|
Post by billmcelligott on Apr 8, 2010 13:52:14 GMT
a precise' of John Yarker is included in BC&Y web page on Crowley freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/AleisterCrowley.htmlAleister Crowley, a brilliant student of symbolism and ritual, had at least four major contacts with Freemasonry as a complete body. In 1900, while in Mexico, Crowley became involved with a Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted (Scottish) Rite. This period of Central American Craft Freemasonry has been described as a chaotic mess; masonic bodies springing up and dissolving within a matter of days. Crowley was supposedly initiated into the 33° of the Ancient and Accepted Rite, thus obtaining the title of Grand Inspector General. This title is actually one of administrative rank, and not of ritual degree. The 33° is styled Sovereign Grand Inspector-General and is sparingly conferred by the Supreme Councils of the recognised jurisdictions. There does not appear to be any record of this conferment other than his claim made in The Confessions of Aleister Crowley. In about 1904 Crowley was initiated into Craft Freemasonry in Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343, recognized, as of 1964, under the jurisdiction of the Grande Loge Nationale Française in Paris as No. 103. At the time it was under the jurisdiction of the Grande Loge de France, and so was not recognised by the United Grand Lodge of England as a regular masonic body. He was initiated, passed and raised over a period of several months in 1904. It is suggested but unconfirmed that he was proposed by a country parson from Oxfordshire. Finally, at around the 1910 period, came Crowley’s episode with John Yarker. Yarker was initiated on October 25, 1854 in Liberty Lodge No. 189, was a frequent writer on masonic matters, was a member of Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076 (the premier lodge of masonic research), and had been involved, in 1871, with the setting up of a Grand Council in Manchester of the Ancient and Primitive Rite, a concatenation of the Ancient and Accepted, and the Rites of Memphis and Mizraim, chartered from the United States of America by Harry J. Seymour (these Egyptian rites were considered irregular by the Grand Orient of France, the first being labeled "dead" by Thevenot, the Grand Secretary of the Grand Orient of France, in a letter to the United Grand Lodge of England in 1872 and the latter being dissolved in 1817). This Grand Council was not recognised by the Supreme Council in Duke Street. St. James, who had expelled Yarker, established the Antient and Primitive Rite in Great Britain. Towards the end of his life, Yarker was looking for someone to carry on the work of the A&P Rite in England, and decided on that person being Crowley. To this effect, he bestowed on Crowley, by post, the degrees of 33°, 90° and 95°; respectively, the Ancient and Accepted, Memphis and Mizraim. No evidence is available that the two ever met. After Yarker’s death (which is reported in the Oriflamme, the then Ordo Templi Orientis newsletter, for 1913; and also marked by an obituary in Crowley’s publication, The Equinox), there was a meeting at Crowley’s apartment on the Fulham Road. H. Meyer was elected the new Grand Master General, and Crowley the Grand Administrator General, and also a Patriarch Grand Conservator, his status being elevated to 33°, 90° and 96°. Following this, Crowley did very little, if anything in relation to the Ancient and Primitive Rite, concentrating his "masonic" tendencies in the body of the Ordo Templi Orientis In 1913, Crowley apparently wrote to the United Grand Lodge of England claiming his right to attend lodge meetings, and affiliate as a joining member. If any, the response would have been a rebuttal, due to the irregularity of his mother lodge. This correspondence is not extant; all that survives is Crowley’s draft, transcribed from shorthand and dated 1913. The United Grand Lodge of England does not recognize Crowley as a member of the Craft. All his affiliations were with irregular bodies, and so they deny him recognition. Feel free to add more information
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Apr 8, 2010 14:02:40 GMT
John Yarker by BC&Y
April 17, 1833 - March 20, 1913 Yarker was neither a degree-monger, nor a charlatan, for he believed what he wrote, that the many degrees he had discovered all predated regular Freemasonry. He never invented evidence but accepted, uncritically, the invented evidence of others. His desperate attempt to ensure the continuance of the Ancient and Primitive Rite led him into the company of the fraud, Theodore Reuss, and Aleister Crowley.
