Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (xiwangmu) Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.moderated,alt.philosophy.taoism,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.china,alt.consciousness,alt.thelema Subject: Aleister Crowley's Education (Re: misdirections (i ching and tarot 2) Followup-To: alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.philosophy.taoism,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.china,alt.consciousness,alt.thelema Date: 23 Apr 1996 21:44:36 -0700 Organization: Portal Communications (shell) Lines: 51 Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com Message-ID: <4lkbjk$amu@jobe.shell.portal.com> References: <31692566.63AB@bga.com> <829731354snz@mbha.demon.co.uk> <4l8e2c$r6@nkosi.well.com> Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (xiwangmu) NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com Xref: shell.portal.com alt.magick:71978 alt.magick.tyagi:7773 alt.magick.moderated:311 alt.philosophy.taoism:3447 talk.religion.misc:215096 soc.culture.china:256461 alt.consciousness:26026 49960423 kaos day sv : |>Crowley also travelleed extensively in China. His work with the I Ching was |>prompted by two factors; firstly it was _not_ covered in the GD material, I think it had been newly translated by Legge when Crowley got hold of it, and many Sinologists no longer regard Legge's translations, while perhaps well-intended, as completely authoritative. |>the opportunity existed to break some new ground (at least as far as western |>occultism was concerned). Of course it was also an opportunity to make a name |>for himself... I think this may have been somewhat of the motivation, yes. Crowley seems to have been stricken with a craving for notoriety. Likely a common Victorian pursuit. Perhaps inspirational to some who participate here. heidrick@well.sf.ca.us (Bill Heidrick): |I wouldn't stress the educational quality of Crowley's China Walk. He |was mainly working on A.'.A.'. attainment and his account shows little |understanding of the Chinese cultures -- or even awareness that there are |many different Chinese cultures. That explains his (Mathers-like? :>) interpretation of _Tao Teh King_ and his (limited?) explanation of 'yoga'. I invite criticism through Xpost. |His interest in orientalia may have been sparked by his studies with Alan |Bennett. His sources were translations, often well adapted by his |observations from a non-practising-Christian viewpoint. Didn't he synthesize much of this for some of his rites he created too? I mean, looking across the range of his exposure, was he absorptive of particular ritual qualities and persuasions? For a time I remember he was taken with Buddhism, for example, and later with Islam. |He did obscure some matters deliberately, mainly proforma matter of |initiation in groups and matters even he considered inflamatory to the |post Victorian mind. Which were the most prevalent and inflammatory of those of which you are mentioning here? E6/6/6 mu -- corrections welcome. i sometimes speculate wildly ;>