What's actually worth keeping from Crowley's practical system and what should be discarded outright?

[agloval]

Genuine question, hoping for a real discussion rather than a flame war.
Crowley left behind an enormous body of practical material rituals, tables of correspondence, initiatory grade work, sex magick, drug experimentation, the Aethyrs work, Liber Resh, Liber Astarté, the pentagram/hexagram rituals, the Book of the Law framework, the A∴A∴ curriculum, Thelema as a whole. Some of it is arguably foundational to modern Western esotericism. Some of it is questionable at best, either because it was self-aggrandizing performance, because it was superseded by later thinking, or because it was harmful (to himself, to others, or both).
I'd like to hear what practitioners here actually think, from experience rather than reputation.
Two questions:

1. What do you consider the most valuable and worth preserving in Crowley's practical system, the pieces you'd defend to a serious student today?
2. What do you think should be discarded outright, either because it doesn't work, because it's misleading, because it's ethically indefensible, or because better tools exist now?

A few points to (hopefully) keep the thread useful:

• I'm not asking whether Crowley was a good person. That conversation has been had.
• I'm interested in the practical magical system, not the biography though obviously the two overlap where his personal conduct became part of the teaching.
• Non-Thelemites welcome. Ex-Thelemites especially welcome.

Curious to hear.

 

[forestbear69]

As a Golden Dawn guy, my bias is against Crowley in general. But I had someone once say to me, “Crowley is important because he literally tried everything… you can’t dismiss him because he’s the laboratory research for us all.”

A prime example for me is the Headless/Bornless Rite. The Betz translation supplanted Crowley for a lot of people (myself included) when it first became available. Betz appears to simply transliterate what’s there. But there’s a missing piece in this sort of study: the Greek-speakers who wrote the rite were garbling their Egyptian, somewhat like the Japanese version of the Kuji mantras which hardly resembles the original Sanskrit, the Greeks misspelled and mispronounced everything and what letters remained were worn off further by the sands of time. They were attempting to translate a pictorial language into a phonetic script during a time when oral traditions reigned supreme for mystics of all types.

Crowley was an Egyptologist living in Egypt during a time when everyone was obsessed with Egypt. He knew enough Egyptian to figure out the context of parts of the rite and start to piece back some of the likely original text. And a lot of scholars now agree on his version of Ossoronophris, Asar-Un-Nefer, being correct. Betz himself makes such logical jumps, such as when the text reads, “Paphro” and Betz says they must have meant “Pharoah”. Crowley crossed out “Paphro” in his copy too.

Please note that I would dismiss Liber Samekh itself as nothing more than his usual psychosis, alongside all of his Left Hand style double-speak (I know that he said he was trying to balance the opposites, I see it as psychologically unstable for 90% of us or more regardless). However, if you want to ensure the barbarous words are true to their intended meaning, Crowley’s preliminary version (which Regardie himself used operatively) is worth comparing against Betz and determining the why of. I myself have done very little editing to Crowley’s reworking, placing Crowley, Betz, and the original Greek side by side.

This website has a nice comparison of Betz and Crowley’s versions, including the preliminary invocation I was just discussing

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I would say not to follow Crowley’s instructions verbatim almost ever, but to study him. Study why he said what he said, what he was doing, and heavily fall back on his source texts (the PGM, a gleaning of Golden Dawn, the grimoires, and of course, Agrippa and Eliphas Levi are the kings in understanding where Crowley was coming from).

 

[agloval]

As a Golden Dawn guy, my bias is against Crowley in general. But I had someone once say to me, “Crowley is important because he literally tried everything… you can’t dismiss him because he’s the laboratory research for us all.”

A prime example for me is the Headless/Bornless Rite. The Betz translation supplanted Crowley for a lot of people (myself included) when it first became available. Betz appears to simply transliterate what’s there. But there’s a missing piece in this sort of study: the Greek-speakers who wrote the rite were garbling their Egyptian, somewhat like the Japanese version of the Kuji mantras which hardly resembles the original Sanskrit, the Greeks misspelled and mispronounced everything and what letters remained were worn off further by the sands of time. They were attempting to translate a pictorial language into a phonetic script during a time when oral traditions reigned supreme for mystics of all types.

