Does anyone have any feelings about this stuff being either theistic or atheistic? I always found Crowley's A.'.A.'. stuff atheistic, while the OTO stuff was quite theistic.

Or, does anyone even give a shit?

*is doubtful*

does it really matter?

If you realy want to know what Crowley was thinking, you should check out 'The book of the Law'. Im not shure who actualy wrote it, however it (if I remember the story right) was a series of mad rants a preacher named Awais made in Egypt, roughly around 3:00 pm two days in a row. The genius of his speach was that it was a huge math problem given to him by the gods. According to legend, if you try to solve it, you are doomed to hell. Crowley solved the problem. The answer you recieve, is very enlightening indeed. Good luck.

Actually, "Aiwass" was the name given to Crowley's "Holy Guardian Angel" once attained. Certainly no preacher. The whole "going to hell" part is new to me, and I've been through nearly all of his stuff.

And, Prozack, I must say: No, it likely doesnt matter in the slightest. But, hey...what the fuck on these boards really does?

quote:Originally posted by PirateWhistle:

Actually, "Aiwass" was the name given to Crowley's "Holy Guardian Angel" once attained. Certainly no preacher.

Aiwass was the deity who ranted 'the book of the law' wether or not he was crowley's "holy gaurdian angel" I am not shure. but my point still stands that to truely understand crowley's reasoning you must solve the math problem it states. the answer took me forever to solve, and im not sharing. The warning, I dont belive was literal. Although it was hell trying to solve it.



[This message has been edited by buddy dobbs (edited 06-22-2003).]

To the best of my knowledge (which, admittedly, is not all that fresh anymore, let alone that great to begin with) there are numerous mathematical and qabbalistical problems scattered throughout the book. Are you referring to the one in 2:76? Frater Achad solved the totality of the riddles in The Book of The Law, and I believe his findings are published in Liber 31; check it out to determine if what you found is coincident.

Regardless, I no doubt agree that the heart of thelemic teaching lies in The Book of The Law.

Additional notes on Liber AL by Achad: http://www.leapinglaughter.org/archive/achad/notes_on_liber_al.html

and

Liber 31: http://www.leapinglaughter.org/archive/libri/L_031.txt

About your question if oto or thelema are theistic or atheistic, what AC did was kind of researching religion. So it is theistic, but not as a dogma, it is a matter of exploration, personal dvp"t and experimentation.

If you try pills and someone else tries placebos, both may have similar effects. It's no proof any is on the right path. Maybe the pills will have side effects, maybe the placebo will be revealed and you will have to start it all over again -if you're still healthy enough.

Religion also, is subjective. If many people believe the same non-sense it will still have some result. Crowley was crushing the old idols and his provocations were very healthy since it hurled a whole generation into real research and experimentation after the divine, on many levels. He initiated the revival of popular occult sciences, was deft'ly a precursor for new age (in the real meaning, not the commercial fashion of cons named new age, its derogatory substitute).

Now at some point it is highly individual and cannot be discussed, besides the common wealth of rituals, speculative study. But the big warning is not to give interpretations of the 'law' since it is designed for the individual, and none are the same or have the same soul/approach/HGA...

There was a curse about sharing interpretations of LAVL. But can you take seriously any warning of the great beast666 provocator?