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

Not a satanist, a magician.

Crowley was far from a satanist. But even if he was, would it matter?

Crowley was far from a satanist. But even if he was, would it matter?

not to me: )

The Christian religion was forced on him as a child and it pissed him off. I can relate to that. He liked to try and be outrageous to scare Christians I think. Was he a Satanist? If he was I am sure he would have said so. He certainly had no problems opening his mouth.

Peace

He was Satanist, but only in the exalted highest Niezchte (sp) sense.
Contrast this to the lower Devil-worship sense and you get a dichotomy of Heads or Tails---
which end of Lucifer do you prefer ?

He viewed Satan mostly as a form of libertarian rebellious spirit (check his Hymn To Lucifer).He also considered that Satan/Shaitan holds secrets of sexual magic for those who can understand it.Taking into consideration Crowleys thelemic philosophy,you cant say he was a satanist in the strict sense of the word but Luciferian in some elements certainly yes.Since Thelema has some ideas similar to Luciferianism.But for people belonging to mainstream religions he was and still is a satanist.Thelema brings down old Aeon religions and it is no wonder that the adherents of those religions consider it satanic.Even some of traditional hermetists consider Crowley to be left hand path.

Even some of traditional hermetists consider Crowley to be left hand path.

Oh man, that's 'nother whole can o'worms.
Whether Crowley=LHP still got me all twisted up like a pretzel !

Ad hoc, LHP has nothing to do with worshipping the friken devil.
Infact the very word "worship" connotates RHP !

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.

It's clear that Anton LaVey took some inspiration from Crowley here and there. The ritual format, the use of Enochian, the off-hand reference to Crowley as a "great master" and the general self-exalting philosophy of Satanism has Crowley written all over it. Though they be loathe to make a public spectacle of the matter, and deny that they are essentially a renegade Thelemite sect, the IV degree Church of Satan representatives do acknowledge the many parallels between Satanism and Thelema.

Before LaVey, the whole concept of Satanism is relatively obscure. Things described as "Satanic" range from Lutheranism to cannibalistic pedophilia. It is clear that Crowley was more interested in drawing from classical sources than from the Malleus Maleficarum or Compendium Maleficarum. Certainly he used the Great Beast thing to some extent, but it more often comes across as liberal humanism than as an attempt to glorify the Devil directly.

All the same, there is hardly a mainstream Christian sect in the world that would accept him as a holy teacher when given the full bulk of his work. More likely they would consider him a servant of the Devil, willing or no. I suppose they have a right to declare who is or is not holy in the eyes of their sect. I would also wager that most Christians of any sect are highly wary of all things occult, even occultism where names of God or prayers are used, and there's no way around that. There's also no real reason to try and appease them.. personally I believe magicians would do better to show that magic is real than to beg for people to undertand that it is good.

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.

I agree with the point about not worrying about the idea of a "real Thelemite"

I guess one thing that can put it in perspective is if we say "Crowley was a Satanist" and it does no harm to call him a Thlelemite why do we rarely see the reverse.

I may be wrong but I have rarely seen in bios. or articles something along the lines of "Anton LeVey was a Thelemite who founded the Church of Satan" and I have rarely seen Satanists call each other Thelemites.

I see it more as
Aleister Crowley was a man with some leanings and practices that could be termed "Satanic"..
and
Some Satanists may hold Thelemic leanings.

I guess it is a backlash against the mass-media representations of Crowley, most of which are abhorrent in their in their claims to being actual journalism. In most cases it is clear that the writers have never actually read any of Crowley's work. Even wikipedia is better informed! It is the most commonly cited error (i.e. he was a Satanist) so it is the one people always leap first to correct.

I guess the argument is: Crowley evoked demons, therefore Crowley=Satanist. Anyone who has studied the arts knows what utter bollocks this is, but why let facts get in the way of some juicy sensationalism?

It all comes down to whom are you asking.Different philosophies,religions or systems of magic will say different things about Crowley.One mans god is another mans devil as they say.

Ave

He is what you think he is.

"What the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves" -Robert Anton Wilson

Light In Extension

That a deity or concept appears in a Religion or Philosophy does not mean it it is emphazised or central to the same.
Thelemic ontology does not stress Satan, Set or Lucifer at all. They rather take a place with any other Deity thrown in there.

When it comes to Kenneth Grant i am not surprised he makes connections to Satan since he also Connects Hadith= Aiwaz= Satan by some very far fetched gematria. Perhaps he should stick to his little green men (the "trans plutonic" yada yada).

Satanism was not an ephitet anyone used about him or herself until La Vey, and as stated La Veyan Satanism is heavely influenced by Thelemic thought (not surprising to a Thelemite considering what Aeon we are in).

I would say there is only one way to fully describe what Crowley was when it came down to Philosophy...a Thelemite.

I agree... Crowley did not assign Satan any more special a position than any other deity he dealt with symbolically. He's obviously not a Satanist any more than a Zeusist or a Piscean fish worshipper...!
Obviously the whole confusion of this invented Satan character has rubbed off on Crowley and we couldn't really expect it not to. But the picture of Satan as invented as a folk tale to scare little children into morality is a strange conglomerate of Pan, Lucifer, Baphomet, Shaitan, Saturn, Set, Leviathan, the Beast of Revelation, the serpent in the Garden of Eden and whatever else you want to throw in there depending on your religious predilections of the time. Personally I find Snufalufagus a far more convincing fictitious character and to be honest more amusing too. Well, I may as well say now... I AM A SNUFALUFAGUSIST!!! (Gosh I really hope I am not shocking people and starting a new cult.)

In any case if we take the position that anything which isn't wearing bright white angelic clothing and claiming to be the word of the Most High God is evil and therefore Satan, we would be sorely mistaken because then Lucifer would easily deceive us for example, Son of the Morning Star that he is. Seriously, the idea that Crowley is a Satanist is probably an insult to his intelligence. One needs merely the most cursory of reads of his philosophy as it is espoused on Love, Life, Light, and Liberty to know that it is at the very least well-intentioned. Any claim to the contrary is taking his writings way out of context in a way despairingly similar to the most horrendous of biblical quote misinterpretations. To be fair he was an arrogant git, but certainly no Satanist. Nuf sed.

He always called himself the "Beast 666".
His mother, fanatical in christian belief, named his son this way, when he did something bad. But he enjoyed it and so he found in it his new name. But by being engaged in those magic topics he discovered, that 666 means sunlight.
In his entire testimony he said, that one can call him also "Little Sunshine".
He do not have such a big christian connection with this term.