They Sold Their Soul To Rock And Roll: Aleister Crowley (Page 4 of 8)

Aww Khalil?  Half your post has disappeared... now it looks like i'm talking to the wind.   Maybe i am anyway.

That's alright.  I thought your questions were some of the essential ones so,  lover of essential questions as i am,  i went right to it.

Hi Nexus, I just feel like adding this:

Now then, after the conclusive paragraphs just cited above from the Tevijja-Sutta, one of the standard scriptures of the Southern School of Buddhism, in which the x-quantity, that Something, is emphatically and plainly stated herein as being capable of attaining 'a state of union with Brahma,' it becomes necessary to point with emphatic finger to one of the most pregnant and important teachings of the Great Master which shows that the Buddha-Gautama by no means considered such a state of union with Brahman as the ultimate or ending of the existence of the fortunate Jivanmukta or freed Monad. Indeed, his teaching ran directly contrary to such erroneous idea; for both implicitly and explicitly, as may be found in the scriptures of both the North and the South, there is the reiterated statement that even beyond the 'world of Brahma,' i. e., beyond Brahman, there are realms of consciousness and being still higher than this 'world of Brahma,' in which reside the roots, so to speak, of the Cosmic Tree and therefore the Root of every human being, the offspring of such mystical Cosmic Tree. What is this Mystic Root, this that is higher even than Brahma? It is the individualized Adi-Buddha, the Cosmic 'Creative' Logos of Adi-Bodhi, or Alaya, the Cosmic Originant; for even a 'world of Brahma' is a manifested world; and, therefore, however high it may be by comparison with our material world, is yet a relatively imperfect sphere of life and lives. In consequence, the teaching runs that higher even than Brahma there is something Else, the rootless Root, reaching back and within, cosmically speaking, into Parabrahmic Infinitude. One who is a Buddha, i. e., one who has become allied in his inmost essence with the cosmic Bodhi, thus can enter not only the 'world of Brahma,' but pass out of it and above it and beyond it, yea, higher and higher still to those cosmic reaches of life-consciousness-substance towards which human imagination may aspire and indeed always does aspire, however feebly; but which, unless we are Buddhas in fact, i. e., more or less straitly in self-conscious union with the Dhyani-Buddha, the spiritual Monad within us, we cannot understand otherwise than to be an adumbration of ineffable Nature.

Boddhisattva.
(Sanskrit) A compound word: literally "he whose essence (sattva) has become intelligence (bodhi)." As explained exoterically, a bodhisattva means one who in another incarnation or in a few more incarnations will become a buddha. A bodhisattva from the standpoint of the occult teachings is more than that. When a man, a human being, has reached the state where his ego becomes conscious, fully so, of its inner divinity, becomes clothed with the buddhic ray -- where, so to say, the personal man has put on the garments of inner immortality in actuality, on this earth, here and now -- that man is a bodhisattva. His higher principles have nearly reached nirvana. When they do so finally, such a man is a buddha, a human buddha, a manushya-buddha. Obviously, if such a bodhisattva were to reincarnate, in the next incarnation or in a very few future incarnations thereafter, he would be a manushya-buddha. A buddha, in the esoteric teaching, is one whose higher principles can learn nothing more. They have reached nirvana and remain there; but the spiritually awakened personal man, the bodhisattva, the person made semi-divine to use popular language, instead of choosing his reward in the nirvana of a less degree, remains on earth out of pity and compassion for inferior beings, and becomes what is called a nirmanakaya. In a very mystical part of the esoteric philosophy, a bodhisattva is the representative on earth of a dhyani-buddha or celestial buddha -- in other words, one who has become an incarnation or expression of his own divine monad.

"Mine eyes are too pure to behold iniquity"

is a clasic example of

"How can what is be not what is for anyone else?"

you can read it 2 ways:

"pure eyes cannot bear the sight of iniquity"

OR

"there is no iniquity before pure eyes"

Words are both tools and traps: placeholders for perception, which is itself a placeholder for "reality" which is never purely felt, always subject to point-of-view.

What's so evil about pointing out the obvious?

