I suggested an enquiring beginner wiccan stay away from Crowley and received two thumbs down. It's my opinion that Crowley was little more than a drug-addicted lunatic who offered little of lasting value to the magical community. Most of his work is considered to be worse than useless since he wrote so many tricks into it anyway.
Is there anyone who has found Crowley's work to be useful or beneficial? Or who considers it suitable for a beginning wiccan?
2006-10-08 12:59:52 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Crowley was a Thelemite, obviously. He travelled the world for years and studied under masters from many different traditions before developing his own. Yes. He used drugs, so did most of the "greats". So did Gardner. Much of Wicca is based on Crowley's work.
As for beginner material. Well, Crowley's work is much more Hermetic and, er Kemetic in nature than Gardner's work which is somewhat more Celtic (though not really Celtic at all, just more like Celtic than Crowley's stuff is). He also goes alot into Kabbalah, which is Jewish in origin. Also, Crowleys books really play off one another alot and it would be difficult to say which one you should start with and they're all pretty hard reading for the true beginner. You really have to read alot to get anything out of them and then go back and start over again after a lightbulb goes on. I don't know who said Crowley offered little lasting value to the magical community though, he was a genious and I have found a great deal of useful information in his works.
But back to the beginning Wiccan. No. Crowley was a ceremonial magician. He was not Wiccan and his cosmology doesn't resemble Wiccan, though the rituals are similar. A beginning Wiccan I think should learn about Wicca, and then learn about magic. But every serious magic user should read Crowley eventually. Just not at first. Your head will explode.
And is he Wiccan, not by any stretch of the imagination. Is he Pagan? Could be. Depends on your definition. I say yes. But he's very synchretic.
2006-10-10 05:56:27 · answer #1 · answered by kaplah 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Crowley, just as Buckland and Cunningham are variations of Alexandrian practice. These are all variations of the Celtic Wicca which in turn go back to King Soloman's Lemegeton. It is all good and informative and something that should be considered. Each persons path is individual and any information they can get to help them find that path will be worth the read. Don't feel dejected by a couple of comments. We were all beginners at one point and perhaps it was just a comment that a Beginner may find Crowley a not too involved. Remember that education without application is useless. Let us not judge as other religions do. We do not need to have the divisions of following people but rather finding our own paths in our workings. Blessed Be.
2006-10-08 13:12:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Alester Crowley was not in any way Wiccan. He was the founder of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn which was based intensly on Thema.
That said, he laid down some well written treatices on the fundamentals of ritual theory and deserves a place on any adept's or higher's bookshelf, though certainly not on any initiates.
2006-10-08 13:06:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
I haven't read any of his stuff, but I have read somewhere that he professed himself as an Occultist Magician, rather than Pagan,. and he was certainly not Wiccan, since he died in 1947, 7 years before Gardner's first Wiccan book was published in 1954. Other than that, I could not say whether his stuff would benefit me or otherwise.
BB
)0(
2006-10-09 06:00:46 · answer #4 · answered by Seph7 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have his Bibliography and found it to be both wonderfully enlightening and easy to read. As a Pagan I have to say, I respect him much more for reading it. Will it be of value to others? Maybe. So much of what people think about him is colored by the peole who didn't like what he had to say. Very few people have actually read him themselves. I would say that it is best to read his works with a wary eye. You can learn a lot from him, but you need to remember who he was writing for.
2006-10-08 13:06:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think it's more for advanced students who can understand that there are good things in all literature, even if you decide that you don't agree with a particular author's POV, you at least read it, understood it, and weren't being as close-minded as some of the people we have to deal with on a Daily basis.
2006-10-08 13:07:50 · answer #6 · answered by AmyB 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
some Pagans i understand discover each and every of the Sacred Writings of each and every of the international Religions sacred and others i understand discover none extremely sacred and others purely those of their particular custom and others purely the classics like the Iliad and others purely the "e book" of Nature.
2016-11-27 01:37:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't be ridiculous--he was a quabbalah buff--which is part of the jewish faith, high magick and nothing anywhere close to pagan or wiccan--in fact it's closer to Xianity, because he calls upon God, demons and archangels as his pantheon
2006-10-08 16:14:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
from what I know he wasn't wiccan or pagan.
2006-10-08 14:21:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Satanist
2006-10-08 13:03:53 · answer #10 · answered by just julie 6 · 1⤊ 7⤋