Expelled from the Ancient and Accepted Rite, he severed all connection with regular Freemasonry. He published The Arcane Schools: a review of their origin and antiquity; with a general history of Freemasonry, and its relation to the theosophic, scientific and philosophic mysteries, (Belfast: 1909); and was publisher of The Kneph, the official journal of the Antient and Primitive Rite, from 1881 to 1900.
Author of 26 short papers in the Transactions of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076, he was an active promoter of the Royal Arch, Ancient and Primitive Rite, Knights Templar, and the old York degrees of Heredom-Kadosh.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Apr 8, 2010 15:46:22 GMT
Love him or hate him there is no doubt that Crowley was a deeply influential adept. A man of remarkable talent.
In love and light,
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Apr 8, 2010 16:02:38 GMT
Yarker was a brilliant man. Even the wise can sometimes be fooled by the unscrupulous. John Yarker by BC&Y April 17, 1833 - March 20, 1913 Yarker was neither a degree-monger, nor a charlatan, for he believed what he wrote, that the many degrees he had discovered all predated regular Freemasonry. He never invented evidence but accepted, uncritically, the invented evidence of others. His desperate attempt to ensure the continuance of the Ancient and Primitive Rite led him into the company of the fraud, Theodore Reuss, and Aleister Crowley. Expelled from the Ancient and Accepted Rite, he severed all connection with regular Freemasonry. He published The Arcane Schools: a review of their origin and antiquity; with a general history of Freemasonry, and its relation to the theosophic, scientific and philosophic mysteries, (Belfast: 1909); and was publisher of The Kneph, the official journal of the Antient and Primitive Rite, from 1881 to 1900. Author of 26 short papers in the Transactions of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076, he was an active promoter of the Royal Arch, Ancient and Primitive Rite, Knights Templar, and the old York degrees of Heredom-Kadosh.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Apr 8, 2010 16:06:12 GMT
Yes, I agree.
Whilst I have a lot of time and respect for Yarker, apart from his very early work I have no time for Crowley at all.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Apr 8, 2010 16:26:07 GMT
Yes, I agree. Whilst I have a lot of time and respect for Yarker, apart from his very early work I have no time for Crowley at all. Crowley's own claims in his own words often seem questionable from a rational examination. If he believed them he would still need to offer evidence to convince the skeptical examiner.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Apr 8, 2010 17:18:49 GMT
It really cannot be disputed that Crowley had an influence on every single occult system and methodology of the 20th century. While I am not a big fan of Crowley himself I do value his many contributions.
In Love and Light,
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Apr 8, 2010 18:06:46 GMT
That's why I prefer pre-20th century occult material. His influence is not always necessarily a positive. ;D Like ANY other author, I prefer to agree and disagree as I see find fit through rational examination. I agree with Crowley in many things, yet not all things. If people find value in Crowley, they are free to do so.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Apr 8, 2010 18:32:29 GMT
It really cannot be disputed that Crowley had an influence on every single occult system and methodology of the 20th century. While I am not a big fan of Crowley himself I do value his many contributions. In Love and Light, Is that systems that were started in the 20th Century or systems that ran through it? He had no influence on UGLE Freemasonry, he had no influence on The SRIA nor The August order of Light (AOL definately 20th century) Nor did he have any influence on Martinism, all of these fit your criteria except if you are only talking since the 20th Century except AOL which is 20th century as I have already said. I also do not believe he had influence over Dion Fortune (But am happy to be proved wrong) who was also a prolific writer and philosopher with an Occult system (The Inner order of Light) I have to say in my opinion that most of the influence he did have was seriously flawed by his own personal issues in controlling his ego, something he never did master. He was dangerous, corrupt, seriously into drug and seg orgies and I am shocked that any serious masonic scholar or Esoteric scholar would give him the time of day. Yarker on the other hand had genuine self belief in that he was doing things for the right reason (even if sometimes they wre not) I would say his biggest mistake waas to trust Crowley with his Rite!