"Adonai spake unto V.V.V.V.V., saying: There must ever be division in the word.
For the colours are many, but the light is one.
Therefore thou writest that which is of mother of emerald, and of lapis-lazuli, and of turquoise, and of alexandrite.
Another writeth the words of topaz, and of deep amethyst, and of gray sapphire, and of deep sapphire with a tinge as of blood.
Therefore do ye fret yourselves because of this.
Be not contented with the image.
I who am the Image of an Image say this.
Debate not of the image, saying Beyond! Beyond!"

is basically what i'm trying to say, and i really sense no stink to it, after years of parsing and comparing and experimenting. i think i'll hold to my opinion until i hear a better presented contention of it, thanks anyway, Khalil.

Nexus, what i'm getting from your explanation of "ultimate source" is somewhere between the qabalistic ideas of Ruach and Neschamah... both a lot more universally discerning and intuiting than the perceived "self" but still short of unfiltered "ultimate source" as i see it.

apart from the first bit (ALL by derivation comes from Source, just like the calories in a candy come from the sun) the personal quest for change you describe is precisely he object of the occult Great Work.

and while i agree completely with this:

i entreaty people to recognise the difference between conditioned reactions in absence of actual information, and the acting of higher intuition.

and i disagree with this next bit, and thing the zoroastrian programming of the big 3 monotheistic religions is behind this gem:

very good, indeed. why?

contentedness, sharing, love etc. would be just as ephemeral as the negative in Original Source, there being no OTHER to either be angry or content about; to share with or be jealous of; to love or to hate.

the idea that there should be some sort of "self-censorship" even in philosophy and mysticism is IMHO a mental and spiritual shackle that keeps people stuck in the formulas of slave religion even when they've gone as far as recognising the ecclesiastical officialdom as a farce and refuted the organised faiths.

another bit i agree wholeheartedly with:

if you only want feelgood vibes and PC drivel, you're going to miss that boat. if you are as blunt as  "one thing is sure, something is either the truth or it is not the truth." and apply this to

~ WORDS ~

you will be led astray.

parse all info as objectively and close-to-origin as possible and use your own judgement, is all i have to say.

shooting down fallacious armchair-sagery based on urban legends is a hobby for me, but i do feel it is important that people get back to socrates and realise how little of what they take as "knowledge" really is.

i mean really:

the second phrase is unparseable to me. the following phrase totally negates the first part of it (cfr. "either the truth or.." and "This may now not be true to others..")

i mean i can't get what you are saying, really and how it relates to the first statement. sounds more like disjointed slogans.

next:

the final phrase... WTF? something is either truth or not or just your opinion unless you know truth.  i don't even know what to say about it! but i will give something that i think is along the line of thinking you're trying for, but possibly says the opposite.

Repeat the above as a mantra 10000 times daily and you will become Illuminated and Know Truth (in some sense)

Zejith_Themis:
Would everyone do a bit more reading (of relevant material) before posting their sage considerations on a lifetime of work, basing themselves on a few snippets, anecdotes and contextless quotes instead of the (considerable) corpus of work itself?

I'd be able to take "truth-seeking" a  lot more seriously if i saw that.  It's not just with these "favorite figures" of the spooky-rumour factory... it's with EVERYTHING. Most of the "research" is being done in this mode and i'm finding it all too entropic to be of any bloody use.
-------------------------------------
Anteaus:
From Occult Glossary:
...In many parts of India the authority of the Tantras seems almost to have superseded the clean and poetical hymns of the Vedas.

Most tantric works are supposed to contain five different subjects: (1) the manifestation or evolution of the universe; (2) its destruction; (3) the worship or adoration of the divinities; (4) the achievement or attainment of desired objects and especially of six superhuman faculties; (5) modes or methods of union, usually enumerated as four, with the supreme divinity of the kosmos by means of contemplative meditation.

Unfortunately, while there is much of interest in the tantric works, their tendency for long ages has been distinctly towards what in occultism is known as sorcery or black magic. Some of the rites or ceremonies practiced have to do with revolting details connected with sex.

Durga, the consort of Siva, his sakti or energy, is worshiped by the Tantrins as a distinct personified female power.

