Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00525)

At 02:47 PM 4/13/97 -0400, you wrote:
>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.

    I do not know for certain if Bailey or anyone else is right. But,
historically, some of the well known geniuses were born out of wedlock. May
be they are exceptions. Just a thought.

MKR


>
>> 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.
 >