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Apr 8, 2010 18:42:56 GMT
It really cannot be disputed that Crowley had an influence on every single occult system and methodology of the 20th century. While I am not a big fan of Crowley himself I do value his many contributions. In Love and Light, Is that systems that were started in the 20th Century or systems that ran through it? He had no influence on UGLE Freemasonry, he had no influence on The SRIA nor The August order of Light (AOL definately 20th century) Nor did he have any influence on Martinism, all of these fit your criteria except if you are only talking since the 20th Century except AOL which is 20th century as I have already said. I also do not believe he had influence over Dion Fortune (But am happy to be proved wrong) who was also a prolific writer and philosopher with an Occult system (The Inner order of Light) I have to say in my opinion that most of the influence he did have was seriously flawed by his own personal issues in controlling his ego, something he never did master. He was dangerous, corrupt, seriously into drug and seg orgies and I am shocked that any serious masonic scholar or Esoteric scholar would give him the time of day. Yarker on the other hand had genuine self belief in that he was doing things for the right reason (even if sometimes they wre not) I would say his biggest mistake waas to trust Crowley with his Rite! Well many will argue that there is nothing occult about the UGLE period. ;D I have some MOUP degree rituals and I can see Thelemic influence all over them. I would say he probably did have some influence on Fortune as you can see his influence over the GD system. Even regardie's work has some Crowley in it. He had influence on Rosicrucian as is the case with the ORM, the Rosicrucian Order I belong too. Crowley was an extreme guy, but to brush him off as a lunatic or a drug addict is really to do a disservice to those who seek a deeper understanding. IMHO anyway. In Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Apr 8, 2010 18:59:56 GMT
Good job we don't have any problems like that these days ?
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Apr 8, 2010 19:03:42 GMT
It really cannot be disputed that Crowley had an influence on every single occult system and methodology of the 20th century. While I am not a big fan of Crowley himself I do value his many contributions. In Love and Light, Is that systems that were started in the 20th Century or systems that ran through it? He had no influence on UGLE Freemasonry, he had no influence on The SRIA nor The August order of Light (AOL definately 20th century) Nor did he have any influence on Martinism, all of these fit your criteria except if you are only talking since the 20th Century except AOL which is 20th century as I have already said. I also do not believe he had influence over Dion Fortune (But am happy to be proved wrong) who was also a prolific writer and philosopher with an Occult system (The Inner order of Light) I have to say in my opinion that most of the influence he did have was seriously flawed by his own personal issues in controlling his ego, something he never did master. He was dangerous, corrupt, seriously into drug and sex orgies and I am shocked that any serious masonic scholar or Esoteric scholar would give him the time of day. Yarker on the other hand had genuine self belief in that he was doing things for the right reason (even if sometimes they were not) I would say his biggest mistake was to trust Crowley with his Rite! I think that is a fair assessment. Those that argue that there is nothing hidden in the UGLE are those that think a secret can be written down. Oh well. You gotta laugh. ;D
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Apr 8, 2010 19:13:53 GMT
I have to say in my opinion that most of the influence he did have was seriously flawed by his own personal issues in controlling his ego, something he never did master. He was dangerous, corrupt, seriously into drug and seg orgies and I am shocked that any serious masonic scholar or Esoteric scholar would give him the time of day. He was a UK intel agent. It may not be pretty, but his influence is profound. I agree, but I do not believe it was unique to Crowley nor indispensable in many instances.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Apr 8, 2010 19:16:02 GMT
As to Crowley's drug abuse it is a well known fact he was a severe asthmatic. Heroin was prescribed for asthma in the late 1800's early 1900's. Could lead to addiction.
