lashtal.com :: View topic - The Lineages of the A.'.A.'.

lashtal.com

Thelema - The Lineages of the A.'.A.'.

Azidonis - Jun 14, 2007 - 12:54 AM
Post subject: The Lineages of the A.'.A.'.

93,

Personally I believe in the adage "ye shall know them by their fruits", and not by some paper trail. This fact has been proven to me over and over again in various ways during the past 10 years.

However, this is a forum for debates, and we all know how much I love a good debate (even if I'm still getting back into form)! Truthfully, with the mention and link to "RedFlame" in the thread on Henry Miller's association with Crowley, I ended up digging around their Site. I recalled after a while my own reasons for forgetting about this Site, but did find something interesting, below.

http://web.archive.org/web/200503080259 ... eages.html

So, I figured I would let this out here for the hell of it. Twisted Evil

93 93/93,

Az

Aum418 - Jun 14, 2007 - 01:00 AM
Post subject:

That article might possibly be biased towards the Grady/Jerry Cornelius lineage of the A.'.A.'. Rolling Eyes

...

Azidonis - Jun 14, 2007 - 01:31 AM
Post subject:

93,

Hrm, quite possibly LOL While I have no affiliations with the Grady/Cornelius Lineage, I do believe that the story presented provides a bit of a twist initially, especially where the ideas of Marcelo Motta are concerned.

93 93/93,

Az

ensurientchaos - Jun 14, 2007 - 04:38 AM
Post subject:

This is the Henry Miller who wrote Tropic of Cancer, THE Henry Miller. Where can I find out more about that? I would REALLY appreciate any help.

Jonathan - Jul 11, 2007 - 05:58 PM
Post subject:

Look and see what kind of adepts are being produced: the end result should be a person entirely desireless (having got all), well off, influential, and above all, endlessly compassionate. "Compassion is the vice of kings." -only a king can be compassionate.

A good test is to slap the supposed adept in the face or something else obnoxious and see if they react with anything other than a smile.

MichaelStaley - Jul 11, 2007 - 07:39 PM
Post subject:

Jonathan wrote: › Look and see what kind of adepts are being produced: the end result should be a person entirely desireless (having got all), well off, influential, and above all, endlessly compassionate. "Compassion is the vice of kings." -only a king can be compassionate.A good test is to slap the supposed adept in the face or something else obnoxious and see if they react with anything other than a smile.

Why? An exalted state of spiritual enlightenment might not feed through to the personality. The reason is very simple in my opinion: the human mind remains conditioned by time, space, and duality, and in consequence there is a restriction of awareness. Whilst the Magister, for example, might frolic under the Night of Pan in the City of the Pyramids, there yet remains that little pile of dust which I daresay carries on human intercourse, has only glimmers of a wider and deeper awareness, continues to have desires, and will probably respond to a slap.

Ecce homo

Wink

Aum418 - Jul 11, 2007 - 09:36 PM
Post subject:

Jonathan wrote: › Look and see what kind of adepts are being produced: the end result should be a person entirely desireless (having got all), well off, influential, and above all, endlessly compassionate. "Compassion is the vice of kings." -only a king can be compassionate.

A good test is to slap the supposed adept in the face or something else obnoxious and see if they react with anything other than a smile.

Or they might slap you back and laugh about that, as well. Compassion in Thelema doesnt exactly sound like the Buddhist/hindu compassion you seem to be speaking about.

By the way, you forgot to quote what comes after "compassion is teh vice of kings" (with a colon to indicate keep reading): Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world. Also, Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch! Them that seek to entrap thee, to overthrow thee, them attack without pity or quarter; & destroy them utterly. Swift as a trodden serpent turn and strike! Be thou yet deadlier than he! Drag down their souls to awful torment: laugh at their fear: spit upon them! ....Hmmm... this doesnt sound like one must necessarily 'turn the other cheek' and smile if slapped.

Also, 24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers. -Liber XC

Yes, spike418, those are copy and pasted.

I do agree with your comment that you will know them by their fruits, though.

