Ahh...semantics is a lovely thing..is it not?
I guess one can call anything anything they want, as long as they provide their definition for it. Perhaps we need Chomsky to sort out who is and isn't a real satanist..LOL...

I'm not talking about purely arbitrary definitions of the words, "Satanist," "Satanism," and "Satanic." I'm talking about standard, accepted definitions, of which there are indeed a variety. Check (1) the Oxford English Dictionary and (2) the definitions used by most people who call themselves Satanists.

Crowley was clearly fond of Satanic imagery. For example:
[list=1][*]He called himself "The Beast 666" and his girlfriends/priestesses "The Scarlet Woman." The fact that these terms may also have older, pre-Christian meanings does not negate their Christian-era Satanic meanings or Crowley's enjoyment thereof.[*]The combination of "Thelema" and "Do what thou wilt" derives ultimately from Rabelais's Gargantua and Pantagruel and was subsequently used by Sir Francis Dashwood (the historical figure of that name, not our late unlamented troll) and his "Hell Fire Club," notorious for its practice of an elaborate goofing-around form of Satanism. Surely Crowley was aware of this.[*]Some of Crowley's rituals, such as the Gnostic Mass, clearly draw some (though by no means all or even most) of their inspiration from the classic "Black Mass." The idea of a ritual called a "mass" with a nude woman on the altar comes from no other source, as far as I can tell, although other aspects of the ritual are derived from all manner of other sources.[/list=a]

BTW, none of these observations are intended as a putdown of Crowley. To my way of thinking, there is nothing inherently wrong with being influenced by 19th-century Satanism.


[This message has been edited by Kate Long (edited April 21, 2001).]

My dear Kate, all definitions are somewhat 'arbitrary', that's the point of semantics to a large degree.
I do understand your point though and mine was that Crowley was not a 'satanist' by any definition other than those of Christians/Fundamentalists who see everything as satanism.
While Crowley certainly may have teased people with his imagery just to upset them he was firmly rooted in the western hermetic traditon wedded to eastern tantric yoga.

[This message has been edited by dr wu (edited April 21, 2001).]

Originally posted by dr wu:
Actually, Crowley's use of Satanic imagery is the logical Western equivalent of one aspect of Tantra: The use, by some Tantrik sects, of initiation rituals which deliberately break some orthodox Hindu taboos.

I can see the analogy but I doubt if that was what Crowley had in mind but since he;s dead...we'll never know.

Hail Ra that goeth in thy bark into the caverns of the dark!

Abrahadabra!

East of the altar see me stand with light and musick in my hand!

Abrahadabra!

So much for the Mass of the Phoenix! Very bad poetry! For more corny poetry, see the Gnostic Mass!

Fortunately he wrote the odd bit of good poetry.

His last words were, "I am perplexed" which hardly rate as the dying words of a great sage or prophet.

Crucifying a toad to celebrate union with God (the grade of Ipsissimus) seems a bit tacky...claiming the grade in the first place is bloody tacky.

Read "The Vision and the Voice" where he ascends to the very heights of spiritual experience by travelling to or invoking the alleged aethyrs. Lots of cute imagery such as an angel with caterpillar legs....but where're the revelations? Where're the philosophical points worth contemplating and understanding? It's just a hash and mishmash of Greek, Egyptian, Judaeo/Christian/Kabbalistic mythology and imagery.

East of the altar see me stand with light and music in my hand Abrahadabra????

Baah!

May an Egyptian dung beetle lay eggs in your ear while you sleep during the waning moon for doubting 'The Great Beast'.

If she can manage to clean out the wax first, then more power to her.

I've gotta say though, for handy hints on techniques for "getting out of yourself" in a ritual and for many other reasons, Magick in Theory and Practice" is an absolutely indispensible book.

The problem is Liber Legis and the Thelemic groups/orders most of whom will as readily chant Zeig Heil as Ils ol vinu a Gohed ge oln.

[This message has been edited by Waning Moon Conrad (edited April 29, 2001).]

No doubt they lack a sense of spiritual humor.......

Old Aleister . . .

Crowley was your run-of-the-mill fundy. He just replaced his parents' "Plymouth Brethren" Biblical Inerrancy with his own "Book of the Law" inerrancy. His mother and family screwed him up really bad, judging by the things he said about them in his autobiography. This affected everything he did in one way or another.

Not everything he wrote was worthless and deluded, though. Some of the passages in the "Holy Books" move me to tears. His Eight Lectures on Yoga is by far the best thing I ever read about the subject. I was knee-deep in Dhyana in no time.

I once had a dream in which Crowley and Ludwig Wittgenstein appeared. Crowley was speaking Enochian chants: "Ol sonof . . ." Then he stopped speaking, morphed into Ludwig Wittgenstein, and said: "I used to play word games. Then I woke up."

Then I woke up.

Ps418

PS - Does anyone else in here know what Crowley meant by God-eating?