In Love and Light,
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Apr 8, 2010 19:39:01 GMT
Yes, Crowley's drug issue was related to his attempts to self-medicate excessively with opium, ether, cocaine, hashish, wine, heroine, and brandy &c. It's a sad state that he fell into, and could never quite manage to conquer the drugs as effectively as he told others they should. The description of Crowley as a "poser who believes in his own poses" and "a rather harmless old gentleman" seems apt. I do like the statement made of him; "I like to think he has now become filled with an inner peace he never knew in the flesh."
|
|
|
Post by letterorhalveit3 on Apr 9, 2010 0:48:52 GMT
It really cannot be disputed that Crowley had an influence on every single occult system and methodology of the 20th century. While I am not a big fan of Crowley himself I do value his many contributions. In Love and Light, Anything can be disputed as Crowley's contributions and their importance is a matter of opinion. You say he made important contributions, I say he was a degree-mongering fraud. Potato, Potahto. And since you havent authored an article or book on his influence on every single occult system of the 20th century, I hereby press the great, big red BS button. Crowley was a dabbler. When he couldnt glom degrees from various places to give himself degrees, he either moved on, or made things up. Was he, as he claimed, the most evil man that ever lived? No. But he's up there in the ranking sherely based on the destruction that he wraught and continues so to do on the lives of others. I have a distinct memory of a friend in high school, great, normal, high achieving/functioning kid being taken out of his house quite literally in a straight jacket after immersing himself in Crowley's so called works. AC was a pervert, a degenerate, a hedonistic charlatan and a con-man. Ill try not to be so vague next time.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Apr 9, 2010 2:24:33 GMT
It really cannot be disputed that Crowley had an influence on every single occult system and methodology of the 20th century. While I am not a big fan of Crowley himself I do value his many contributions. In Love and Light, Anything can be disputed as Crowley's contributions and their importance is a matter of opinion. You say he made important contributions, I say he was a degree-mongering fraud. Potato, Potahto. And since you havent authored an article or book on his influence on every single occult system of the 20th century, I hereby press the great, big red BS button. Crowley was a dabbler. When he couldnt glom degrees from various places to give himself degrees, he either moved on, or made things up. Was he, as he claimed, the most evil man that ever lived? No. But he's up there in the ranking sherely based on the destruction that he wraught and continues so to do on the lives of others. I have a distinct memory of a friend in high school, great, normal, high achieving/functioning kid being taken out of his house quite literally in a straight jacket after immersing himself in Crowley's so called works. AC was a pervert, a degenerate, a hedonistic charlatan and a con-man. Ill try not to be so vague next time. Anyone who was taken out in a straight jacket was mentally unstable to begin with. His Libri was certainly influential, to deny that is at best ignorance. In Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by letterorhalveit3 on Apr 9, 2010 2:46:01 GMT
No, Brad...to deny the importance of Crowley's influence is opinion and therefore cannot be proven wrong. My opinion based on my research of him was that he was a drug and sex addicted hedonist. THe only thing I despair about more than the fact that he is mentioned in connection with Freemasonry is that he is also sometimes mentioned in connection with Buddhism and Tibetan/Tantric ritual.
|
|
Augur
Member
Travelling salesman. Roamin' profit.
Posts: 184
|
Post by Augur on Apr 9, 2010 3:02:05 GMT
No, Brad...to deny the importance of Crowley's influence is opinion and therefore cannot be proven wrong. My opinion based on my research of him was that he was a drug and sex addicted hedonist. THe only thing I despair about more than the fact that he is mentioned in connection with Freemasonry is that he is also sometimes mentioned in connection with Buddhism and Tibetan/Tantric ritual. Most of Crowley's connection with Buddhism is quite real and somewhat substantial due to his life long friendship with Allan Bennett (Bhikkhu Ananda Metteyya), who was the one of the first Englishmen to bring Buddhism to England's shores. They did become distant later on with Bennett remarking "No Buddhist would consider it worthwhile to pass from the crystalline clearness of his own religion to this involved obscurity" about Crowley's Thelemic practices. So they did end at odds, somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Apr 9, 2010 3:04:44 GMT
No, Brad...to deny the importance of Crowley's influence is opinion and therefore cannot be proven wrong. My opinion based on my research of him was that he was a drug and sex addicted hedonist. THe only thing I despair about more than the fact that he is mentioned in connection with Freemasonry is that he is also sometimes mentioned in connection with Buddhism and Tibetan/Tantric ritual. Well goes to show you that things happen. I never thought for an example I would run into a Buddhist who was vindictive and thrived on spite and hatred. I have since been proven wrong. The way of the world. In Love and Light,
|
|