Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00072)

>>Crowley ... His theories and views on spiritual and material, and
>>the methods of union seem to be different from Theosophy.
>
>What does he say, and how does it seem to differ? (The differences
>provide an opportunity for some philosophical exploration.)
>

Eldon, Crowley taught both reincarnation and karma, cycles,
and many other Theosophical ideas.  He wrote that HPB was an
Adept (he did not give out this kind of recognition lightly) and
so his theory is not much different from hers.  However,
he regarded Theosophists as "Toshosophists" and considered
them sheep following a safe but far too slow path.  Differences
between AC and HPB are largely in style and practical approach.

As too having a topic to explore, the one that I feel strongly
about it how we view karma.  Dallas and others who take the
literal exoteric approach to karma see it as an eye-for-an-eye
doctrine that will literally never end.  This idea falls in line with
much of HPB's writings. She was, I think, bringing the new idea
of karma to the West, and she and Judge were heavily exoteric
in their teaching.  I have tried to present a more esoteric view,
but the responses indicate to me that few if any on this list
have a clue as to what I am saying. Anyway, AC knew only
Hinayana Buddhism.  He was not versed in the Mahayana
let alone the Varjrayana as was HPB, and this fact accounts
for much of the sharp criticism he had of her Buddhist writing.
Thus we see little of the bodisattva in his works, nor does he
emphasize compassion.  But he does, in my view, sketch out
a far better view of the higher planes and how to get there, then
she does.  His description of the higher Aethyrs shows
that he had an understanding of the jivamukti and how
to end one's personal karma and also the need to eliminate the
ego.  This is clear in his teachings, but it is not clear in his
biographies that he ever reduced his very much.

Jerry S.