What do you think about Aleister Crowley?

[Polaris]

I am asking this question in hopes to gain the truth

[raventhewitch]

Crowley was a satanist and I personally wouldn't go near his magic. He spend the majority of his adult years as  junkie and is not someone that I admire. Those many rock stars follow him, most noteably Jimmy Page, his magic is awash in symbolism. In the end, I'm not sure what following Crowley gets you except a relationship with Satan. What do you want power for anyway? So that you can control people? A true witch doesn't seek sure power but rather seeks to be in harmony with nature.

[Polaris]

there is NO satan

[TheMagickSprite]

His intellect was incredible.  Take nothing from a man that gifted and lose out.

Id sum him up in "Brilliance succumbed to addiction"

Not for some I agree.

BB Sprite

[Abnoba]

After reading the article Lark provided (thanks lark!), it seems that he was quite far from being a satanist, or evil. Aside from drug addiction, he seemed a normal guy, only a bit radical for his time.

[Arx]

Crowley was a satanist and I personally wouldn't go near his magic. He spend the majority of his adult years as  junkie and is not someone that I admire. Those many rock stars follow him, most noteably Jimmy Page, his magic is awash in symbolism. In the end, I'm not sure what following Crowley gets you except a relationship with Satan. What do you want power for anyway? So that you can control people? A true witch doesn't seek sure power but rather seeks to be in harmony with nature.

Crowley was most definitely NOT a Satanist. Have you actually read any of Crowley's works? Heck, have you actually read anything on Crowley in the first place other than the brainwashed rhetoric spouted by the Christian and Pagan right? Your statements show a blatant ignorance of the nature of Thelema and Ceremonial Magic. You are almost giving right wing fundamentalists a run for their money *shakes head*.

Thelema and Ceremonial Magic have nothing to do with Satanism. They are well respected paths within the occult community focusing on that achievement of what is called "The Great Work". The Great Work is nothing short of aligning one's life to the divine will of your higher self - it is about achieving enlightenment, awareness and understanding not only of the world, but also of one self and one's place within life. Many well respected individuals follow the ideas Crowley put forward including such personages as Israeli Regardie, Lon Milo DuQuette, Kenneth Grant and Gerald Gardner.

I wonder if you are even aware that Gerald Gardner, the creator of Wicca, actually studied under Crowley in the O.T.O? Are you aware that much of Wicca is actually drawn from Gardner's experience within Ceremonial Magic and his correspondences with Crowley? The Wiccan initiation ritual is derived directly from Crowley's "Gnositc Mass".

If it weren't for Aleister Crowley, Wicca wouldn't even be here today.

And I'm sorry, but what's this ridiculous statemtn about his magic being awash in symbolism. Here's a news flash:
ALL MAGIC IS AWASH WITH SYMBOLISM
What exactly do you think the Pentacle is? What about the elements, an athame, the ascribing of meaning to various moon phases. SYMBOLISM. All of them. It is through symbolism that we work magic!

I highly suggest you do some more reading on Crowley and Thelema before making such blanket prejudice statements of something you are obviously ignorant of.


To the other people of this forum, sorry for the rant but Raventhewitch's comments just really rubbed me the wrong way.

Anyway, onto Polaris (apologies for doing the rant before addressing your question by the way)

I am asking this question in hopes to gain the truth

Sprite and Lark summed it up rather well. Crowley was an extraordinarily brilliant man. I'd argue that he single handedly shaped much of the modern occult world through his various works and writings. Yes he had his drug vices and yes he enjoyed the infamy and shocking people - he quite enjoyed it when people called him "The Beast", but he wasn't an evil man. His works are worth the read regardless of which path you follow. Admittedly they can be a bit hard to read as he uses a lot of assumed knowledge, but this is where the exemplary efforts of authors such as DuQuette and Regardie come in; they have done much to make Crowley's works easier to understant for the average person.

-Arx-

[raventhewitch]

Crowley was a Satanist. He called himself the beast 666. He founded a satanic temple in England. He did human sacrifices at Boleskine House. He was brilliant but he also had many problems. He hated God with a passion.  So much so that it interfered with his rational decision making. 

http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Aleister_Crowley.htm

[TheMagickSprite]

I have to concur, you are very wrong, Crowley was not a satanist.  I really think you should view more things with open eyes, you sound very much like "society" to me.

Sheesh, as has been pointed out, Gardner may have learned much from Crowley and many say much of Gardner's works, were just repeated learnings from Crowley.

Raven, you should do more research, there is much to learn from Crowley's works, Id be lying if I was to say that without the inspiration of the knowledge of people like Crowley, I would never have created this forum.

BB Sprite

[Arx]

Crowley was a Satanist.