Crowley was an Egyptologist living in Egypt during a time when everyone was obsessed with Egypt. He knew enough Egyptian to figure out the context of parts of the rite and start to piece back some of the likely original text. And a lot of scholars now agree on his version of Ossoronophris, Asar-Un-Nefer, being correct. Betz himself makes such logical jumps, such as when the text reads, “Paphro” and Betz says they must have meant “Pharoah”. Crowley crossed out “Paphro” in his copy too.

Please note that I would dismiss Liber Samekh itself as nothing more than his usual psychosis, alongside all of his Left Hand style double-speak (I know that he said he was trying to balance the opposites, I see it as psychologically unstable for 90% of us or more regardless). However, if you want to ensure the barbarous words are true to their intended meaning, Crowley’s preliminary version (which Regardie himself used operatively) is worth comparing against Betz and determining the why of. I myself have done very little editing to Crowley’s reworking, placing Crowley, Betz, and the original Greek side by side.

This website has a nice comparison of Betz and Crowley’s versions, including the preliminary invocation I was just discussing

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I would say not to follow Crowley’s instructions verbatim almost ever, but to study him. Study why he said what he said, what he was doing, and heavily fall back on his source texts (the PGM, a gleaning of Golden Dawn, the grimoires, and of course, Agrippa and Eliphas Levi are the kings in understanding where Crowley was coming from).

Interesting take, thanks for laying it out in that much detail.


I'm going to do the comparison exercise you suggested, the original Greek, Betz, and Crowley side by side. I'll admit I've worked almost entirely from the PGM directly until now, sidelining Crowley's version more out of prejudice against him as a figure than any real judgment on his philological work. Your point about him crossing out "Paphro" in his own copy is a solid argument for taking him more seriously as a reader of the source material, regardless of what anyone thinks of him as a practitioner or a person.


My actual question: would you say Crowley's barbarous words are more accurate overall, closer to the original Greek/Egyptian, than Betz's, or is it more case by case? I'm curious whether you see a consistent pattern of him being more precise, or whether he just nailed a few specific points (like Ossoronophris/Asar-Un-Nefer) while Betz remains the stronger reference elsewhere.

 

[forestbear69]

Interesting take, thanks for laying it out in that much detail.


I'm going to do the comparison exercise you suggested, the original Greek, Betz, and Crowley side by side. I'll admit I've worked almost entirely from the PGM directly until now, sidelining Crowley's version more out of prejudice against him as a figure than any real judgment on his philological work. Your point about him crossing out "Paphro" in his own copy is a solid argument for taking him more seriously as a reader of the source material, regardless of what anyone thinks of him as a practitioner or a person.


My actual question: would you say Crowley's barbarous words are more accurate overall, closer to the original Greek/Egyptian, than Betz's, or is it more case by case? I'm curious whether you see a consistent pattern of him being more precise, or whether he just nailed a few specific points (like Ossoronophris/Asar-Un-Nefer) while Betz remains the stronger reference elsewhere.

There are a few words I compared the original Greek and Betz and had to, like Crowley, stick with the original. They are, “REIBET, CHITASOE, MODORIO, BALBNABAOTH, BARRAIO, ATHOREBALO”… in those cases, honestly, I haven’t chosen which version is “correct” yet. Crowley spells them based on his assumptions of translation and ironically, so does Betz. There are a lot of valid sources for the Voces Magicae that, when compared to the Greek original, further complicate the issue.

That said, I find Crowley’s translation more useful since I primarily use the rite for the HGA. Before that, I primarily used the rite for preparation before evocation, and that’s when I used Betz. It is possible therefore that both sources are valid for their own merits.

However, practicing now based on Crowley, I appreciate his eye for restoring what he thinks are the original Egyptian meanings, and thereby pronunciation. There are instances where he strays farther from what I would surmise the intention too even there, such as when he translates, “IABAS” into, “Ia-Apophrasz”. It seems weird to me that the Greeks would have lost that many syllables, even if the meaning Crowley asserts does make sense!

