Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00090)

In a message dated 1/8/99 4:58:39 PM, someone wrote:

>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.

How does that whitewash Crowley as a "good guy"?  Did HPB ever say that white
or black magicians didn't use and know the same universal laws and
principles"?  Differences between AC and HPB are solely based on motive, not
on such superficial things as "style" and "practical approach'.  Let's call a
spade a spade.  Crowley was not only a racist and an anti-Semite, he was also
a "Dugpa" (black magician).  And his "Do as thou Wilt" was also the motto of
the Nazi occultists, justifying their ritual murders.  It's obvious that
Crowley's theories are the exact opposite of HPB's.
>
>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.

What are you saying?  How can you justify swapping HPB's and the Masters
esoteric scientific and philosophical views with totally unfounded (or not
even superficially verified) exoteric opinions of modern black magicians?  The
Nazi propagandist, Hermann Goebbels who used similar reversals, was much more
subtle than that.  Maybe we aught to read his treatise on how to turn black
into white.  (Or have we already--without fully understanding the linguistic
traps and self contradictions one can get into?)

>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.

Is that so?  How could Crowley accept those other "yanas" when they were so
opposed to his own separatists and selfish views?  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 "Pratyeka
Buddha" could be.   One, believing in total altruism and selflessness at risk
of one's own life, and the other, believing in complete selfishness at risk of
everyone else's.

Knowing "about" the twin doctrines of reincarnation and karma has nothing to
do with the higher wisdom or not--if ones's "knowing" about them is not true
knowledge of their inner workings, transformative mechanisms, and
interdependent subtleties.  Few theosophists, today--unless they can read the
Secret Doctrine from both a purely scientific as as well as an intuitive point
of view--may even have a small portion of this true knowledge--but I'm sure
that was not the case with either WQJ or HPB, or their Adept teachers.  How
Crowley (or anyone for that matter) could have gotten this knowledge, or any
further knowledge from a more esoteric source than the SD is beyond
comprehension.  To make such a bald assertion believable, one would have to
produce that alleged esoteric source.  Or, prove that Crowley and his teachers
were wiser than HPB and her teachers--considering their diametrically opposing
interpretations of the Book of Dzyan.  I wonder how many theosophists or if
any occult magicians know that the original book is both a moral-ethical as
well as a metaphysical-magical treatise--which takes the entire SD and its
commentaries to unravel and decipher.  HPB even pointed out, both in the SD
and in her other writings, the errors made by the cultish secret societies
(using black magic) where Crowley must have gotten his occult knowledge..

>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.

How better a view is that?  And what evidence do you have that it is better?
The way to get to the "higher Aethyrs" (sic) of Crowley (the negative energy
planes outside of (or underneath) our positive space--used by black
magicians--not necessarily the same etheric or astral light planes spoken of
by the Masters), to "end one's karma", and to "eliminate the ego"--was the way
Crowley, Hitler and their "black magician" cohorts seem to always do it
(including the 200 Tibetan Dugpas who were reported dead from suicide in
Berlin after the war).  And that is  to use the special, "easy", "instant",
and "painless" suicide drugs supplied them by their Tibetan Dugpa advisors and
herbal drugmasters (to be used whenever their genocidal ritual magic would
fail and put them in jeopardy of being "exposed" or executed, painfully, by
their enemies.  How many times in the past has that happened in the magical
secret societies that gave rise to the O.T.O., Crowley's A.'.A.'., and his
Thelema teachings?)  Such an action, jumps them straight into Avitchi, a
special hell world, where, I'm told, there is no karma, no nirvana, and no
return.  This is the kind of cowardice to avoid payment in kind that is the
especial practice of those who would attack others who cannot defend
themselves--as the Nazis attacked and almost annihilated their own and their
their occupied countries' population of jews, elderly infirm, mental patients,
and "inferior racial stocks".