65 & 210,
111-418

jtm - Jul 12, 2007 - 03:42 AM
Post subject:

Quote: ›
Compassion in Thelema doesnt exactly sound like the Buddhist/hindu compassion you seem to be speaking about.

I will put forth that there have been adepts long before there was Thelema. And further, that the concept of compassion is a universal, and a quality of adetps of any tradition. There is no 'Buddhist compassion' or 'Thelemic compassion', just as there is no 'Buddhist sky' or 'Thelemic wood'. It's just compassion. A person of a certain attainment has no need to slap anyone unless there's a specific effect desired. Being slapped is by no means _necessarily_ a reason to slap someone back, and if there were no real threat, I for one would at the very least smile, out of amusement if nothing else. And I'm no adept. With a real threat, of course, I'd defend myself vigorously, as might an adept, depending on the adept.

Aum, (and I say this as civilly and constructively as possible, not trying to start a war) you are the only Thelemite (or anything like it) I've come across with such an elitist and divisive interpretation of the verses that you've quoted above, and in many other threads as well (ok, at least twice else to my memory). I will not try to dissect the verses piece by piece, because they are ESOTERIC messages.

Suffice it to say, I eat meat, but I don't go punching cows for fun. I drive by beggars on the street, but I don't go trounce them by night. And I seriously doubt you do. I benefit from the work of the lower classes and from suppressed wages in third world countries, which we may consider 'stamping down the wretched & the weak'. It allows me to practice in peace, health, and cleanliness, as they will do in a future incarnation. I was once where they are, and it brought me to where I am. But when I come across someone meek, poor, disadvantaged, wounded, or whatever, I treat them as anyone else, and offer what I can. This is agape under thelema. And it's simple common sense. It makes my community more agreeable, and I never know when I'll need a handout and they'll be in the nice car. I'm pretty sure it won't happen in this lifetime, but I could also be hallucinating right now.

To put it bluntly, there is simply no constructive reason to be anything other than compassionate at all times to all beings. Anything else is ... well, a 'defilement'. I'm not talking dogma, just reality as I've seen it moving in white light.

kidneyhawk - Jul 12, 2007 - 04:00 AM
Post subject:

Quote: ›
To put it bluntly, there is simply no constructive reason to be anything other than compassionate at all times to all beings

jtm-are you familiar with Heidegger? Your post made me think of his "caring" as the result of becoming authentic as a "being" in relation to "Being." A powerful aspect of Heidegger's work is the shift from the humanistic nature of philosophy to a vantage point of which the human is a PART, not the measure...and the result is similar to the Buddhist, a type of engagement with the world which begins to rise above self-justifying categories and defintions of how we "ought" behave...and the result is an engagement unique to our positions but one which manifests certain qualities of authentic being...including caring.

Heidegger was a Nazi and quite contradicted his own philosophy. Who knows what his deep thoughts on the matter were when he spent his final years as a type of reflective recluse. But his way of thinking is worth considering, regardless.

Way off topic from the lineages of the A.A. unless we return to the connection of ANY lineage to the Current Itself, in which case we're looking at an outpouring from heights far exalted beyond our need to be "Kings" by damning "Compassion."

93,

Kyle

kuniggety - Jul 12, 2007 - 07:25 AM
Post subject:

jtm wrote: ›
Being slapped is by no means _necessarily_ a reason to slap someone back,

Yes it is and it's not being compassionate by not hitting someone back, it's called being a pussy. I don't mean that in the way of saving face but rather having the back bone to stand up for yourself. No person has a right to hit you. Your body is your temple.

Aum isn't the only one who interprets Liber AL the way he does. Anyone who is literate interprets those lines the same way.

Aum418 - Jul 12, 2007 - 09:32 AM
Post subject:

kuniggety wrote: ›

jtm wrote: ›
Being slapped is by no means _necessarily_ a reason to slap someone back,

Thank you.

jtm: are you blind? Do you simply neglect the fact that those lines exist? I barely offered ANY interpretation (since people like you will cry about it if I suggest that Thelema isnt a big happy party) and you still rail against it? I said one line that barely even was an interpretation.

