Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00521)

Tim Maroney <maroney@apple.com> wrote:

> Blavatsky would not have approved of Crowley's rituals, due to their
> sexual element, but they don't seem especially shocking to people living
> at the end of the twentieth century. His rituals are theurgical magick
> intended to unite the magician with higher powers, and to make progress
> toward mystical goals, and they are still regularly practiced today.

I don't know any details about Crowley's rituals and so won't talk about them
directly. Your comments, though, do suggest a related topic.

The conventions of acceptable behavior are not a reliable gauge of right or
wrong. After our twentieth century experiment and consequences I think they'll
change again. Alice Bailey had some interesting comments about the laxity of
sexual morals. She said that sex *solely* for the sake of personal
gratification attracts less evolved souls to be born. In many cases the timing
for their reincarnation was upset giving the danger of an over-concentration
of such souls.  Looking at the karma in today's parenting and the morals of
children today, I would say we have such an over-concentration now.

> As for Satanism, that's another point of contact between Blavatsky and
> Crowley -- not too surprising, since they both drew so heavily on Eliphas
> Levi, who did so much to justify "sympathy for the devil" among the
> nineteenth century occultists. Both denied the Christian Devil while
> advocating a positive, enlightened reinterpretation of the character as
> unfairly demonized. I'd be curious what you think of Blavatsky's
> teachings on the fallen angels, Satan/Lucifer, and Ialdabaoth from "Isis
> Unveiled" and "The Secret Doctrine".

For one class, I listened to a lecture by Jeffrey Burton Russell on Lucifer.
He has probably studied more of the literature on Satan/Lucifer than anyone
else today. I have to say that after my paper for the course, I am convinced
that there is an entitized, intelligent, personalized body of evil caused by
the collective experimentation and willful perversion of mankind. There are
many who have experienced the terrifying visages of evil. Read, for example,
the biography of Padre Pio. His biography is quite fascinating, though
probably biased by the Catholic rendition of it.

The idea of a personalized form of evil does not necessarily contradict the
ideas of HPB. In my take on her writings, she wanted to present the following
notions (heavily paraphrased in my own vernacular):

1) Free will - even the Satanic ability to go against God - is the way we
learn. And together with the law of karma ultimately will assure the
realization of our innate Godhood.

Comment: The harmful use of free will may serve as a temporary schoolroom to
perfect our discernment of transcendental Good (to be distinguished from
conventional good), but it still hurts ourselves and others! Calling the play
of conventional good and evil "nothing but" Maya is a similar euphemism. Even
imaginary pain hurts.

2) The apparent evils in the world are part of the play of free will.

Comment: It is difficult at times to say with certainly what "evil" is not
ultimately a good and what so-called "good" is not really evil. But we have
the responsibility to try - even if our judgements are sometimes wrong.