Aleister Crowley - Fundamentalist
During a recent conversation, a friend of mine identified himself unabashedly as a "fundamentalist" and admittedly, there have been occasions when I've been labeled this as well. Not surprisingly, this term has been lobbied about by detractors and has even been embraced in part for this reason. One could always read "fundament" or the ninth Sephira into this term after all.
However, the association that typically springs to mind with the "fundamentalist" label (and the one these detractors really like to harp on about) is of the stereotypical tele-evangelist crying from his pulpit and demanding literalist fealty to stories such as "Noah's Ark", "Daniel in the Lion's den", etc. Besides this nakedly negative media driven image, there's a larger overall implication and slander that the fundamentalist of whatever stripe is superstitious and that the Thelemic "fundamentalist" is just as blind as the Christian "fundamentalist" who slavishly embraces his Berashith without a nod to the 11th tablet of the Gilgamish epic.
Clearly, the detractor utilizing the "fudamentalist" label has the objective of demonizing the person he/she disagrees with. However, when one examines a little as to how the label was aquired, the results are revealing.
More often than not, the label is applied as a result of that individuals perceived adherence to a particular system (neglecting for the moment the notion that seriousness of any kind is routinely perceived by these same detractors as a threat); in this case, the system put into place by Aleister Crowley.
For example, Crowley demands in no uncertain terms the practice by Thelemites and aspirants alike of Liber Resh. Moreover, there is the text of Liber Al itself which clearly acknowledges Crowley's authority and demands that his instructions be obeyed. This also includes "The Comment" which in turn demands that "questions" regarding Liber Al defacto include an "appeal" to Crowley's writings. Characteristically, the "fundamentalists" don't have major hang ups over any of this and will routinely promulgate the above.
Additionally, there are the writings of Crowley's that define what the O.T.O. and A.'.A.'. systems are. In turn, these Orders refer to Crowley as an authority when interepreting their systems. For example, the O.T.O. defines the Feast days in Liber Al based almost wholly on Crowley's commentary to Liber Al. Within a religious Order with a military component formulated by the Prophet of the AEon - such an adherence should hardly be surprising - in fact, it begins with the Man of Earth triad.
As the Grandmaster of the O.T.O. himself has noted:
"Our Thelema is that of the Book of the Law and the writings of Aleister Crowley-the Master Therion, the Prophet of the Aeon of Horus.
This is what we are about, and this is what we are-our guide is the Book of the Law, and our Law is “Do What Thou Wilt.”
Despite all our individual differences of manner, opinion, preference, interest, and enthusiasm, these are things on which we must agree."
IMO, its more than a little obvious to me that there are those in the Order who clearly are at odds with the above statements (all one has to do is peruse their Lj's). Moreover, its interesting to consider who would exactly qualify as a "fundamentalist" by their "lights".
While these same detractors will very often quote those parts of Crowley that sit well with their pre-existing values, isn't it Crowley himself who is the chief culprit of this "fundamentalism?" Was Crowley a staunch advocate for Tibetan Buddhism...or Thelema? Is Liber Al itself "fundamentalist" with the demands it makes of its adherents? When Crowley instructed us to give the Law to every being on every plane of existence upon meeting - doesn't that amount to a fundamentalism - an adherence?
If a strict adherence to the methods that Crowley advocated makes one a "fundamentalist", then how exactly wouldn't it follow that the creator and principal proponent of those methods is the chief culprit? Therein lies the rub.
This is also where the christian parallel breaks down in many respects. With christianity, one could postulate a certain amount of conjecture as far as to the intent of its founder. with Crowley, that's a little more difficult as he was a very capable English writer.
Moreover, if my opinion is correct, doesn't this suggest a rather "fundamantal" conflict? It does beg the question, if these folks aren't on board with those "things on which we must agree" - then what exactly are they on board with?
However, the association that typically springs to mind with the "fundamentalist" label (and the one these detractors really like to harp on about) is of the stereotypical tele-evangelist crying from his pulpit and demanding literalist fealty to stories such as "Noah's Ark", "Daniel in the Lion's den", etc. Besides this nakedly negative media driven image, there's a larger overall implication and slander that the fundamentalist of whatever stripe is superstitious and that the Thelemic "fundamentalist" is just as blind as the Christian "fundamentalist" who slavishly embraces his Berashith without a nod to the 11th tablet of the Gilgamish epic.
Clearly, the detractor utilizing the "fudamentalist" label has the objective of demonizing the person he/she disagrees with. However, when one examines a little as to how the label was aquired, the results are revealing.
More often than not, the label is applied as a result of that individuals perceived adherence to a particular system (neglecting for the moment the notion that seriousness of any kind is routinely perceived by these same detractors as a threat); in this case, the system put into place by Aleister Crowley.
For example, Crowley demands in no uncertain terms the practice by Thelemites and aspirants alike of Liber Resh. Moreover, there is the text of Liber Al itself which clearly acknowledges Crowley's authority and demands that his instructions be obeyed. This also includes "The Comment" which in turn demands that "questions" regarding Liber Al defacto include an "appeal" to Crowley's writings. Characteristically, the "fundamentalists" don't have major hang ups over any of this and will routinely promulgate the above.
Additionally, there are the writings of Crowley's that define what the O.T.O. and A.'.A.'. systems are. In turn, these Orders refer to Crowley as an authority when interepreting their systems. For example, the O.T.O. defines the Feast days in Liber Al based almost wholly on Crowley's commentary to Liber Al. Within a religious Order with a military component formulated by the Prophet of the AEon - such an adherence should hardly be surprising - in fact, it begins with the Man of Earth triad.
As the Grandmaster of the O.T.O. himself has noted:
"Our Thelema is that of the Book of the Law and the writings of Aleister Crowley-the Master Therion, the Prophet of the Aeon of Horus.
This is what we are about, and this is what we are-our guide is the Book of the Law, and our Law is “Do What Thou Wilt.”
Despite all our individual differences of manner, opinion, preference, interest, and enthusiasm, these are things on which we must agree."
IMO, its more than a little obvious to me that there are those in the Order who clearly are at odds with the above statements (all one has to do is peruse their Lj's). Moreover, its interesting to consider who would exactly qualify as a "fundamentalist" by their "lights".
While these same detractors will very often quote those parts of Crowley that sit well with their pre-existing values, isn't it Crowley himself who is the chief culprit of this "fundamentalism?" Was Crowley a staunch advocate for Tibetan Buddhism...or Thelema? Is Liber Al itself "fundamentalist" with the demands it makes of its adherents? When Crowley instructed us to give the Law to every being on every plane of existence upon meeting - doesn't that amount to a fundamentalism - an adherence?
If a strict adherence to the methods that Crowley advocated makes one a "fundamentalist", then how exactly wouldn't it follow that the creator and principal proponent of those methods is the chief culprit? Therein lies the rub.
This is also where the christian parallel breaks down in many respects. With christianity, one could postulate a certain amount of conjecture as far as to the intent of its founder. with Crowley, that's a little more difficult as he was a very capable English writer.
Moreover, if my opinion is correct, doesn't this suggest a rather "fundamantal" conflict? It does beg the question, if these folks aren't on board with those "things on which we must agree" - then what exactly are they on board with?