In spite of the "opinions" of Crowley's defenders--based mostly on what
Crowley or his self serving disciples wrote about themselves--he and some of
his followers were known Nazi sympathizers, and were on the British
"subversive" lists before and during WW2.  He was also a close friend of
Rosenberg--Hitler's occult mystical teacher--the leading "occult"philosopher
of the O.T.O in Germany, and the teacher and advisor to Crowley and the SS
leaders and butchers, Himmler, Heydrich, Bormann, Baarbe. Eichmann and the
like--as well as the "architect" and "justifier of their "master race"
theories, mass murders, and their "human sacrificial" rituals.   Crowley also
visited Hitler several times before the war.  And there is reason to believe
that he was called on by Hitler and his cronies from time to time for advice.
So much for his defense by supposed theosophists--who also, however subtly
they disguise it, are continually critical of HPB and show no evidence to back
up such criticism other than reference to the teachings of black magicians or
exoteric religious scriptures.

Incidentally, all this is in government records that can be accessed under the
Freedom of Information Act--if not classified for "National Security" by the
high level SS Nazis who infiltrated our government (when the NSA was formed,
and the OSS broke up to became the CIA after the war).  Some of Crowley's
disciples as well as their Tibetan Dugpa friends, I've heard from reliable
sources, also advised the CIA in its drug and mind control experiments
starting in the late 40's and 50's (if not still going on today).

Followers of Crowley's form of ritual magic ("black", since it's aim is for
selfish purposes, and allows no "conscience" to interfere)--who also follow
his unrestricted "do as thou wilt" philosophy--cannot be "theosophists" (in
the motivational sense of the teachings of HPB and the Masters) except in "lip
service" only.  The motives of these two different types of "occult schools"
are certainly and evidentially not "complementary" but entirely opposite to
each other.  It's like saying there can be "Dugpa theosophists" or
"theosophical Dugpas".  An obvious contradiction in terms.

To call oneself a practitioner of "O.T.O.", "A.'.A.'.", or "Chaos"-type magic
and a "theosophist" at the same time is an oxymoronic expression of the most
blatent kind.   In the declaration of the ULT, it says, "It regards as
theosophists all those in the true service of humanity. . .".  Therefore, how
can Crowley and his cohorts--(who cannot practice altruism which is the
essence of theosophical teachings, and who are taught just the opposite)--call
themselves "theosophists, without being labeled hypocrites and poseurs?.  As
one great Master said. . .  "You shall know them by their fruits".

To carefully study Crowley's, as well as the Nazi occultists' teachings and
practices to find out who they are and how they think--so that they can be
recognized in their disguises and in their actions and reactions--is one
thing.  To study it for the purposes of practicing it's magic, or following
it's rules of conduct--is quite another.
      Except for the metaphysics and ontology (which is the same for both
white and black magicians) there's not one drop of "theosophy", as taught by
the Masters, in Crowley's teachings or his practices.

>Well, although you will take a lot of flaming from folks on this list, (Oh

>well, I get a lot of flames from magical lists too) I have found that it is

>possible to hold a Sword and still respect HPB and her message (a lot like
Chuck,

>who is a practicing Chaos Magician and Theosophist).

Did you know that Hitler thoroughly studied the Secret Doctrine while he was a
student in Vienna?  I'm sure he respected HPB, too.  Certainly, these critics
of HPB "respect" her, (as they profess Crowley did) since she was an occultist
and magician with, in my view, greater occult knowledge by far than their
equally respected (I presume) guru, Mr. Crowley.  (None of us, however, not
having seen the magic of either of them are in any position to judge who is
the better magician.)

In any event, this so called "respect" for a fellow magician (although one
with entirely opposite motivations, as well as opposite moral-ethical
teachings) does not a "theosophist" make.  So, why would such critics
continue to try to denigrate or discredit HPB (and her defenders) using
Crowley's and Tibetan black magic teachings while at the same time
hypocritically posing as theosophists?   What are the real motives behind such
subterfuge and proselytizing?

My advice to all "real" theosophists, who, with conviction, follow it's
teachings in the true spirit of HPB and the Masters--is to take whatever these
sort of people say with a grain of salt. . . And, to all others--to study both
opposing philosophies with an open mind, make your own decision, and choose
your side.  But, be prepared, in either case, for the karmic consequences.  In
any event, it's wise not to waffle between them.  It's impossible to serve two
masters at one time.  The consequences, if tried, could lead to much pain and
suffering.

LHM