So yeah, it’s very much case-by-case, word-by-word, and I’d be really interested in what others find and think with regards to it.

I will say two things:
(1) I don’t know whether to take the ancient egregore of practice or the more modern one more seriously. I tend to think the modern practitioners have done more than the ancient ones to develop this exact ritual egregore though, which is one reason for my departure from the Betz-predominant method.
(2) I never ever use Crowley’s “Ankh-af-na-Khonsu” insertion. That’s his own reincarnation, his own magical identity, and I think either using your own magical motto, whether it be your initiated name or a mythological hero, or the original “Moses…Israel” one is better.

 

[agloval]

@forestbear69 Thanks again for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. I genuinely appreciate it. Your point about studying Crowley as someone who experimented extensively, rather than treating him as an unquestionable authority, is a perspective I hadn't really considered in that way.

Also, thanks for sharing the comparison link. I'll definitely spend some time going through it.

Out of curiosity, which version do you actually use in practice? Do you mostly work from Crowley's reconstruction, Betz's translation, or a version you've edited yourself after comparing the Greek, Betz, and Crowley?

More generally, after doing those comparisons, what would you say are the biggest differences between Crowley's and Betz's approaches? Beyond a few well-known examples like Asar-Un-Nefer, do you think Crowley's reconstruction is generally closer to the intended meaning, or is it more that he occasionally made insightful corrections while Betz remains the more reliable baseline overall?

 

[sahgwa]

Sorry to be blunt but, the question is already flawed or kind of confusing. Crowley did not have one system. He was a guy , as you know, in the GD who tried lots of things, founded his own system of attainment, the A.:.A.:., and then became head of the German OTO.

You ask

1. What do you consider the most valuable and worth preserving in Crowley's practical system, the pieces you'd defend to a serious student today?
2. What do you think should be discarded outright, either because it doesn't work, because it's misleading, because it's ethically indefensible, or because better tools exist now?

I am bias, as I am an initiate of A.:.A.:. doing the Work seriously for about 14 years. There are things that I thought were not useful , starting out, like learning Hebrew, or correspondences of various mystical and magickal concepts, like in 777 that I know now are of extreme importance. Drawing connections between things in a subconscious and fluid way in your daily life helps with seeing the interconnectedness of all things, seeing how one thing is perhaps casually related, which may only seem like a synchronicity, to being able to influence mundane life in a more 'background' way.
Other things may seem ridiculous or too long, like sitting still in asana for an hour. But after having done that I can see how it trains not just your physical body, and basic psychology to empty your mind, and effect time, but also strengthens your energy bodies and enables you to be more patient and manipulate your thoughts and energy at a higher level due to the willpower and patience gained, not to say anything about energetic and magical benefits.
So if you are interested in both magical and mystical work, I think everything in A.:.A.:. was designed with a specific purpose and all works very well.
This was ALREADY distilled from GD teachings to be more streamlined and get rid of chaff, already

As far as in a more generic sense, you don't want to join either the above Order or the OTO, it's up to the individual to decide what is valuable and what is to be discarded , on a personal basis. I don't think anyone can or should dictate to others what not to use or try because it should be discarded. Whatever works for you!

I feel it's not very useful to get into historical or philological debates about Crowley's rituals or teachings persay, as he is a product of his time, and much research was not available or able to be done in this regard. Case in point, some 'Ancient Greek' words in the Star Ruby.
The Ritual is efficacious, because it's about visualisation and concepts, and energy work. Not because it's some specifically magical word.
Magic is creative.
Hope this was somewhat interesting if not useful.

 

[agloval]

Sorry to be blunt but, the question is already flawed or kind of confusing. Crowley did not have one system. He was a guy , as you know, in the GD who tried lots of things, founded his own system of attainment, the A.:.A.:., and then became head of the German OTO.

You ask

1. What do you consider the most valuable and worth preserving in Crowley's practical system, the pieces you'd defend to a serious student today?
2. What do you think should be discarded outright, either because it doesn't work, because it's misleading, because it's ethically indefensible, or because better tools exist now?

