What would the major predecessors in philosophy have to say about the work of Alister Crowley?
Who were his contemporaries and what was their attitude towards him? IIRC Him and Guenon hated each other.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
that quote is moronic. divine madness has been a thing since forever
based and Bhagavad Gita pilled. legendary drunkenness
Chesterton considered Crowley one of the best poets of his day
an absolute charlatan, means nothing to me. similar to blavatsky and the whole of theosophy, really.
someone like meister eckhart is the real thing for that sort of belief system
>an absolute charlatan
Did he claim to "channel Satan" when he wrote the book of the law? or was it it a different book? I only heard this from some video and I cant find an answer via gogle search.
It seems moronic that someone who channeled Satan would somehow be close to God, especially if he never denounced that work. I heard he claimed to channel Thoth when he wrote the Book of Thoth, but he was probably still channeling a demon
better than guenon and other neo-catholic morons but still trash. As much as I love to hate on Crowley I usually refrain from it simply because I don't want to associate myself with people who try to act above Crowley yet look up to Algis Uzdavinys or Guenon
famous neo-catholic Guenon who converted to Islam and mainly writes about Hinduism
>Guenon who converted to Islam
source? I've heard guenon bros say he was a devout Christian later in life. I suppose one could hold philosophical views that tend to differ without necessarily being at odds with Christianity. So I've heard Guenon thought Hinduism/Vedantism was closer to absolute truth in terms of metaphysics, but right metaphysics are superfluous when you are missing the head corner stone.
>source?
It's the most basic fact about Guenon. source? I don't know like any biography about Guenon ever written? He died as a suffi scholar, his last word was 'Allah'. You can find better devout Christians I would say.
Ever hear of perennialism? That's a catholic thing.
>You know that idea that all religions have a common starting point, its specific to not only one religion, but one sect of that religion.
ok
Pretty much, the idea was invented in relation to Catholic prisca theologia. Look up Early Life as well.
>prisca theologia
doesnt that have more to do with hermeticism than Catholicism?
Hermeticism is also a Catholic thing: all those guys were proud Catholics.
Or to be more specific: hermeticism in its modern form is based on Catholic prisca theologia, which was the framework in which it entered European discourse. Philosophia perennis-aspect is the integration of all the ancient wisdom as really being similar at heart, in order to further Catholicism.
>source? I've heard guenon bros say he was a devout Christian later in life.
Well, there is some precedent in Sufism of them seeing themselves as also ‘the true Christians’, or working and living in a true authentic continuation of the divine revelations once revealed through Christ, besides the former israeli prophets and Muhammad, of course.
The shared core origins of them and their essential monotheism have made israeli, Christian, and Islamic mysticism and theology compatible for influencing & being influenced by each other at times (besides the interaction they’ve also all had with Greek philosophy, Platonism and Neoplatonism particularly, from at least Philo on). Some scholars plausibly find Sufic influences in figures like Dante, St. John of the Cross, and St. Francis of Assisi. The Kabbalah influenced Christian theologians and mystics of the Renaissance era, creating Christian Kabbalah. And it also goes in a reverse direction, a later religion influencing an earlier one, with claims of Sufis/Muslims of Spain and the Andalusian peninsula influencing the Kabbalists and early Hasidim, besides the influence likely being reciprocal (some Sufis also studying some manifestations of the Kabbalah and taking influence from it).
The history of major world religions (or different cultures’ philosophies that touch on spiritual matters, like much of Greek philosophy, for that matter) gives a fascinating record of syncretism, synthesis, mutual and reciprocal influences on each other, sometimes in the weirdest places you’d least expect, like Greco-Buddhism or the Gandharan Buddhas made in classic Greek sculptural style. As well as liminal cases like the Bauls of Bengal and neighboring countries, both geographically and culturally situated between a blend of Tantric Buddhism, Vaishnavism, Hindu Tantra, and Sufism.
Many religions come from earlier frameworks anyway. Zoroastrianism very likely influenced all the later major Abrahamic religions, and you also find Sumerian influences in the Old Testament (stories the same or very similar across Sumerian mythology and the Pentateuch’s). Buddhism would not be what it is without the heavy Vedic influences, albeit deconstructing then reconfiguring these influences into what it views as a truer formulation. So some just go full-bore and claim to see a core divine influence perennially upwelling as the various springs of authentic religions, with outward differing forms based on geographical origin and the specific psyche of the civilizations they are revealed to, varying in accordance with that. Your mileage may of course vary in how coherently you can make sense of this, using it as a working hypothesis, and how open others may be if you try to posit something like this.
I dont have time to read your whole post yet, but is it accurate to say Sufis subscribe to a type of monism?
?? what do you have against uzdavinys
If only I could have regular aesthetic orgies in the name of "sex magick". Based way to live. Hate is only out of jealousy.
Austin Spare. They probably fricked, made a few issues of the Equinox together, seem to have been exploring the same witchcraft connection that neither speaks about directly. Spare thought he was a tryhard clown and Alick called him a black brother when they fell out. Maybe AOS was, but he was already working far deeper into mysticism and his own philosophical system than the A.'.A.'. was at that point, because Uncle Alick never fricking finished anything he started. Overall, they remained cordial and were friendly in later life.
I have a book on the phenomenology of Spare's Book of Pleasure, the same guy also wrote one on AL vel Legis. Both are pretty bomb. Makes me need to read some Merleau-Ponty, Derrida, and Bataille to understand some of the finer points. The occult is a phenomenological affair and that's one of the weaker parts of western philosophy.
>I have a book on the phenomenology of Spare's Book of Pleasure, the same guy also wrote one on AL vel Legis. Both are pretty bomb.
name the author
Ian C. Edwards.
Being and Non Being quadrilogy is incredibly based so far. Possibly better than authors commented upon. Surprised any anons here aside me have the money and good sense to buy such rare and obscure books however...
People spend a lifetime impressing themselves with intellectualoid, and/or occultoid, drivel —everything but the pillars of life—, and then wonder why they end up looking, and/or feeling, like scaly beasts.
He accused W Somerset Maugham of plagiarism because his novel the Magician made fun of him. He wrote a tl;Dr essay about how everything Maugham wrote was plagiarized. Maugham replied with this
Most critics consider that the above works were merely sources for an original story, and that Crowley's accusation was motivated by malice. The large body of original work turned out by Maugham before and after 1908 tends to support this. In A Fragment of Autobiography Maugham writes he had not read Crowley's review, adding, "I daresay it was a pretty piece of vituperation, but probably, like his poems, intolerably verbose."[1]