The origin of the Tantras unquestionably goes back to a very remote antiquity, and there seems to be little doubt that these works, or their originals, were heirlooms handed down from originally debased or degenerate Atlantean racial offshoots. There is, of course, a certain amount of profoundly philosophical and mystical thought running through the more important tantric works, but the tantric worship in many cases is highly licentious and immoral.
------------------------------------------------
Z_T:
as for licentious or immoral, or 'revolting details of sex'; i'll make those distinctions on a case by case basis and on my own authority, thanks... i'm quite sure there are many cases, as you say. i'm not looking for a cult, i re-invent my own daily; and study all i come across to make it more interesting. so there.
as for licentious or immoral, or 'revolting details of sex'; i'll make those distinctions on a case by case basis and on my own authority, thanks... i'm quite sure there are many cases, as you say. i'm not looking for a cult, i re-invent my own daily; and study all i come across to make it more interesting. so there.
--------------------------
Anteaus:
Reiteration: from another thread on Noble Realms, when reading Crowley's texts, it is well to understand: blood = semen; death = ecstasy; kill = ejaculation.
-------------------------------------

Z_T:
to answer this:

"Why does Crowley rever Satan? "

short answer: he didn't.

long answer: wrap your mind around his worldview and cosmology to get an idea of what his blasphemous sounding statements really meant.
-----------------------
dunkelheit:

" Regardless, I believe that the information speaks for itself.  Zejith, I have resisted making a judgement call about you or anyone else who has contributed to this thread.  Why can't you extend me the same simple courtesy?"
--------------------------
Z_T
Because that snippet does not speak for itself. Are you reading at all or on talking points? It was presented, in your post, to say that you didn't need to read much to know that you didn't need to know anything more about one who... "participated in the kind of rituals described above. "

Which, rather to the point, was not a description of any ritual engaged in, see?

And, to address those lamenting the emotional tides of controversy and devotion to beliefs:

I'm not flogging belief here in any fashion, however when outright falsity is presented and I know it to be false, I'm going to point it out.

Z_T:
Precisely, SiriArc!

For instance, even thinking, as I do, that yaweh-ism, church christianity and organised islam are frauds, that doesn't prevent me from delving the significance of their symbols and formulae.. hundreds of generations of real mystics have charged the myths and names with resonance. Qabalah, Gnosticism and Sufism are central to my practical exploration, far more than Buddhism.
--------------------------
Nexus:
SiriArc wrote : " Information regardless of source is neutral
                         Only personal resonance can determine value"

Somehow that has become a truism but it is not true.  Everything is information.  Nothing is neutral.  Ultimate source is the ultimate determinant of value.   While experiencing life in a state of duality consciousness, personal resonance cannot necessarilly determine ultimate value.   In that state of consciousness personal resonance can only determine relative value. 

Put simply, anyone can be wrong about the ultimate value of anything.  Just because something is prized doesn't make it valuable.  Granted, anything can be thought valuable.
------------------------
Z_T:
I was just shooting down false statements and faulty procedure in my posts, not dragging into the question of "ultimate truth", and the question of putting ANY amount of TRUST ito ANYTHING should not come up.

To say what you think nexus is saying is to miss my entire point. The information being accurate should not be a one-time check, that if it checks out leads to resigning oneself that that source has a hotine to truth.
-----------------------------
Khalil:
Something tells me very strongly something stinks in the state of Crowley.

This may now not be true to others, the truth may seem to be in a subjective state but I never said this is the truth.

One thing is sure, something is either the truth or it is not the truth.

All else may very well be just your opinion unless you know what is truth?
-----------------------------------
Antaeus:
Reiteration:
Truth may be defined as that which is Reality; and present human intelligence can make but approximate advances or approaches to this Cosmic REAL which is measureless in its profundity and in its infinite reaches, and therefore never fully comprehensible by any finite intellect. It was a wise declaration, in one way, that Pontius Pilate made, as alleged, when Jesus, the great Syrian Initiate, was brought before him: "What is Truth!"; for a man who knows Truth in fulness would have an active intelligence commensurate with the Universe: and whose intelligence is universe-wide?
------------------------------------
Nexus:
Maybe i shouldn't have used the term "ultimate source" without some explanation of what i meant.
 