Do you simply not agree with those lines in Liber XC & CCX? If so, thats your problem, not mine. "They are ESOTERIC lines." Psssh yeah. You think they only apply to the Self, right? That is, frankly, bullshit, as anyone can see the literal interpretation right in front of their faces ('if they are literate' as teh person above mentions). Crowley himself says multiple times that the Book seemed to be wanted to be taken literally, especially in Ch.3 (Oh no!!! War!!!) Yes, you can interpret them as relating to the 'weak parts of yourself,' and that is perfectly valid but ignoring the obvious, literal interpretation because you are uncomfortable with it shows a certain weakness on your part.

Once again, Id like to point out that I offered one sentence of interpretaiton to those ~8 lines in the Holy Books, its not like I am setting forth some elitist interpretation. I am seting forth the obvious one that you seem to be in denial about. Your interpretation of those lines as 'going around punching cows for fun' is simply idiotic. Did you simply block out the multiple places where 666 supports these ideas (not to mention the texts themselves, quoted in part above)... How about this nice exposition:
Again Aiwass repeats that “they feel not.” : Compassion, the noblest virtue of the Buddhist, is damned outright by Aiwass. To “suffer with” some other being is clearly to cease to be oneself, to wander from one’s Way. It always implies error, no Point-of-View being the same as any other: and in Kings—leaders and rulers of men—such error is a vice. For it leads straight to the most foolish Rule ever laid down, “Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.” True men know their own needs and find ways to supply them. To judge the sick by the healthy is pregnant with error. The wretched and the weak are simply not real beings; they cannot be helped or mended. They must be expunged as falsehoods likely to infect the truth. This is the law of Nature, and it is the Law of the Lords of the Aeon. Put into force it will fill the world with joy.

...Hmm.... (Is that an elitist interpretation to you, jtm?)

Just for good measure, I am going to qutoe Liber Tzaddi again (to spike418's dismay!):
24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers.

65 & 210,
111-418

BlueKephra - Jul 12, 2007 - 10:18 AM
Post subject:

kuniggety wrote: ›

jtm wrote: ›
Being slapped is by no means _necessarily_ a reason to slap someone back,

And if I slap you for being an arse to me, maybe your backbone should come into play by your being "manly" enough to admit you deserved it, and to learn something from that.

Baccus93 - Jul 12, 2007 - 11:43 AM
Post subject:

kuniggety wrote: › Yes it is and it's not being compassionate by not hitting someone back, it's called being a pussy. I don't mean that in the way of saving face but rather having the back bone to stand up for yourself. No person has a right to hit you. Your body is your temple.

To me, the question always comes down to Will - which should be an act consciously decided and not done on the basis of "reason" (which itself has proven itself false).

"30. If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does naught. "

MichaelStaley - Jul 12, 2007 - 11:49 AM
Post subject:

kuniggety wrote: › Aum isn't the only one who interprets Liber AL the way he does. Anyone who is literate interprets those lines the same way.

No they don't. To be literate is to have the ability to read the lines; that's different from interpreting them, which arises from predeliction and experience amongst other things. You might choose to interpret those lines in a literal fashion; others might interpret them differently; yet others might pay little heed to them. Liber AL encompasses a diversity of threads, some of which seem to be at odds with others. There's no need to swallow the lot wholesale.

How on earth do those who urge a literal understanding of Liber AL deal with, say, "let there be no difference made between one thing and any other thing". Are they just as happy to drink a cup of hemlock as, say, their morning coffee? Why is that sentiments such as "stamp down the wretched & the weak" are to be interpreted literally, but the imprecation to "make no difference" is not? It's probably a matter of predeliction, and it's something we all do.

kidneyhawk - Jul 12, 2007 - 12:06 PM
Post subject:

This topic of why Compassion is such a dispicable vice should probably have its own thread, although I suspect it would be filled with cut and past quotes, "beat 'em down" sentiments and very quickly sweep into "you're an idiot" type posts, counterbalanced, of course, by "no, YOU'RE an idiot" type posts.

Although "666 supporting these ideas" is hardly justification for our own necessary acceptance of them, the quote given by AUM above is really interesting.

