This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Mary Magdalene#Relationship with Jesus|Jesus was married]] The anchor (#Relationship with Jesus) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Samael Aun Weor stated in his other works that he was the first man to openly teach the “Great Arcanum” (Sexual Magic) to the general public without being silenced or killed. However, sex magick had been previously taught by Aleister Crowley in his Ordo Templi Orientis. Crowley's first writings on sex magick were published in The Book of Lies in 1913, and he wrote further on the matter in Liber Aleph vel CXI: The Book of Wisdom or Folly which was completed in 1918[9] (though it was not published by the O.T.O. until 1962).
I appreciate the help Hanuman_Das but I believe that the above paragraph now has become tangential, what was there was much better before. This is because the 'sex magick' of Aleister Crowley is not the 'sexual magic' that Samael Aun Weor indicates. When Samael Aun Weor writes 'sexual magic' he is referring to an act in which orgasm or ejcaulation never takes place. Everything I have studied regarding Aleister Crowely's sex magick indicates that he does not teach any such thing. If we are going to talk about the type of doctrine Crowely indicates, we would be better off to reference Phallic-orgasmic-ogry rituals of the degenerated Bacchus & Dionysian Mystery Schools, or at least Paschal Beverly Randolph -- but such references are, at best summed up in a single sentence about how those people and schools teach the opposite of what Samael Aun Weor taught. Lastly, the text about Karezza and F.R.A. were removed, but those teachings actually DID advoicate cotius sans orgasm. I do not wish to begin a revert war, but I am going to edit the paragraph back to something more suitable. --Paul Stone20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, since the two versions of sexual magic both have the same name, if you are going to make outlandish claims about one, you'll have to accept responses about the other. Both conservative and libertine elements make up both sex magic and tantra, both have left- and right-handed practitioners. The only place to clear it up will be in the sexual magic article. That's my opinion. —Hanuman Das20:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with disputes such as these, are primary and secodary sources. It appears that this whole article is sourced using only one source, Samael Aun Weor. Given the nature of the article, and its name, its likely that another source, more over, a secondary source is going to be needed here. I'm going to look more closely at the article and try to help out any way I can. SynergeticMaggot21:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I'm not sure that there are any third party sources on Weor. That may make the article unverifiable by WP standards. Which means it may be a prime candidate for an AfD. However, it looks like a decent article, but attempts to exclude other POVs in violation of WP:NPOV worry me. If the Weor quotes turn out to say "sexual magic" rather than "non-ejaculatory sexual magic", as I'm sure they do, then the rebuttal of claims by the example of Crowley will have to stay. I think they have to stay anyway, as I believe Crowley taught a range of sex magic techniques. Even if the Weor quotes are that specific, a source would still have to be found that states that none of Crowley's techniques involved retention. Such a source cannot be found, I think. —Hanuman Das21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the main problem I'm seeing in including other authors POV's is that this is an article about a book, not a concept. If it were solely a concept, then I'd agree that there would need to be such additions as Crowleys sex magick, workings, and methods mostly from the OTO (which is where Crowley obtained the means). The article itself needs alot of rewording, but it clearly says that it is white sex magic (never heard of this myself, but its a published concept so eh) which does not include the releasing of fluids. As far as I can tell from a number of sources (books I own), Crowley released most often (no pun intended). I'll try looking for an indication that he practiced this, and when, but for now I'd have to say that nothing Crowley should be include into this article. SynergeticMaggot21:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the claim to primacy in teaching sex magic is POV. If that claim is included, then it can be rebutted, I think. If it's not included, then I agree that there is no need to mention Crowley. —Hanuman Das21:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see how it is problematic. I am going to remove the section and integrate one or two of sentences (about Jesus) into the main article once I find the sources. --Paul Stone22:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my copy of Perfect Matrimony it's 'grey', note however there is no 'offical' translation so it may be different in others. I changed the one instance of gray to grey. --Paul Stone01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=small}
