SCIENTIFIC ILLUMINATION & DEVOTION
The term “Scientific Illumination” is derived from Aleister Crowley's New Aeon Concept that he called “Scientific Illuminism.” ...
www.gnostics.com/bhakti.html
"unified awareness (magick) = scientific illuminaton + devotion (bhakti)"
This in itself is all good and well. That is it seems sensible, good and wise. However, the glaring flaw in this position is the failure to recognize that Scientific Illuminism (that is, Crowley's system or body of practices that fall under what he formerly called Scientific Illuminism - in every issue of the Equinox for example) includes devotional practices (bhakti yoga). In fact it is considered an important practice; the practice of uniting oneself with a divine being through devotional love.
In the Hindu context, one pours all their energy into their love for a particular god until they achieve yoga (union) with the god. In the European Christian context, there are a lot of saints that had parallel experiences with Christ, Mother Mary, the Holy Ghost...
In Thelema, or Scientific Illuminism, one is advised to choose a deity and through ritual, repetition and an ever-increasing yearning love for the deity, one (if successful) unites with that particular deity. This is found in Book 175 or Liber Astarte vel Berylli sub figura CLXXV (Class B)
What distinguishes this devotional exercise in Scientific Illuminism (which has many other exercises or approaches to the same goal - illumination, but many of these other exercises do not involve religious activity such as devotional worship of a deity)from Hindu, Christian (or any religious) devotional practices / approaches is simple but severe; Scientific Illuminism seems to deny the objective existence of the deity, despite the empirical, unshakable, and awe-inspiring direct and personal experience with that deity.
Perhaps we can say that Scientific Illuminism does not necessarily deny the objective existence of a deity (conclusively or even tentatively) but rather suggests that the whole question of the objective or subjective existence of god(s) is to be questioned itself. At one time people debated whether or not the giant turtle that held up the earth was itself held up by a larger turtle.
Doubt.
Doubt thyself.
Doubt even if thou Doubtest yourself.
Doubt all.
Doubt even if thou Doubtest all.
It seems sometimes as if beneath all conscious doubt there lay some deepest certainty.
O kill it! Slay the snake!
- Crowley,(The Book of Lies ,Ch. 51)
In Scientific Illuminism's version of bhakti or devotional union, as laid down in Liber Astarte, once one has succeeded in uniting with a divine being (during which time one must of course use the good old 'suspension of disbelief'1 modus operandi) one must immediately cease their work with that deity, to detach themselves from the deity and review the whole thing with rational analysis (interpret the experience as being a neurological event in the brain to use a physiological model or interpret it as a 'psychotic break' to use a psychological model, etc.)
Then one is to choose an other deity and begin the process again. It is suggested that one achieve unity with different deities that are by definition mutually exclusive. In other words, you perform intensive devotional ritual prayer in love of and yearning towards Allah until you achieve a mystical union with Allah. You cry rivers of tears of joy and love, abandoning your reason and dignity and sing "Allah is All!" and lose your sense of self dancing in the streets in love with All, One with Allah, whirling, fainting upon the ground in convulsions of ecstacy... ...then you wake up to your ego again, having the unshakable direct experience of union with the One and Only God Allah. You record it all in your magical record. But then you blaspheme Allah (not really, not in your heart, and not by intent, but by effect committing blasphemy in the eyes of those who believe in Allah) by choosing some other god, maybe even a comparatively "little" god like Ganesha who isn't supposed to exist if Allah exists. In uniting with Ganesha, one in effect demonstrates operationally that Allah is not what he seemed to be; the One and only Great God. Then try the Nordic Goddess Freya who should not exist if Ganesha and/or Allah exists. etc. and so on...
It is easy to see what this lesson (one of many in Scientific Illuminism) has the potential to teach, but of course we can only understand it superficially and intellectually until we actually perform these exercises in earnest until success is achieved with at least a two mutually exclusive deities.