Quote: ›
To “suffer with” some other being is clearly to cease to be oneself

Right. Like a doctor who takes no precaution against being infected by his disease ridden patients and thus becomes of no use to them-or himself-as he joins them in their disabling and terminal condition. But it still may very well be the Will of said doctor to be in that profession for a host of reasons which benefit both himself and his world. His nature may lead him to kindness and service and energy poured out to helping others but he has sharp lines drawn as to what exactly that involvement is.

Aum, I think, without clarification, the language of Al, Crowley and possibly yourself may come across as a promotion of CRUELTY as some sort of Thelemic virtue by casting its shadow and this is what I see jtm and others reacting against. The idea that what is being extolled is a "virtue" of being an asshole and a harmful element in society. When the weak get in your way, crush 'em! But what defines weakness? For example, as a social worker, many hours of my day are spent working with and assisting disabled adults. Does a body in a wheelchair imply some physical weakness which is better fed into a furnace than assisted? Does a baby born with a cognitive or physical disability deserve the bloody chopping block of Aiwass? ("Sorry, kid-this world's for the strong..." Butcher knife misses the umbilical cord. Thunk.)

I think in very real and very specific events this "word" regarding compassion determines how it comes into play. There may be great strength at play in situations which show tremendous difficulty. It's not so easy to judge how a person has embraced this in their flesh and blood lives by internet posts.

I think jtm has made it clear that he'd just as soon live in a world where people are nice to each other and everybody wins and can pursue their bliss. Of course, that's not the state of affairs we're in. So we MUST deal with this discord. Turning the other cheek IS ineffectual and jtm seems to have said several times that if he's bitten, he'll bite back. But he'd rather be dealing with other things. As I think most of us would. If your Will is to be in the lab, working hard on developing a new vaccine-or in the studio, cutting new forms into stone, or in the garden, tending vegetation, having bullets shot your way is going to be a hindrance and not some glorious war-world.

Does this make sense? How to take a slap, let me count the ways...they're as wide and varied as the cheeks available. But the fist to the face always comes into the context of the person at hand (no pun intended) and the circumstances in which they are working their Will. And it seems that Will opens up consciousness to a much larger phenomena than a life of perpetual self-obsession. Measuring the Universe by oneself seems to get transcended at certain points in the mystical understanding and experience of what exactly the phenomena of "we" actually is (perhaps a hopeful connection to the main topic-the AA-and its goals). Still, it can't be denied that emptiness takes form in such a "we" and our "selves" are driven by choices and actions, which duly reflect how we've come to understand and cooperate in the Great Work.

I don't think a true Thelemite is looking for a big snuggly love-in or unnecessary strife (which, it may be argued, a certain type of "compassion" can evoke). But the Path leads to "joy of earth" even as it brings to the fore a billion different modes of approach and reaction to manifest this.

93,

Kyle

Aum418 - Jul 12, 2007 - 12:50 PM
Post subject:

BlueKephra wrote: ›

kuniggety wrote: ›

jtm wrote: ›
Being slapped is by no means _necessarily_ a reason to slap someone back,

And if I slap you for being an arse to me, maybe your backbone should come into play by your being "manly" enough to admit you deserved it, and to learn something from that.

If they cant admit they deserved it (if they actually did), then yes, I agree with you.

Baccus93 wrote: ›

What about the multiple commentaries where Crowley says it should be subconscious. Did you even bother reading the commentaries for the very line you quoted? "There is no 'reason' why a Star should continue in its orbit. Let her rip! Every time the conscious acts, it interferes with the Subconscious, which is Hadit. It is the voice of Man, and not of a God. Any man who 'listens to reason' ceases to be a revolutionary. The newspapers are Past Masters in the Lodge of Sophistry Number 333. They can always prove to you that it is necessary, and patriotic, and all the rest of it, that you should suffer intolerable wrongs." That almost seems to be a direct refutation of your post.

MichaelStaley wrote: ›

kuniggety wrote: › Aum isn't the only one who interprets Liber AL the way he does. Anyone who is literate interprets those lines the same way.

