Jan 12, 1999 12:57 PM
by Richard Taylor
In a message dated 1/10/99 7:19:20 PM, Alan wrote:
<<I don't know whether Crowley was or was not a Nazi sympathizer or what not.
Neither do I care.
If by an outright rejection of Crowley's teachings and methods then aren't
we avoiding the merging of the opposities? >>
Why do we think "merging of opposites" is a good thing?
I understand the need to move above and beyond opposites, but I don't think
that always means "merging" them. As for respecting and using Crowley, even
though he's at odds with HPB -- that depends on what you really think of him.
Myself, finding no value in his work whatsoever, I think of it this way.
Studying Blavatsky is like eating good food. Studying Crowley is like eating
yucky food. Yes, I agree it would be good to move above and beyond the need
for material food altogether -- but seeing as how I want to sustain my body, I
chose to eat good food. Mixing healthy and putrid food does not move me any
closer to transcending the pairs of opposites. It just makes you sick.
For those who respect Crowley, forgive me for my opinions. But I find him to
be an egomaniac and a real distraction from the "still, small path." Talented
he may have been, accomplished and learned as well. But wise? An altruistic
guide for humanity? One who devoted his life to the uplift of the masses?
Hardly. He is merely a distraction from the teachings of Theosophy, as so
many things are today.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application