Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tl00176)

In a message dated 97-10-10 04:02:58 EDT, you write:

> I would say that 
>Krishnamurti has had a broader influence than Crowley. He is much better 
>known and respected in society at large.
>
>As for the World Teacher title, I don't know what would be good grounds 
>for debating it as it's not a historical question. Crowley has had a lot 
>of influence on my life and my spirituality. The longer I've studied him 
>and his sources, the more I've realized that he was largely a syncretist 
>from earlier traditions, emphatically including Theosophy, which I regard 
>as a direct ancestor of Crowley's system. Too little attention has been 
>paid to this source by Crowley's biographers and followers and I'm hoping 
>to make some contributions in this area.
>
>--
>Tim Maroney    tim@maroney.org    http://www.maroney.org
>

Interesting stuff.  One then must wonder what Frater U.D.'s motivations are
in his praise of Flowers.

Your analysis of the historic roots of modern culture is quite accurate,
though I would contend that the force of Crowley's personality combined with
the impact his life had on the art underground of the fifties that became the
mainstream of the sixties and beyond became placed him in an iconic position
as prophet, and thus as World Teacher as that culture has become dominant.

My feeling, and this is a purely personal observation with no sociological
data to back it up, is that Crowley is in fact, far better known than
Krishnamurti and that while lots of folks pay lip service respect to
Krishnamurti, given the choice they would rather be reading Crowley and that
it is in fact Crowley who is more respected and Krishnamurti thought of as a
somewhat boring and often incomprehensible eccentric who had a weird
childhood and then became a guru who used Horatio Costa as a foot stool
(which is all the man is good for).

Personally, I would not like to be either of them, having too much fun being
plain old Chuck Cosimano.

Chuck the Heretic