I am bias, as I am an initiate of A.:.A.:. doing the Work seriously for about 14 years. There are things that I thought were not useful , starting out, like learning Hebrew, or correspondences of various mystical and magickal concepts, like in 777 that I know now are of extreme importance. Drawing connections between things in a subconscious and fluid way in your daily life helps with seeing the interconnectedness of all things, seeing how one thing is perhaps casually related, which may only seem like a synchronicity, to being able to influence mundane life in a more 'background' way.
Other things may seem ridiculous or too long, like sitting still in asana for an hour. But after having done that I can see how it trains not just your physical body, and basic psychology to empty your mind, and effect time, but also strengthens your energy bodies and enables you to be more patient and manipulate your thoughts and energy at a higher level due to the willpower and patience gained, not to say anything about energetic and magical benefits.
So if you are interested in both magical and mystical work, I think everything in A.:.A.:. was designed with a specific purpose and all works very well.
This was ALREADY distilled from GD teachings to be more streamlined and get rid of chaff, already

As far as in a more generic sense, you don't want to join either the above Order or the OTO, it's up to the individual to decide what is valuable and what is to be discarded , on a personal basis. I don't think anyone can or should dictate to others what not to use or try because it should be discarded. Whatever works for you!

I feel it's not very useful to get into historical or philological debates about Crowley's rituals or teachings persay, as he is a product of his time, and much research was not available or able to be done in this regard. Case in point, some 'Ancient Greek' words in the Star Ruby.
The Ritual is efficacious, because it's about visualisation and concepts, and energy work. Not because it's some specifically magical word.
Magic is creative.
Hope this was somewhat interesting if not useful.

Yeah, that's exactly why I'm asking to get an idea of what has actually worked for people and what hasn't.

I know it's a very open-ended question because I understand that what works for one person may not work for another. I'm not expecting a single definitive answer; I'm just interested in hearing people's experiences so I can get a broader perspective.

And thank you for your reply. I found it very clear and genuinely helpful.

 

[sahgwa]

As a Golden Dawn guy, my bias is against Crowley in general. But I had someone once say to me, “Crowley is important because he literally tried everything… you can’t dismiss him because he’s the laboratory research for us all.”


Crowley was an Egyptologist living in Egypt during a time when everyone was obsessed with Egypt. He knew enough Egyptian to figure out the context of parts of the rite and start to piece back some of the likely original text. And a lot of scholars now agree on his version of Ossoronophris, Asar-Un-Nefer, being correct. Betz himself makes such logical jumps, such as when the text reads, “Paphro” and Betz says they must have meant “Pharoah”. Crowley crossed out “Paphro” in his copy too.

Please note that I would dismiss Liber Samekh itself as nothing more than his usual psychosis, alongside all of his Left Hand style double-speak (I know that he said he was trying to balance the opposites, I see it as psychologically unstable for 90% of us or more regardless

I would humbly assert that AC was never an Egyptologist nor ever tried to represent himself as one.
In fact, the reason that a lot of people think that the Book of the Law was received in Cairo at the time was there was a large 'outpouring' of energy when he visited the Great Pyramid on his honeymoon, an ancient primordial outpouring of some divine energy, inherent in the region and perhaps device of Pyramid complex. Furthermore there is a lot of backup to much of Thelema and it's Egyptian trappings being intimately tied to Sumerian/Babylonian religion in regards to an older magical Current. I really like this introduction which was not used for Book 4 recently (Blocked by Hymenaeus Beta) :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Post automatically merged: 29 minutes ago

Yeah, that's exactly why I'm asking to get an idea of what has actually worked for people and what hasn't.

I know it's a very open-ended question because I understand that what works for one person may not work for another. I'm not expecting a single definitive answer; I'm just interested in hearing people's experiences so I can get a broader perspective.

And thank you for your reply. I found it very clear and genuinely helpful.

No worries, I know a lot of this is hard to put into words because it's based on gnosis , but I am trying.
And we are all the same human biological energetic being, so we all have capabilities to be so much more than we are taught as children.
I am just happily surprised how I have been blessed to evolve the last few years, through hard Work.
I think AC put together a very disciplined system.