Knowing before Breaking
The use of capitals "Me" and "Thee" emphasizes that Hadit was wholly manifested in The Beast. It is to be remembered that The Beast has agreed to follow the instructions communicated to Him only in order to show that 'nothing would happen if you broke all the rules.' Poor fool! The Way of Mastery is to break all the rules -- but you have to know them perfectly before you can do this; otherwise you are not in a position to transcend them.
- from The "new" commentary to Liber AL II: 12
The tendency to advocate the breaking of the "rules" when it comes to what Crowley instructed- as if doing so were as simple as batting an eye, appears to me rather rampant amongst too many aspirants. Do they know what Crowley instructed "perfectly" - or are they more interested in convincing others that they've transcended Crowley?
When I come across people (whom I know haven't mastered or even attempted what Crowley instructed -particularly the yoga), practicing and promoting very different practices from what Crowley advocated - what exactly does that say about their seriousness? If the Aspirant takes "one step" on this path, where is it writ that the practices are then up for grabs? Where exactly does Crowley dismiss the practices or even promotes "variants"?
On the contrary, he repeatedly emphasizes the practices - as they are - over and over again.
Even with having made substantial commitments in some other field of endeavor (like the putting on of plays or participation in a Church ceremony), why would an aspirant assume such a "position" regarding the magick/yogic practices? How consistent is it to rigidly adhere to what is advocated in one place (theres a libidinous tendency here too) and be at complete odds or woefully ignorant of the other?
Unfortunately this sort of tendency has the overall consequence of making Occultism look like a very bad joke - particularly to those folks who have at least a modicum of common sense or who have actually read the material. Without the "method", one's essentially stuck with superstition.
More often than not the real "rule" amounts to this:
If its difficult, skip it and move on to something thats easier and makes you feel good about yourself.
Contrary to the popular caricature of Crowley as simply a "rule breaker", I think his writings indicate a fairly methodical and practical approach to the Great Work. His breaking of the rules was the exception - and a somewhat notable one at that.
- from The "new" commentary to Liber AL II: 12
The tendency to advocate the breaking of the "rules" when it comes to what Crowley instructed- as if doing so were as simple as batting an eye, appears to me rather rampant amongst too many aspirants. Do they know what Crowley instructed "perfectly" - or are they more interested in convincing others that they've transcended Crowley?
When I come across people (whom I know haven't mastered or even attempted what Crowley instructed -particularly the yoga), practicing and promoting very different practices from what Crowley advocated - what exactly does that say about their seriousness? If the Aspirant takes "one step" on this path, where is it writ that the practices are then up for grabs? Where exactly does Crowley dismiss the practices or even promotes "variants"?
On the contrary, he repeatedly emphasizes the practices - as they are - over and over again.
Even with having made substantial commitments in some other field of endeavor (like the putting on of plays or participation in a Church ceremony), why would an aspirant assume such a "position" regarding the magick/yogic practices? How consistent is it to rigidly adhere to what is advocated in one place (theres a libidinous tendency here too) and be at complete odds or woefully ignorant of the other?
Unfortunately this sort of tendency has the overall consequence of making Occultism look like a very bad joke - particularly to those folks who have at least a modicum of common sense or who have actually read the material. Without the "method", one's essentially stuck with superstition.
More often than not the real "rule" amounts to this:
If its difficult, skip it and move on to something thats easier and makes you feel good about yourself.
Contrary to the popular caricature of Crowley as simply a "rule breaker", I think his writings indicate a fairly methodical and practical approach to the Great Work. His breaking of the rules was the exception - and a somewhat notable one at that.
posted by AISh MLChMH at 2:14 PM
2 Comments:
You're right on the money here. I can't understand why more people don't apply themselves to yoga. On the other hand part of the lackluster discipline regarding yoga might be due to the lackluster demands of the Order. As long as yoga is "suggested" rather than "required" is it a surprise that many people opt out? I think a lot of this can be laid at the feet of the aspirant, but I also think it's only just to place a fair share of responsibility at the feet of the Order itself. If you don't ask for something, you aren't going to get it.
John-My understanding is that the A.A. requires yoga. The OTO IMO provides the initiate with many useful tools, yoga being one, but the emphasis of the OTO is different from that of the A.A..
The benefits of yoga are immense for the Magician in accomplishing the Great Work. I've never had formal training in Yoga but have used the exercises Crowley provides in his writings. I can say it is a very useful practice, but I will admit to practicing it in spurts. But even with that the benefits are great.
I am too much of a novice to break the rules of Yoga, at least at this stage for me.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home