My point: The essay What is Scientific Illumination and Devotion (Bhakti)? falsely assumes that Scientific Illuminism lacks devotional practices. It is probably an honest mistake. The essay displays a lack of understanding of Crowley as anyone with a passable familiarity with the occult will recognize for themselves. (See how many ill-informed statements you can spot!) I will now give some excerpts from the page;
The following is excerpted from http://www.gnostics.com/bhakti.html
What is
"SCIENTIFIC ILLUMINATION"
and
“DEVOTION (BHAKTI)”
?
The term “Scientific Illumination” is derived from Aleister Crowley’s New Aeon Concept that he called “Scientific Illuminism.”
“Devotion” and “Bhakti” primarily mean the same thing, except the qualifying term BHAKTI is a Hindu or Sanskrit term specifically referring to THEOSOPHICAL or SPIRITUAL DEVOTION.
The Gnostic Pagan Tradition/School includes reverence for Nature/the Environment
as an essential form of Devotion
in The New Aeon.
Another word for this is PANTHEISM
or
ALL-is-GOD
▲▲▲
A “Magickal” Formula for the New Aeon:
UNIFIED AWARENESS (MAGICK) = SCIENTIFIC ILLUMINATION + DEVOTION (BHAKTI)
▲▲▲
Aleister Crowley’s concept of Scientific Illuminism did not include Devotion (except as egoistically applied towards the lower-self), and it claimed that an Initiate could attain THE GREAT WORK or TRANSCENDENTAL COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS by following a strict regime of Physical and Spiritual Practice. This involved the consistent and daily practice of Yoga, Mental Discipline and Ritual.
Crowley carried his philosophy to a bizarre and excessive stage of egocentric masochism.
The psychic or psychological revelation of THE NEW AEON OF THE CONQUERING CHILD—a Message of tremendous importance to the world today—was effectively derailed almost from the onset by its own “channel” (Aleister Crowley), and today has organizationally translated down to “Thelemite” life stylists who somewhat nauseatingly repeat, like a indoctrinated schoolchild “The Law”—“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
Crowley failed to caution his submissive disciples,
“Be prepared—one way or another—to pay for it!”
Crowley’s initial message of Humanist Enlightenment has now become its own antithesis as applied by his cultic adherents.
The Gnostic Pagan School incorporates and ritualizes “the best of”’ AC’s (as well as other) “magickal formulae” in order to “expand our awareness” of the perceived Universe.
[See also, REVIEW: THE LAW IS FOR ALL???.]
We have found that combining a synthesis of both sides of human reality—the “Inner” with the “Outer” or “Other”—provides a “psychic” inner key synchronized for unlocking the psychological realms of Esotericism, The “Hidden Knowledge”, or GNOSIS.
Stated another way, Gnostic Pagan Ritual is a means of achieving a positive & healing “interior dialogue” (Jung) between the Conscious Mind and the Unconscious/Collective Unconscious depths of the Soul or Psyche. This Ritual provides a psychological pathway to the most Ancient Archetypes (Gods, Goddesses); and at the same time Gnostic Paganism is interested in all the rich & fascinating achievements of Science and the Arts.
MODERN GNOSTICISM encourages critical thinking and refutes “Leaders” bound to Old Aeon temporal or “spiritual” philosophies—and frees us from our Ancestor’s errors, empowering us to substitute the term SCIENTIFIC ILLUMINATION for Crowley’s flawed egocentric doctrine.
The concept of SCIENTIFIC ILLUMINATION not only validates the necessity for a CONSISTENT and HEALTHY Spiritual Practice—including YOGA & RITUAL—but also indicates the need to embrace the most recent gains of empirical, Scientific knowledge (Material Gnosis), including the economic and political implications of Historical or Dialectical Materialism.
_________________________________________________________________
(end of excerpt)
Notice how the author(s) propose that one replaces Scientific Illuminism with Scientific Illumination because (in their thinking) Thelema's Scientific Illuminism lacks love and their way of Scientific Illumination includes love.
Just a simple misunderstanding, it seems.
Note 1. I hope to explore this line of thought much further at some point.