"Ultimate source" OR it's "uncorrupted extention".... the inner spiritual "Son" / "Sun" 

By that i mean the "divine projection" of the ALLspirit which is within us and which has been called many names... Christ/ buddha/ Krishna/ Samboag Kaya/ Higher- Self ... etc.   That pure "projection" acts as mediator between the uncorrupted I AM Presence in spiritual planes and the soul corrupted by the affections/ addictions of materiality. 

Somewhere in the old testament  it has God saying "Mine eyes are too pure to behold iniquity"

There are levels of universal God consciousness which do not focus on the periphery of life... where most souls are trapped.   But,  a "projection" of 'Ultimate Source' is "sent into the world" ... "the only begotten Son" ... "which lighteth every man [-ifestation of the ALL] which comes into the world."
The soul is tested to see if :

1) if it knows the difference between the vibrations of the real self and those of the shadow- self,
2) if it is willing to surrender the known shadow- self for the relatively unknown real- self, 
3) While resolving this duality in the inner spiritual fires, to discern and to do the will of spirit in all things.
-------------------------------
Z_T:
"Mine eyes are too pure to behold iniquity"

is a clasic example of

"How can what is, be not what is, for anyone else?"
---------------------------
Anteaus:
This is where I pause.  I think the point here is that some individuals are saying that the text written by Aleister Crowley should not be read.  If that doesn't provoke an increase of interest in his work I don't know what will.  Oops.

Laugh and the world laughs with you,
Weep and you weep alone,
For the sad old Earth must borrow its mirth,
But has trouble enough of its own.

Adam was walking with his son past the Garden of Eden,
As it was a very beautiful place, his son asked Adam,
Why don't we move there?  Where upon Adam replied,
We did once, but your mother ate us out of house and home.

Well it's good in the sense that it is good material to contemplate.
If you want to go back to were it all began, did were it all began begin with love,hate, jealousy,fear etc?
If not, (if it matters) were did they come from?
See what I mean, something to think about.

Because it is said, someone may see it automatically as a false statement or the truth but when it was said it was not declared to be the truth, so sometimes people jump to conclusions, (as you may have).

That's what I meant, it's all just your own opinion, did I contend your opinion, why the sarcasim or is that condescending attitude, do you feel like I was attacking you in any way?
Sorry, It was not my intention as I was just relaying thoughts to the board, not you personally.
I might at the end though.

Now this is not very clever.

What I am trying to say (although hampered by obviously inferior intellect) is :

The sky is a blue colour during the day.

Is this so because I myself made that opinion or is it because it is the truth?

What I am saying is either reps exist or they don't , dimensions exist or they don't, the sun is a ball of burning gas or it is not.

Perhaps you do not know what I am saying here because you did not understand it due to repeating mantras a thousand times a day which has taken over your brain?
I don't appreciate the subtle insult or being told that repeating some mantra made up by some nice bloke in India or wherever, is the path to truth, you just declared what I am trying to say, is the wrong thing to do.
Presenting your opinion as truth or the way.
I still think and this is only my opinion, follow along if you will, that something is either truth or it is not the truth.
Does truth ever change?

PS; Nexus I want to thank you for the way in which you respond and the time you have taken to respond and for bothering to post here, much food for thought and without ego stroking, well written my friend, you have a good way of looking at things but that's just my opinion based on the intelligence , insightfullness and good intent contained within your replies.

One thing about Crowley, he came from an era where education
about the classics of literature and mythology were more widely
taught and respected and he himself was highly educated and
literate.  So much so, that he frequently used references and
allusions to erudite subjects and writings which were beyond the
scope of the average person.  But in many of his writings he
was able to get down to the brass tacks of a subject in an
extremely precise and penetrating manner which blasted away
the many accretions (visualize coral and corrosion encrusting
a sunken galleon's cannon) which accumulate around any
subject, for example his explanations of the various branches of yoga.  One of my favorite works of his is his Book of Thoth in which he describes
his deck of Tarot cards(which he designed) and links them to numerology, astrology, mythology and the Qabbalah in a comprehensive system
unparalelled before or after.  Even so, his disdain for the average
human's consciousness was summed up by quoting Lewis Carroll's
Through the Looking Glass saying "you're all just a deck of cards"