KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 16, 2010 15:09:46 GMT
Thank you for that information Brother Bill. By the way, I agree with your assertion that you are the smartest person in the world. ;D One of Crowley's issues, in my opinion, was that he expected others to do for him rather than did for others, and therein missed a primary and basic lesson of Freemasonry.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 16, 2010 17:09:16 GMT
Then we should check out John Yarker www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/esoterica/yarker_j/yarker_j.htmlApril 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 and later 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 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 vajranagini on Oct 17, 2010 4:00:17 GMT
I make no case for fraud, but simply ask that this article at British Columbia and Yukon site be read. Here are a few snipps to get you interested. www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/crowley.htmlIt is hardly surprising that when the London 'adepti' began openly to turn against Mathers in early 1900, Crowley immediately pledged himself to Mathers’s defence. Mathers, setting a fine example of masonic amity, proceeded to denounce Westcott privately for having forged the alleged correspondence with the German adepts upon whose foundation the warrant for the Golden Dawn was established. Crowley was sent to London as Mathers’s envoy and the whole fabric of the Order began to unravel in the face of the accusations of fraud levelled against Westcott. As far as Crowley was concerned, the matter ended with the 'Battle of Blythe Road' in April 1900, reducing the Golden Dawn to a fight in a police court over regalia. Little did Crowley know that his part in the break-up of the Golden Dawn, and his subsequent efforts to force Westcott to 'come clean' publicly as to its origins, made certain he would be shunned by Westcott’s friends and colleagues when endeavouring to regularize his position in England as a mason. So how does any of this constitute "fraud"? There was a dispute among adepts, and Crowley chose to be loyal to his teacher. He was young (25) and idealistic; he may well have "backed the wrong horse", but he was at least determined to "live up to a standard" It may well be that his disillusionment with Mathers may have "poisoned" his outlook forever and made him into even MORE of a CREEP than he would have been had he had a proper example set for him!. The ELDER Mathers certainly set a HORRID EXAMPLE for a young and idealistic adept-in training!................................Don Jesus Medina, a descendant of the great duke of Armada fame, and one of the highest chiefs of Scottish Rite freemasonry. My cabbalistic knowledge being already profound by current standards, he thought me worthy of the highest initiation in his power to confer; special powers were obtained in view of my limited sojourn, and I was pushed rapidly through and admitted to the thirty-third and last degree before I left the country. (The Confessions of Aleister Crowley(1969), pp. 202-203). This was when Crowley was in Mexico, hence the allusion to "my limited sojourn". Surely some data regarding Don Jesus Medina and his qualifications ("one of the highest chiefs of Scottish Rite freemasonry") must be extant!..................................Crowley comments on the conferral of the 33° that 'it did not add much of importance to my knowledge of the mysteries; but I had heard that freemasonry was a universal brotherhood and expected to be welcomed all over the world by brethren.' (Crowley, Confessions, p. 695) Crowley was in for his first in a series of rude shocks where masonic recognition was concerned. Yes, he did go on at some length in Chapter 72 of the Confessions about his experiences of the business of 'recognition" between Lodges. I quote: "There is no uniformity with regard to toleration. Thus, A and B sometimes recognize each other, but while A recognizes C, B does not, so that a member of B, and a member of C might find themselves meeting in a Lodge of A and thereby automatically excommunicate each other."
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 17, 2010 4:04:20 GMT
Neither Brother Bill nor I are here making a case for fraud against Crowley, and Brother Bill stated that from the outset. I have often repeated this, yet you keep pretending that someone's making such a case?
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 17, 2010 4:38:40 GMT
Frauds are often successful in fooling people. That's what makes them Frauds. A good Fraud is still a Fraud. ^^^Hate to be the one to point this out but t'was YOU who first brought up 'the word".
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 17, 2010 4:47:31 GMT
Frauds are often successful in fooling people. That's what makes them Frauds. A good Fraud is still a Fraud. ^^^Hate to be the one to point this out but t'was YOU who first brought up 'the word". I did, and I own that without a problem. I'm glad you brought it up, because it clearly proves I did not call Crowley a Fraud from the very outset, and for that I thank you. Hate to be the one to point this out but t'was YOU who first made the claim I or anyone else called Crowley a Fraud. I just want to know a reason for this incessant straw man. ;D
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 17, 2010 10:05:17 GMT
I think most who have read this thread could or would conclude that Crowley and Yarker are not unlike some we see today. Thirsty for fame and or recognition, but determined not to take part in the established forms of Freemasonry.
