Crowley Thelema Satanisim, Doe's Crowley Use Satan to moc Christiananity or was he a true Sat Options

93

I found this in a google search... still not sure which side is write ... the Regardie argument or the Satanic side... either way my opinion of Crowley remains the same ...He was a Great mind and a Great man who was misunderstood by most people.

What is your opinion? Crowley a Satanist or not.


93 93/93

------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEISTER CROWLEY : SATANIST
by 'Thelemite'

--------------------------- HYMN TO LUCIFER --------------------------

Ware, nor of good nor ill, what aim hath act?
Without its climax, death, what saviour hath
Life? an impeccable machine, exact
He paces an inane and pointless path
To glut brute appetites, his sole content
How tedious were he fit to comprehend
Himself! More, this our noble element
Of fire in nature, love in spirit, unkenned
Life hath no spring, no axle, and no end.

His body a blood-ruby radiant
With noble passion, sun-souled Lucifer
Swept through the dawn colossal, swift aslant
On Eden's imbecile perimeter.
He blessed nonentity with every curse
And spiced with sorrow the dull soul of sense,
Breathed life into the sterile universe,
With Love and Knowledge drove out innocence
The Key of Joy is disobedience.


According to Israel Regardie,

"anyone who says Crowley was a Satanist and a
devil-worshipper should have his head examined."

Crowley's own references to Satan are stated by Regardie as
being due to his desire to shock, be defiant, sarcastic or witty.
(Regardie, The Eye in the Triangle).

Let us therefore consider the writings of Crowley himself to see
whether the 'Satanism' of this remarkable personality can be so readily
dismissed.

Crowley's literary executor and biographer, John Symonds, writes:

"Crowley's philosophy takes a bit from here and a bit
from there... but... he was more a Satanist than
anything else. 'I serve my great Master Satan', he
wrote in one of his franker confessions, 'and that
august Council composed of Beelzebub, Lucifuge,
Asmodeus, Belphegor, Baal, Adrammelech, Lilith and
Nahema.'"
(John Symonds, The Great Beast).


RESTORING DEVIL WORSHIP
In his major work Magick in Theory & Practice, Crowley describes
the manner in which Satan fits into his intricate cosmology: the Aeon
of Horus, which he believed he was destined and chosen to proclaim to
mankind, includes the formula FIAOF of which the 'O' component is

"The exalted 'Devil' (also the other secret Eye {phallic
worship}) by the formula of the initiates of Horus...
This 'Devil' is called Satan or Shaitan, and regarded
with horror by people who are ignorant of his formula...

"... We have therefore no scruple in restoring the
'devil worship' of such ideas...

"Thus the 'Devil' is Capricornus, the Goat who leaps upon
the loftiest mountains, the Godhead which, became manifest
in man, makes him Aegipan, the All."


DEFINING THE DEVIL
Crowley's conception of the 'Devil' is not too far removed from
that of contemporary Satanists. Crowley states that "The Devil does not
exist", but then goes on to explain that "The 'Devil' is, historically,
the God of any people that one personally dislikes. This has led to so
much confusion of though that the Beast 666 [Crowley] has preferred to
let names stand as they are, and to proclaim simply that Aiwaz -
solar-phallic-hermetic - 'Lucifer' - is his own Holy Guardian Angel
{Higher Self} and 'the Devil' Satan or Hadit of our particular unit of
the Starry Universe. This Serpent, Satan is not the enemy of man, but
he who made gods of our race, knowing Good and Evil..."

In his ritual for the Attainment of Knowledge and Conversation
of his Holy Guardian Angel, Crowley identifies himself as the servant of
Satan, "the Devil, out Lord..." ... "whose number of magick is 666, the
seal of his servant the Beast"
(Crowley).

The occult author Kenneth Grant, a former student of Crowley's
and head of an English OTO lodge, comments that "this whole ritual is
an invocation of Shaitan (Satan) or Set", Crowley's aim being union
"with his Angel, Shaitan-Aiwaz."

Satan is, in Crowley's cosmology, "the Sun-Father, the vibration
of Life that Flames with this cosmic Energy", the solar-Phallic Current.

In a ritual "to invoke the Energies of the Aeon of Horus, the
ritual of the Mark of the Beast", the powers of ShT are called forth,
ShT being Set/Satan/Shaitan, on which, writes Grant, "are concentrated
the magical energies of the New Aeon."


CULT OF SHAITAN
Grant, in contradiction to Regardie, writes that Crowley's
Thelemic philosophy (a synthesis of Nietzscheanism, Eastern and Western
mysticism, gnosticism and mythology expressed in his own powerful
poetical style) is Satanic or Shaitanic.

Grant writes that Shaitan was the Chaldean form of the Egyptian Set.

"The cult of Shaitan was established in Sumer by the prophet
Yezid... Crowley... revived the cult of Shaitan or Set."
(Grant, Outside The Circles of Time).

It was Shaitan whom Crowley equated with Aiwaz, his own
unconscious (Holy Guardian Angel); it was Baphomet, the idol of the
Templars which Crowley adopted as one of his titles, which he equates
with the 'Devil' (Crowley, 777 & Other Qabalistic Writings) and who
but an inspired Satanist could write these powerful lines (?):

"With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he
hangs upon the cross.

"I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed and blind him.

"With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and
the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.

"Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.

"Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake
let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!"

(Liber AL).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

excerpted from "The Watcher", Jan/Feb/Mar 1990 e.v., Issue No. 1.
originally edited by:
Graeme Wilson
129 Scott Street
Waverley
Dunedin
South Island
New Zealand

I think it is a dramatic mistake to describe Crowley as a Satanist. The word was already in use by magickal practitioners of the time so I think if he identified with it he probably would have said "I am a Satanist" which as far as I know he never did.

He does refer to himself many times as a Thelemite.
Note: AL I:40 "Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong, if he look but close into the word."

I don't think that it can be put more simply than that and in his own writings. (Or received writings)

I would argue that modern Satanists make every attempt possible to rewrite history and place Crowley as a "Satanist" in order to polish their lineage.

I won't dispute that Satanists and Crowley have a number of ideas in common. Crowley and later self-identified Satanists both enjoyed the use of Satan and the "Devil" for it's shock value.

It is in their self-identification that Crowley's brilliance really shines. With the use of the term Satanist one hits a wall with outsiders due to the shock value. Immediately the question arises.. "You worship Satan?" "You eat babies?" and other varieties of nonsense. By the time these topics are taken care of any other discussion is lost in the mix and some Satanists have yet to figure out what it means among themselves. You now have the ideas of Theistic Satanism, LaVey Satanists, etc. More and more confusion.

It breaks down with ideas that Satan is the "Fifth Element", or he is the "HIgher Self" or various others.

The above quote from The Book of the Law shows why Thelemite is such a brilliant title. It removes the ability to link a groups idea to a specific known Deity and all the Spiritual and Social baggage that Deity carries with it. He places the focus on the WILL.

He does refer to himself many times as a Thelemite.
Note: AL I:40 "Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong, if he look but close into the word."

I can't recall any off-hand instances where he actually does that (I am sure they must exist though)...although certainly I can think of instances when he refers to those that follow Liber AL as Thelemites. However, as a point of note, there is the notion in some Thelemic circles that the quote above is supposed to represent a means for other people to identify us, rather than a self-referential term. The argument goes something along the lines that otherwise those involved in the current spend too much time trying to fulfil some archetypal ideal of being a "real" Thelemite, rather than actually just getting on with doing their Will. This, of course, would actually be antithetical to the point. Personally I can't help but feel that it is splitting hairs, but I raise it as a point of interest.