I thin kthe point was that anyone who can understand the most basic meaning of things would interpret the lines that way, as does Crowley if you read the plethora of commentaries and other texts like Liber XC. You can nitpick and say 'being literate doesnt mean you can interpret things' but you obviously get the idea - this literal meaning is so clear that you would have to be illiterate not to see it.

kidneyhawk wrote: › This topic of why Compassion is such a dispicable vice should probably have its own thread, although I suspect it would be filled with cut and past quotes, "beat 'em down" sentiments and very quickly sweep into "you're an idiot" type posts, counterbalanced, of course, by "no, YOU'RE an idiot" type posts.

For some reason, taht seems to be how most threads are, not just for 'compassion.' Im glad you have such high expectations of the posters here....

Quote: › Although "666 supporting these ideas" is hardly justification for our own necessary acceptance of them, the quote given by AUM above is really interesting.

Quote: ›
To “suffer with” some other being is clearly to cease to be oneself

Or money. I would say the majority of doctors are not i nthat profession out of compassion, but rather out of intellectual enjoyment, or more commonly, the fact that they get a lot of money.

Quote: › Aum, I think, without clarification, the language of Al, Crowley and possibly yourself may come across as a promotion of CRUELTY as some sort of Thelemic virtue by casting its shadow and this is what I see jtm and others reacting against.

Thelemic virtue? I cringe at that phrase. I dont care if people view actions as cruel or beneficient. As I quoted thrice before from Herman Hesse, "People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest." One doing their Will has no care if it seems cruel or not. Something that is cruel from one perspective is compassion from another (I refer specifically to Crowley's discourse of how one person would want to kill Nero and the Master of the Temple would know that Nero's slaughtering is a necessary and fundamental part of the universe, etc.) The idea that is connected to this 'Thelemic compassion,' if you wish to call it such, is that a King is immortal/eternal, so this cruelty is just a 'jostle' along the way, as is any 'suffering,' which are but as shadows. From the viewpoint of the infinite, or even from a few millenia, these 'cruelties' are laughable and often lead to much 'progress' in humanity - would the League of Nations/UN be created if there weren't world wars? Would there be any care about others if we didnt see suffering around us? etc...

Quote: › The idea that what is being extolled is a "virtue" of being an asshole and a harmful element in society. When the weak get in your way, crush 'em! But what defines weakness? The unfitness of the agent to the For example, as a social worker, many hours of my day are spent working with and assisting disabled adults. Does a body in a wheelchair imply some physical weakness which is better fed into a furnace than assisted? Does a baby born with a cognitive or physical disability deserve the bloody chopping block of Aiwass? ("Sorry, kid-this world's for the strong..." Butcher knife misses the umbilical cord. Thunk.)

People who kill cripples will have to suffer the consequences - i.e. much jail time, or if you kill enough, be deemed a war hero (yes, that is a cynical joke).

Quote: › I

I think jtm has made it clear that he'd just as soon live in a world where people are nice to each other and everybody wins and can pursue their bliss. Of course, that's not the state of affairs we're in. So we MUST deal with this discord.

Exactly. The desire for a perfect harmonious Kingdom of perfect justice is a childish fantasy.

Quote: › Turning the other cheek IS ineffectual and jtm seems to have said several times that if he's bitten, he'll bite back. But he'd rather be dealing with other things. As I think most of us would. If your Will is to be in the lab, working hard on developing a new vaccine-or in the studio, cutting new forms into stone, or in the garden, tending vegetation, having bullets shot your way is going to be a hindrance and not some glorious war-world.

No, but bullets ARE shot peoples ways, no matter what they are doing - pretending like this doesnt happen is simply silly.

Quote: ›

I don't think a true Thelemite is looking for a big snuggly love-in or unnecessary strife (which, it may be argued, a certain type of "compassion" can evoke). But the Path leads to "joy of earth" even as it brings to the fore a billion different modes of approach and reaction to manifest this.

On the contrary, I think many are. I think 'joy of earth' certainly isnt a Garden of Eden where sheep and lions lie beside each other and feed each other grapes, thats for sure. I also cringe at your use of the phrase 'a true Thelemite'.