Again, no he wasn't. Read his works and then try and tell me that again. Better yet, ask many of the noble and virtuous people who work with his writings and come back and tell me that.

He called himself the beast 666.

Yes he did. And I have touched on this briefly. Crowley revelled in infamy - he can be considered a proponent of the idea that "bad publicity is better than no publicity at all". Crowley loved the attention the press gave him. But I'm sorry, but just because he called himself The Beast, does not mean he was a Satanist. Crowley was having what one would call a laugh - a joke at the gullible public's expense. I introduce myself as God or Jesus to many people. I enjoy the reactions it gets be it laughter, rolling of eyes, huh? or "how dare you use the lord's name in vain!" It in no way means I actually am Jesus - I'm just making a show to get a reaction out of people. Crowley did the same.

He did human sacrifices at Belkine House.

Care to show me an official police or media statement on this? If you believe this then I'm sure you must also believe that all Wiccans are baby sacrificing Satanists as well. Oh and modern day druids sacrifice Christians at Stone Henge *rolls eyes*

He was brilliant but he also had many problems.

We have already covered this.

He hated God with a passion.

Incorrect again. Crowley hated right wing religion with a passion. Again, try reading Crowley's writings - one will find persistent references to communing with one's Holy Guardian Angel, about aligning one self to the divine will of the universe etc. Crowley had no problems with "god". Crowley had problems with the idea of organised tyrannical religions that put God out of reach of the practitioner. Crowley was a firm believer of the concept that the individual has full power to contact and bond with the divine - that we don't need holy books, priests and religious institutions to intercede on our behalf.
Oh but wait! Had you read anything by Crowley, you might have actually known that.

Some advice:

Read. You sound like a fundamentalist Christian preaching about the evils of Wicca without knowing a single "fact" about it. And I bet you'd be one of the first to jump down such a person's throat for their prejudice against witchcraft *rolls eyes*.

-Arx-

[TheMagickSprite]

"Read. You sound like a fundamentalist Christian preaching about the evils of Wicca without knowing a single "fact" about it. And I bet you'd be one of the first to jump down such a person's throat for their prejudice against witchcraft *rolls eyes*."

I can't believe I'm doing this (Dont laugh Arx) but K+ Arx.

Condemning Crowley so quickly, is simply exactly what those who don't truly understand do, its unfair, its persecution, it should be countered with wisdom, as I see Arx here doing.  I admire Crowley and his works, so thank you Arx.

BB Sprite

[raventhewitch]

I am a Wiccan, not a fundamentalist. I am not preaching. I am in no way trying to change what you believe in. You are wrong in comparing to a fundamentalist preacher, who is out to change your beliefs. The person who started this post asked us what we think of Crowley, not to force Crowley or any belief onto us.  I prefer to stay on a positive path. I admit that I am no expert on Crowley but he did many wicked things and practiced the magic of Abramelin, which is used in black magic. He conjured demons. I don't need to read how ever many thousands of pages that he wrote in order to know that conjuring demons is evil.

[moon breese]

hmmm, demons = evil... guess that depends what is classified as a demon. back in the day (and still some folks today) found the idea of summoning, let a lone seeing a "spirit" or "ghost" was evil. So, if i tried to talk to a "ghost I some how encountered," or anyone here tried too... they would be a satanist? Hmm, a lot of satanist here... right?

That is such a silly thought. There are many nice people on this forum. Many of these kind folks have seen, heard, felt something you seem to be willing to refer to as a demon.

The suggestion to read up on some of Crowley's is a good one. Id actually read up on many things. There is a good spot in here that will have a very large bunch of books that usually have excellent reviews

many Blessings and peace

[Arx]

I am a Wiccan, not a fundamentalist. I am not preaching. I am in no way trying to change what you believe in. You are wrong in comparing to a fundamentalist preacher, who is out to change your beliefs. The person who started this post asked us what we think of Crowley, not to force Crowley or any belief onto us.  I prefer to stay on a positive path. I admit that I am no expert on Crowley but he did many wicked things and practiced the magic of Abramelin, which is used in black magic. He conjured demons. I don't need to read how ever many thousands of pages that he wrote in order to know that conjuring demons is evil.

When I compare you to a fundamentalist, I am not saying that you are preaching to convert. I am pointing out that you are preaching about things you know next to nothing about. You yourself admit to being no expert on Crowley, yet you proclaim his evilness. This sounds strikingly similar to an Evangelical minister saying "I am no expert on Wicca but I know enough to say that it is the Devil's work". This is the comparison I am making, and a comparison that is becoming increasingly apt. For example, now you are proclaiming the work of Abramelin to be evil. You seem to show no barriers to making uneducated assumptions on magical topics.