They wanted Freemasonry to conform to their ideology and not the other way round.
It would have been very easy for them to become part of the establishment if that is what they desired.
If that is a form of Fraud then so be it, my guess is it was more to do with ego than Fraud.
We have up to today seen many cases of 'Masonic Messiah complex', but to be a saviour there first has to be a demise of the existing from which the lay persons needs to be saved.
In other words, you push the Damsel into the water and make sure the cameras are rolling when you jump in and save her.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 17, 2010 15:15:19 GMT
Well stated.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 17, 2010 22:43:49 GMT
^^^Hate to be the one to point this out but t'was YOU who first brought up 'the word". I did, and I own that without a problem. I'm glad you brought it up, because it clearly proves I did not call Crowley a Fraud from the very outset, and for that I thank you. Hate to be the one to point this out but t'was YOU who first made the claim I or anyone else called Crowley a Fraud. I just want to know a reason for this incessant straw man. ;D Beacuse you made this statement about "frauds" in a thread about Crowley and Yarker. Thus you had to be referring to one or the other, unless you are in the habit of making idle 'non sequiturs"; I have not been around long enough to know if that's the case. You are unlikely to have been referring to Yarker, because most Freemasons I have met respect Yarker and disdain and disown Crowley. There is nothing 'straw mannish" about anything i have said here; I am perfectly "on topic". I "called you out" on your "fraud' statement by offering evidence that Crowley was NOT in fact a fraud and that his occult erudition is in fact considerable and should not be dismissed out of hand, whatever one may think about his not inconsiderable personal shortcomings. I too avoided everything Crowley like the plague for YEARS, only to find, through "inner direction", that his writings had a very great deal to offer those who are 'looking for Light". True, he followed a 'dirty Path" (as the great Ramakrishna used to call it), and the buyer had best beware of that fact, but Truth is still Truth, wherever you may find it.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 18, 2010 4:07:26 GMT
I did, and I own that without a problem. I'm glad you brought it up, because it clearly proves I did not call Crowley a Fraud from the very outset, and for that I thank you. Hate to be the one to point this out but t'was YOU who first made the claim I or anyone else called Crowley a Fraud. I just want to know a reason for this incessant straw man. ;D Beacuse you made this statement about "frauds" in a thread about Crowley and Yarker. Thus you had to be referring to one or the other, unless you are in the habit of making idle 'non sequiturs"; If I was referring to one or the other, I would have explicitly stated to which one I was referring. Simple as that. ;D I don't hold back, and I was suggesting that it is silly to alleviate the possibility of Fraud, no matter how little or much an individual is admired in general or personally. I don't know about others, but I place the strictest regimen of investigation on those I agree with the most. If what they say is true, they will hold to the minutest scrutiny and falsification. Yes, you're argument has been a straw man, because you assumed an argument for me and argued against it. I never made that argument in this thread (or anywhere else, to my recollection). You made suppositions on what argument I made and created an argument for me to argue against. Thus-straw man argument on your part. I started my investigations reading Crowley among others. You obviously drew a conclusion possibly different than mine. viva la difference!
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 18, 2010 23:34:41 GMT
You wouldn't happen to be a politician, would you?
Moving right along, reading the fin-de-siecle accounts by adepts of the period throws a lot of light on future events. Crowley's introductory remarks to the Book of the Law are eerily prescient of future attitudes. Dion Fortune made some remarks in "The Mystical Qabalah" about how the infighting among the adepts and Orders resulted in a lacuna that permitted 'strange seeds to sprout" I am assuming she was alluding to Theosophy and its heavily Hindu bent.
In Manley P. Hall's "The Secret Teachings of All Ages" it mentions in one chapter that 1888 was the year that a "new Aeon" was to officially begin, and the Lord of the Aeon was the Archangel Michael.
It is safe to assume that this was the official start of the Aquarian Age, since Michael is the ruling Angel of the third Decan of Aquarius, which is where the New Aeon would be expected to begin, since the Precession of the Equinoxes move "backwards", from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius. Since a Zodiacal Aeon is 2160 years, and a Decan is a third of that, that gives us about 754 years, so the Aquarian Age has barely gotten started.
