Help me with understanding Crowley

[Lucien6493]

Solid response, and much nicer and more eloquent than I am. Great points you brought up, honestly. I normally look at the fruits of a practitioner rather than the person, but Crowley was so loud of a man it is really hard to see past his own bullshit.

His Abyss crossing, I question it. The HGA concept, and his experience with it left me scratching my head, doesn't hold much water. And if that is an example of his path, then I'm out. Too Abrahamic for my taste. Dying alone (or mostly alone) penniless, addicted, full of ego, I dont need magick for any of that. (Yep, I'm a bit jaded, but I will leave room for a bad interpretation on my part. Maybe some day I will circle back to some of his stuff, maybe I will grow into it in a new way, never know.)

Even despite the million holes in all his stuff, he was brilliant, rebellious and irreverent, and I love that. He had some great insights, even if they weren't all his. His whole life didn't suck, its just easy to only see those parts. Trying to be objective here.

That said, there are tons of folks who find themselves following his words and system. I personally follow no system. I tried Thelema for about a year, fuck man, I just struggled with the word mazes and barbs. Truth doesn't require any of that, ego often does. To me there are big things that Thelema doesn't resolve about itself, so I parted ways with it entirely. Again, others find themselves in it and that's amazing. Zero judgement. If it resonates, it resonates. To me, it didn't, it just took me a year to decide.

Love is the law, love under Will is pretty badass though.

**Last thought, Crowley, also Parsons were both great examples of practitioners with all fire and zero grounding. I resonate with that aspect so much. I had to learn how to be grounded so I didn't burn up and flame out like Parsons, or burn so hot that ego takes over like Crowley.

Towards the end of his life Crowley wrote:

"love may best be defined as the passion of hatred inflamed to the point of madness, when it takes refuge in self-destruction".
(Little Essays Towards Truth, 1938).

You can take that in one of two ways, but really, with an attitude like that....well, what can I say? All fire and no grounding. No shit. That pretty much covers it. Puts him in a whole new light though.

 

[Firetree]

Maybe he read Bierce's 'Devil's Dictionary' :

'' Love ; A temporary insanity curable by marriage, or by the removal of the patient from the influences under which he incurred the disorder .''




or maybe the definition you chose has a deeper meaning when examined in light of his other writings about love ?

Apparently, as I am told by some others , the more passionate one is the closer intense love and hate are . I dont get that myself , but then again , I have also been told I 'lack passion ' ( by a Latino gf that is ! )

 

[deci belle]

Howling zennists are appropriate to the time and situation~ if such is one's style, of course… so be it.

I'm most impressed with Crowleys' brief affair with alpinism, myself.

Hemingway once said something to the effect that "we're all broken, that's how the light gets in."

The many comments pointing to his myriad accomplishments and quirks are very much appreciated, since I know so little about the man.

As for "samadhi being very easy" …how easy is it for you? I tell you, it comes and goes with the time. One doesn't do samadhi. It is independent of the person. That's what makes it samadhi.

 

[Firetree]

^ Now there is a blast from the past !

Hi deci !

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[frater_pan]

As for "samadhi being very easy" …how easy is it for you? I tell you, it comes and goes with the time. One doesn't do samadhi. It is independent of the person. That's what makes it samadhi.

The basic definition of samadhi is the unwavering focus on an object of the mind, whether that object is some externally focused object or an actual internal object of the mind.

I personally find samadhi to be relatively easy most of the time. It is very much something that one does with the mind; it is not independant of the person. The reason you said that (I suppose) is that samadhi is dependent on the current state of mind and emotion and physical state and that the focus of mind can waver and because it is dependent on one's internal energy. Nonetheless, combining Zen training through many sesshin (Zen retreats) + Taoist training with the Microcosmic Orbit as well as qigong helps to quickly focus the mind for what many people would view as extended periods of time. Crowley was close to that with basic meditation and the Middle Pillar (although disappointingly he doesn't go into deep detail on his meditative training). In Crowley's case he acknowledges from the outset that there are different levels of samadhi. However I was surprised (and disappointed) to find out in "John St. John" that he viewed samadhi as effectively identical with "Union with G-D", and possibly as Union with the HGA. Now he does not expound on the depth of samadhi that he thought was identical with this union and I acknowledge that he said different things at different times and that his view was progressive, but significantly he seems to have not expounded on this toward the end of his life (noted by Colin Wilson in fact, Crowley toward the end of his life was not apparently making use of the minimal mind training that characterized parts of his teaching at Cefalu).

Post automatically merged: Today at 11:54 AM

The basic definition of samadhi is the unwavering focus on an object of the mind, whether that object is some externally focused object or an actual internal object of the mind.

I personally find samadhi to be relatively easy most of the time. It is very much something that one does with the mind; it is not independant of the person. The reason you said that (I suppose) is that samadhi is dependent on the current state of mind and emotion and physical state and that the focus of mind can waver and because it is dependent on one's internal energy. Nonetheless, combining Zen training through many sesshin (Zen retreats) + Taoist training with the Microcosmic Orbit as well as qigong helps to quickly focus the mind for what many people would view as extended periods of time. Crowley was close to that with basic meditation and the Middle Pillar (although disappointingly he doesn't go into deep detail on his meditative training). In Crowley's case he acknowledges from the outset that there are different levels of samadhi. However I was surprised (and disappointed) to find out in "John St. John" that he viewed samadhi as effectively identical with "Union with G-D", and possibly as Union with the HGA. Now he does not expound on the depth of samadhi that he thought was identical with this union and I acknowledge that he said different things at different times and that his view was progressive, but significantly he seems to have not expounded on this toward the end of his life (noted by Colin Wilson in fact, Crowley toward the end of his life was not apparently making use of the minimal mind training that characterized parts of his teaching at Cefalu).

A note: Crowley may not have had an internal energy meditation like the Middle Pillar in his arsenal. In GD derived groups, it appears that the Middle Pillar originates from Felkin and the Stella Matutina.