I wonder if you know WHY Crowley conjured demons? Do you even know what a demon "is" in a Ceremonial Magic framework. I'm going to have to assume you don't. In a CM context, demons are considered to be the troublesome and conflicting aspects of one's soul. By conjuring forth one's demons through the power of the Holy Guardian, one basically commands them on order of the divine Will to "get into line or get out!". It is about recognising and harnessing those parts of the self that would otherwise hinder you from working toward the Great Work of unifying self and god.

I think it is obvious that you do in fact need to read those "thousands of pages" (or even just a few). Willing ignorance and refusal to consider alternate evidence is not an admirable personality trait.

Lastly, I want to comment on the link you provided earlier. This site is far from being a decent academic treatise on any of the personages mentioned within. The website feels more like a "cheap thrills" ride than anything else. It has numerous gross inaccuracies on many of the people within. It is little more than a pop-culture mishmash of urban myths, popular rumours and legends designed to entertain and amaze those with no knowledge on the topic. The few facts it does provide are either bare bones or so embellished that they put the pope's hat to shame.

Your stance is remeniscent of one prone to believing rumour and gossip. Perhaps it would be more conductive to adopt a stance of academic skepticism next time you use such internet pages as your data source. Try using biographies, encyclopaedias or essays with cited resources rather than using websites that are about as informative and accurate as a celebrity magazine. Lark provided an excellent Wikipedia page on Crowley. Perhaps you may want to consider reading it. You may also want to read the following:

http://altreligion.about.com/library/faqs/bl_crowleyfaq.htm

http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Main_Page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Abramelin

I can't believe I'm doing this (Dont laugh Arx) but K+ Arx.

Aww come now, I am allowed to say things that make sense from time to time 

-Arx-

[flobadine]

Crowley was a Satanist.

Crowley had problems with the idea of organised tyrannical religions that put God out of reach of the practitioner. Crowley was a firm believer of the concept that the individual has full power to contact and bond with the divine - that we don't need holy books, priests and religious institutions to intercede on our behalf.
Oh but wait! Had you read anything by Crowley, you might have actually known that.

Some advice:

Read. You sound like a fundamentalist Christian preaching about the evils of Wicca without knowing a single "fact" about it. And I bet you'd be one of the first to jump down such a person's throat for their prejudice against witchcraft *rolls eyes*.

-Arx-

Don't go bashing an entire group because some of the people in that group bashed your group.  Seems like you are preaching against organized relligion and making generalizations about it.  Be careful, extremes and definites are usually wrong no matter what direction they are.

Also, it seems a bit harsh insulting poor raven's sources when your sources are no more valid.  I can change wikipedia to say anything I want.  Just something to think about before you go into a rant.  You don't want to become what you are against.

[Arx]

Don't go bashing an entire group because some of the people in that group bashed your group.  Seems like you are preaching against organized relligion and making generalizations about it.  Be careful, extremes and definites are usually wrong no matter what direction they are.

I wouldn't classify making a behavioural comparison as "bashing". Though I will openly admit that I do find fault with Fundamentalist Christianity - actually, I find fault with fundamentalist behaviour in any religion, be it Christian, Wiccan or otherwise. But that is besides the point - the issue I have with raven is her willing ignorance of Crowley and the systems he developed. She/he is making prejudice statements on someone s/he has openly admitted to knowing little about.
Whilst I would call my argument passionate, I wouldn't call it "extremist" let alone "fundamental". On the other hand, I maintain that Raven's is indeed remeniscent of fundamental behaviour, simply a Wiccan version of it. She is committing the same crime that many other fundamentalists do.

As for preaching against organised religion, I did nothing of the sort in my above comments. The views I put forth (and where you seem to be misreading my comments) were stated as being Crowley's views on the subject.

Also, it seems a bit harsh insulting poor raven's sources when your sources are no more valid.  I can change wikipedia to say anything I want.  Just something to think about before you go into a rant.  You don't want to become what you are against.

The sites I offered were put forward merely as summaries. I made no claim to them being my primary sources of information. I will claim that the information within them is largely more accurate than the site Raven was using, but this is because I can verify the information within them with other sources as well as those people who actually ARE Thelemites or who knew or had correspondence with Crowley. I can also compare it to what Crowley actually says within his own writings as well as academic commentaries and biographies on Crowley. One can read the various letters between Crowley and other occultists of the time as well.

And this is where I (and others who have already spoken in this thread) differ from Raven. We have read 'multiple' sources on the topic and have actually read the writings of Crowley. Raven hasn't and openly admits so. The producers of many of our sources are generally academics, had direct correspondence with Crowley or are active practitioners of the techniques he authored. Raven's source is a website of questionable integrity, leaning more to "entertainment and gossip" as opposed to academic studies of the topics at hand.

I hope this helps clarify a few things.
-Arx-