Crowley states that"This present period involves the recognition of the individual as the unit of society"" This being so, it would then stand to reason that it would be very difficult to keep any sort of spiritual 'group-mind"(such as an Order or a Lodge) together, because the "individuals" would constantly be at odds with each other as they strive to "assert their individuality" on a higher level.
This attitude, however, would facilitate the spiritual growth of individuals who are independent-minded enough to follow their OWN Path, and leave the need and validation of the "group-mind' behind.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 19, 2010 0:01:33 GMT
If indeed that were the case I would highly recommend, based upon the words that you have reported, move on past the group-mind and be a lodge of one. That is of course unless you need something or if there is something to be gained by a lodge or order.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 19, 2010 3:35:33 GMT
Sounds like someone needs a large dose of castor oil.
There is no reason that Lodges should disband, of course, but it would certainly explain all the "infighting" that was taking place, and has taken place. It is no secret that Freemasonry is at a low point in its career; my partner is a Freemason and I read the magazines that come in the mail. A very common theme is concern over declining memberships and Lodges having to close or amalgamate due to lack of membership. Even churches have this problem; disagreements and rifts are very common as well, and , of course, the rising tide of irreligiousness and disillusionment with exoteric belief systems.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 19, 2010 4:51:07 GMT
The 'low point' in Freemasonry's career was likely after the Morgan Affair, during the persecutions, &c. Compared to that, this is a cakewalk. Of course, if you think the bad times are the worst of times, I wholeheartedly disagree. The bad times are when Freemasonry displays itself and Freemasons prove themselves. This 'infighting' has gone on in Freemasonry since the earliest records, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. As for your presumptions of concerning Crowley, Yarker, or Hall I have no interest in the 'blind faith' over logic that taints your assertions. Interesting, but in the end, it feels painfully pedestrian. As to me being a politician, your straw man arguments fit that mode much better than my statements. I wouldn't mind being a politician if that didn't mean having to deal with unfounded claims and straw man arguments like those you present. The fact remains that I never accused Crowley of being a Fraud in this thread, and none that I can recall on the internet. You claimed that was my assertion (and it was NOT) and ran with it. My assertion is plain and has never changed; it remains possible that any and all of these individuals we admire might have been lying. If you can prove that it impossible with objective evidence I look forward to it. Moving right along, I don't buy all that Hall, Yarker, Crowley, or any other individual says based on the fact they were the figurative cool kids in the school alone. Some of my favorite writers I disagree with in large parts. If you can't disagree with your favorites, you're not studying. You're worshiping . That 'rising tide of disillusionment and irreligiousity' is happening in the esoteric world as well. People are starting to think for themselves, and I encourage that as often as possible, which is what I am trying here. ;D
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 19, 2010 9:22:20 GMT
I have been involved with Amateur Dramatics, Local Politics, two Community Centre and a few other projects.
All these groups display argument, politics, favouritism, factions and self interest.
This is a fault with Human Beings, and freemasonry is made up of ? yes you guessed it Human Beings.
The idea that this one group is superior and better than all the other groups is just crazy. Trying to improve oneself is not the same as Sainthood. There are flaws and disappointments and there always will be.
So there will be squabbles and factions and breakaways, it is the nature of Humans.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 20, 2010 3:30:39 GMT
Hey, even Crowley squabbled with others.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 22, 2010 1:45:54 GMT
I learned a curious thing the other day; Jane Wolfe, the woman with whom Crowley was corresponding in "Magick Without Tears", apparently ended her days in an insane asylum as the result of a "psychic attack", apparently. Does anyone here have any further information on that?
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 22, 2010 3:23:05 GMT
That is a sad story indeed. My prayers for her continued growth.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 26, 2010 23:50:38 GMT
I learned a curious thing the other day; Jane Wolfe, the woman with whom Crowley was corresponding in "Magick Without Tears", apparently ended her days in an insane asylum as the result of a "psychic attack", apparently. Does anyone here have any further information on that? I have to doubt this claim until more substantial objective evidence is brought forward. There are so many other possibilities than a 'psychic attack'.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 27, 2010 0:24:10 GMT
So I assume this means you have nothing to put forward by way of further input?
I went to the Temple of Thelema website yesterday to see if any further information could be garnered. but there was nothing. Jane Wolfe apparently died in 1958, at the advanced age of 83, and nothing was mentioned anywhere about any "insane asylum". So, it may well be nothing more than a malicious rumour. Or else, the person got Crowley's WIFE (or any of his myriad mistresses)and Jane Wolfe confused with each other.
|
|