Re: AC & HPB
Jan 10, 1999 09:49 AM
by Jerry Schueler
>How does that whitewash Crowley as a "good guy"? Did HPB ever say that
>or black magicians didn't use and know the same universal laws and
>principles"? Differences between AC and HPB are solely based on motive,
>on such superficial things as "style" and "practical approach'. Let's call
>spade a spade. Crowley was not only a racist and an anti-Semite, he was
>a "Dugpa" (black magician). And his "Do as thou Wilt" was also the motto
>the Nazi occultists, justifying their ritual murders. It's obvious that
>Crowley's theories are the exact opposite of HPB's.
Why must I always be the one to defend Crowley? There is a lot about
him that I can't defend. Some would probably say the same about HPB
(especially the Jesuits, whom she lombasted). As to motive, Crowley's
motive was to do the Great Work, and only that. If you are going to
sound like someone who likes to attack Uncle Al without ever reading
him, then fine, because that is what your last statement implies to me,
and I have spend many years studying and comparing both. I would,
however, challenge you to find "theories" of the two that are "exact
opposites." You won't be able to do it unless you take both out of
>Is that so? How could Crowley accept those other "yanas" when they were so
>opposed to his own separatists and selfish views?
Actually, they weren't. The Vajrayana dovetails with his teachings nicely
except for emphasis. But neither Mahayana nor Vajrayana were known
to Crowley that I can tell from his writings. His very best friend, George
Cecil Jones, if I recall rightly, became a Hinayana Buddhist and he taught
this to Crowley as "Buddhism."
> I thought he disagreed with
>HPB because he was, by his own choice, the direct opposite of a
>Bodhisattva--as only a Dugpa black magician, or a selfish Hinayana
>Buddha" could be.
I am not aware that Crowley even knew what a Bodhisattva was. And
pray tell where do think he "disagreed with HPB????" I have read
almost all of both, and have found no such disagreement.
>One, believing in total altruism and selflessness at risk
>of one's own life, and the other, believing in complete selfishness at risk
What one or the other "believed" is a mute point. Crowley taught
that every man and women is a star, an exact equivalent to HPB's
idea that we all have an inner spark of divinity. They differed strongly
in practical application and in emphasis, but their basic teachings
are the same (Crowley even claimed to have been sent from the
same Great White Brotherhood or Lodge). They were both Teachers
but they taught very different types of students (HPB was appealing
to the general masses, while Crowley only to a select few). When
ever you or anyone else labels another person as a Black Magican,
this is almost always a psychic projection from your own Shadow.
>... Or, prove that Crowley and his teachers
>were wiser than HPB and her teachers-
This kind of childish stuff is not worth discussing.
There is NO proof of anything at all. All of life,
and certainly all of any worldview or belief system
is taken on faith or direct experience, but can never
ever be proved to anyone else. This is an occult
law that I got from reading HPB.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application