65 & 210,
111-418

Azidonis - Jul 12, 2007 - 01:17 PM
Post subject:

93,

So... wonderful Lineage discussion!

93 93/93

kidneyhawk - Jul 12, 2007 - 01:24 PM
Post subject:

Quote: ›
On the contrary, I think many are

Hence, I went back and added the preface "true" with a slight cringe myself but wishing to make the point that certain superficial embracings of slogans and quotes may oft indicate how the nature of the individual is looking for a banner to justify their stance.

Quote: ›
bullets ARE shot peoples ways, no matter what they are doing - pretending like this doesnt happen is simply silly

Hm. Did I communicate THAT badly? More than silly, it can be LETHAL to ignore the threat. I'm not ignoring it.

Quote: ›
The desire for a perfect harmonious Kingdom of perfect justice is a childish fantasy

Yes, but there IS something restless buried in the human being which desires change and evolution, which seeks out and enounters things like the AA Path of Attainment to nurture, fuel and develop this impulse.

Quote: ›
From the viewpoint of the infinite, or even from a few millenia, these 'cruelties' are laughable and often lead to much 'progress' in humanity

Sure. But from the viewpoint of being in the thick of it personally, I think one might just as soon see a different scenario-and take action to create it.

Quote: ›
From the viewpoint of the infinite

all the time you've spent typing and posting may very well be the most insignificant thing in the world. An utter waste of time.

So why bother?

MichaelStaley - Jul 12, 2007 - 01:39 PM
Post subject:

Aum418 wrote: › I think the point was that anyone who can understand the most basic meaning of things would interpret the lines that way, as does Crowley if you read the plethora of commentaries and other texts like Liber XC. You can nitpick and say 'being literate doesnt mean you can interpret things' but you obviously get the idea - this literal meaning is so clear that you would have to be illiterate not to see it.

If the literal interpretation of these lines is so obviously correct, why don't you apply a similar principle elsewhere? Why differentiate between a cup of coffee and a cup of hemlock, to take the example I gave?

Once again, you seem to have the idea that Crowley's opinion is the last word on matters. I don't, and am quite prepared to disagree with him where that seems appropriate to me. "Appropriate", in this case, means using my own judgement.

kidneyhawk - Jul 12, 2007 - 01:46 PM
Post subject:

Quote: ›
using my own judgement

LOL-! The crazy things this Path of Attainment does to people!

Who knew?

WillisNightwood - Jul 12, 2007 - 03:40 PM
Post subject:

[quote="jtm"]

Quote: ›
To put it bluntly, there is simply no constructive reason to be anything other than compassionate at all times to all beings. Anything else is ... well, a 'defilement'.

The problem is there is no such thing as compassion. It is a false concept and a false law created by the weak and fearful to enslave the strong and hide their shame of their own weakness.

Plato put it best in Gorgias:
"the makers of laws are the majority who are weak; and they, make laws and distribute praises and censures with a view to themselves and to their own interests; and they: terrify the stronger sort of men, and those who are able to get the better of them in order that they may not get the better of them"

When someone is "compassionate" they do so only to feel better about themselves because they are a "good" person or just plan self interest.

You said it yourself:

Quote: › And it's simple common sense. It makes my community more agreeable, and I never know when I'll need a handout and they'll be in the nice car.

The law of Thelema is the law of the strong. The Book of the Law tells us there is no law other than do what thy wilt. The law of society is compassion. You cannot follow both, as it says in the Bible, a man cannot follow two masters. Compassion is a chain upon the will.

"But if there were a man who had sufficient force, he would shake off and break through, and escape from all this; he would trample under foot all our formulas and spells and charms, and all our laws which are against nature"
Sounds like it came straight out of Crowley's mouth but it is Plato again.

I am not saying you should be cruel for the sake of cruelty but I am also saying you should not be compassionate for the sake of compassion. You should do what thy wilt without the chains and false laws of society.

kuniggety - Jul 12, 2007 - 04:33 PM
Post subject:

BlueKephra wrote: ›
And if I slap you for being an arse to me, maybe your backbone should come into play by your being "manly" enough to admit you deserved it, and to learn something from that.

