, and, imagining themselves to be evil, accuse Nature herself of their own phantasmal crime. Satan is Saturn, Set, Abrasax, Adad, Adonis, Attis, Adam, Adonai, etc. The most serious charge against him is that he is the Sun in the South. . .

“We have therefore no scruple in restoring the ‘devil-worship’ of such ideas as those which the laws of sound, and the phenomena of speech and hearing, compel us to connect with the group of ‘Gods’ whose names are based upon ShT, or D, vocalized by the free breath A. For these Names imply the qualities of courage, frankness, energy, pride, power and triumph; they are the words which express the creative and paternal will.

“Thus ‘the Devil’ is Capricornus, the Goat who leaps upon the loftiest mountains, the Godhead which, if it become manifest in man, makes him Aegipan, the All.”


Top
#114512 - 09/27/17 05:21 PM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: Vigilia_Matutina]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7204
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Vigilia_Matutina
Crowley on the spectrum is more likely placed on the LHP if you follow the more liberating aspects of his ideology.
Believe me, I've read everything he's ever written. None of it was convincing. I suppose my fascination with it was watching a man justify his baggage in a small volume library.


 Quote:

He believes that magick is simply in the mind and through it, you could create interesting results that bends whatever target to your will.


Yet, he needed to be a special snowflake and give it his own spelling to discern it from stage magic? As if that magic isn't cut of the same cloth? That it too isn't just a bunch of mind games?

 Quote:

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.



He believed in his own abilities with the same fervor as a god. Even when he was just peacocking, pretentious and mostly full of shit. It's not a very convincing argument.
_________________________
SINJONES.com
________________________
God Emperor Trump's Valkyrie

Top
#115598 - 01/23/18 07:41 PM Re: A. CROWLEY; satanist or luciferian ? [Re: SIN3]
Mammalianprotube Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/12/18
Posts: 5
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
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,


In a Zen way, I say this is absolutely true. He put a lot of work into throwing superstitious people off from what his actual message was. This is due to superstitious people being attracted to Thelema (and the occult at large) for reasons other then what it is actually about, so of course have some fun fucking with their heads.

Seeing how at the root of Thelema, we see Hinduism, Zen Buddhism and the roots of the Hermetic magick/Alchemical teachings; I am surprised (in a way) that he didn't just convert to Hinduism, as it covers a large array of Thelemic cosmology and virtues (including Will, the metaphorical trinity, reincarnation etc).

But I guess that through the lens of post-Egyptian and Abrahamic symbolism, there is a more direct impact on the individual (in our more westernized world)
_________________________
Atlas Eclipticalis

Top
Page 6 of 6 « First<23456


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

Generated in 0.017 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 17 queries. Zlib compression disabled.