Hi Ben,
>>I believe Crowley's relationship with his disciples could be deeply
>>abusive and had a deeply damaging affect upon them. Eugene Wieland's diary
>>has never been published and is in private hands. Some of Leah Hirsigs
>>diaries have circulated quite widely in photocopy, other components are
>>much scarcer and difficult to obtain views of. Both make grim reading.<<
Yes, that's what I suspected (and hoped) you were getting at. Its a very
interesting topic. I'm interested in discussing Crowley in that way without
being thought to be "a heretic criticising the Master" - can't we be
critical of him? I think he needs to be discussed from all angles. Was he a
jerk who wrote good books or an inspired mouthpiece of the gods? Or both?
One wonders why his disciples (the ones in unhealthy relationship dynamics
with him) stayed with him? Did the teaching outweigh the unpleasentness? Did
they really actually ever *get* anything out of it? Did they end up better
or worse off after having had him as a teacher? Is that just relative, were
they "really" spiritually better off, even if emotionally disturbed? I don't
know. Was it a S&M dynamic? (I don't mean did they do S&M but was is a
masochistic liking of pain on the disciples part). Was Crowley just *so
charismatic/ bossy / foreceful / compelling / convincing* that one was
simply transfixed by all this? - charisma is a really important component in
enchanting other people. Could the disciple ever catch up to or exceed the
"degree" of enlightenment of Crowley himself? Did he want them to?
But I do understand the complete (and unhealthy) involvement one can have
with another person, especially one who is in a superior spiritual
relationship to you, or you think they are.
(Aren't there actually no impartial academic studies of Crowley either? As
opposed to people who are either true believers or who hate him? Correct me
if I'm wrong. I'm thinking books, so maybe there are articles or big
theses.)
~Caroline.
http://necropolisnow.blogspot.com/
|