Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nigis (333)) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.thelema Subject: Non-Crowleyan Thelema Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 76 Sender: yronwode@sonic.net Message-ID: <8ndfvb$bh3@bolt.sonic.net> Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 07:29:33 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 966410973 208.201.224.36 (Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:29:33 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:29:33 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:24922 talk.religion.misc:322438 talk.religion.newage:130111 50000727 Vom a correspondent wrote: >> What is it? (Besides the obvious please ). non-Crowleyan Thelema is a will-based philosophy which underlies the effectation of magical results. it is unimportant that the Beast has muddied the waters with his religion. better to study the history of will in religious and other types of philosophy and how these were applied in practical magical exploits. > If there are any non-Crowley Thelemites on this list, I would > like to hear from you on > how you avoid Crowley and why. how: start small; use Occam's Razor; don't fall for the lure of worshipping heroes or pretending to achievement after the man; look at the reality of magic in your life (note: magic, not just the Crowleyan subset of 'magicK') and try to understand how will, volition, fits into this, makes it possible, etc. and: > Someone mentioned a Nigris and a Rev. Rob, whomever they are , I > think I recall their commentaries on many Crowley topics. In fact, at > least one of them is/was subscribed to a list discussing the Book of the > Law. I am, but have not really contributed to it, finding it rather meaningless. > At least one is OTO (the one with the copyrights). I am, but have undertaken membership as a discipline on the recommendation from my augoeides. > I do not consider them "non-Crowley." my intent is to excise Crowley from Thelemic philosophy, since he seems to have been such a colossal failure at promulgating the Law in any effective manner (his ego sullied the Current he wished to transmit and now it is mired in politics and cultism). > I think of non-Crowley as anti-Crowley or no-Crowley. correct, that which does not rely upon or need Crowley for any part of its content. > ...I have yet to hear from one I would consider non-Crowley. I've put forward reading lists at T93-L, complete with examples of those whose will-based philosophy should be considered important to 'Thelemites' (including Shopenhauer, whom the Beast indicates as a valuable study for Thelemic philosophy, and with good reason). > I suppose what Phi. said about people accepting the message but > not the messenger seems to fit in some cases, tho it is not > anything I have ever been skilled at. What I mean is if I have > a serious aversion to an individual, I would never spend years > analyzing their work. I would throw them out together LOL! volition is the crux-point distinguishing magic from non-magic. to be sure of any successful magical enterprise one must be able to ascertain that the mage 'intended the result'. all the Crowleyanity is not important to such a cosmological and metaphysical context. > I haven't heard from a serious non-Crowley thelemite (or > it was not obvious to me if they have written). there are a handful of us. it depends on your criteria of course. blessed beast! nigris (333) -- FREE HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street address to: catalogue@luckymojo.com mailto:nagasiva@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html ; mailto:boboroshi@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/ emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired