Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tl00137)

Estrella wrote:

> desires, desires from our astral body?? I raise my voice, and ask to you
> too, It is VALID??? HOW MUCH IS HOW MUCH???? I ASK YOU.....If a boy
> wants to be a WIZARD, to the SERVICE OF THE WORLD, that is clear, and HE
> KNOWS IT, can then, when he discovers that POWERFUL CETRUS that is the
> WORD,THE TAUGHT, Can then ask for himself, The woman that he loves?? The
> job that he wants?? The siddhis that he needs-wants (Nothing harmful, he
> believes) The phisical body that he wants?? I ASK YOU PEPOLE, VERSED
> PEPOLE,WISER THAN ME IN MANY WAYS, CAN YOU ANSWER???

    Am I wiser than you in the right ways, or are those the ways in which
you are wiser than I?

    In any case, you have hit on what is the true difference between the two
major sources of New Age thought: H. P. Blavatsky and A. Crowley (we will,
for the sake of this discussion, ignore the small but unfortunately visible
cult of perceived personality that has grown around Crowley, and concentrate
on his Thelemic philosophy, as with Blavatsky we will concentrate on
Theosophy). Note, by the way, that Crowley's path translates as "Divine
Will", while Blavatsky's translates as "Divine Wisdom". And therein lies the
difference. In Theosophy, we develop the intellect (study, gaining knowledge
from without, and meditation, gaining knowledge from within), and then apply
it to the everyday world (service), as a tool for spiritual growth, and to
indirectly encourage spiritual growth in others. Any talents/siddhi's gained
along the way are merely side effects. Crowley, on the other hand, believed
that through exercise of the true Will (Atma/Budhi to Theosophists), then
one will develop spiritual (by living in what Theosophists call the
reincarnating principle). Siddhi's are directly developed, but only as a
means for exercising Will.

    Crowley's path is certainly more dangerous, and not for everybody,
because of the temptation of the lower principles to guide the use of the
higher principles, rather than vice versa. It is therefore not for
everybody, and is admittedly elitist. Theosophy is a safer path, and one in
which virtually everybody can achieve some degree of spiritual growth.

    Note that in either path, if a person is trying to develop siddhi's in
order to use them, regardless of what s/he considers his/her motives to be,
they are straying off the path.

    Bart Lidofsky