Well, for the most part, I don't think physical retaliation is the best form of retort to someone being an arse, as it typically demonstrates an unbalance within the self. However, I would have to agree that some people do need some sense knocked into them and hopefully they're man enough to own up to the fact that they needed sense knocked into them.

I would respond to some other posts too but I think Aum418 said pretty much what I would say.

jw - Jul 12, 2007 - 05:04 PM
Post subject:

Aum418 wrote: › Again Aiwass repeats that “they feel not.” : Compassion, the noblest virtue of the Buddhist, is damned outright by Aiwass. To “suffer with” some other being is clearly to cease to be oneself, to wander from one’s Way. It always implies error, no Point-of-View being the same as any other: and in Kings—leaders and rulers of men—such error is a vice. For it leads straight to the most foolish Rule ever laid down, “Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.” True men know their own needs and find ways to supply them. To judge the sick by the healthy is pregnant with error. The wretched and the weak are simply not real beings; they cannot be helped or mended. They must be expunged as falsehoods likely to infect the truth. This is the law of Nature, and it is the Law of the Lords of the Aeon. Put into force it will fill the world with joy.

MichaelStaley wrote: › If the literal interpretation of these lines is so obviously correct, why don't you apply a similar principle elsewhere? Why differentiate between a cup of coffee and a cup of hemlock, to take the example I gave?

Once again, you seem to have the idea that Crowley's opinion is the last word on matters. I don't, and am quite prepared to disagree with him where that seems appropriate to me. "Appropriate", in this case, means using my own judgement.

I think the statement on Compassion presents different challenges from different perspectives. Aiwass' outright (i.e. literal) damning of the weak is survival of the fittest, the most basic evolutionary law. I don't think it implies that as a society we should round up the weak and murder them, but isn't the work of molecular biology slowly drawing us toward a sort of "neo-eugenics". Genetic modification is becoming more and more widespread in the food industry and has lead to better yields (bringing joy to both farmers and consumers). What brings more joy to a family: the strong, healthy, defect-free baby, or the sickly baby? It is not pleasant to face that fact, because most everyone is conditioned to support the weak as a basic societal concept running through our culture for thousands of years. Compassion as a vice of Kings (as leaders and rulers of men): preserve the weak, and the weak shall preserve you (edit: i.e. your self).

From the perspective of personal development I think the statement on Compassion in Book of the Law (II. 21) clearly reflect the point of view of the yogi. Destroy the weak beings: thought-forms, tamas, rajas, or whathaveyouu... all the way to the thought-form called "self". But we don't want to be swayed by the weak beings which dwell within others, so how should we do unto others? Compassion as a vice of Kings (not as leaders of men, but as Masters over Self): eliminate the weak (edit: i.e. help others to forget their own self).

Edited a couple times to clarify the points.

jtm - Jul 12, 2007 - 07:43 PM
Post subject:

Quote: ›
Anyone who is literate interprets those lines the same way.

Kunnigety : I am literate and I do not.

I'm not a 'pussy' because I don't slap someone back. If they haven't damaged me, and slapping them isn't worth the energy required (or the lawsuit possible), then there's just no point, sorry.

Of course, this is in regards to someone slapping me to find out if I'm an adept, as the case was put forth. If someone slapped me to start a fight, then it's guard up.

Anyway, a useless exercise here.

faustian - Jul 12, 2007 - 07:55 PM
Post subject:

I am sorry but I never thought of “compassion” in a derogatory way. The statement that “compassion is the vice of kings” is not a value judgment; simply a statement of fact. Compassion itself is an evolutionary component of our species and a perfectly natural biological extension of the fact that we as humans are carnivores. The same can be said for affection.

At some point in our evolutionary history we went from eating plants and vegetables to having to kill. This transition involved a risky behavior that necessitated collaborative behavior to bring down prey. Compassion and affection were simply evolutionary biological traits that gave a collaborative species and edge over a solitary one. If you think about it, only carnivores show any concern for others.

jtm - Jul 12, 2007 - 07:58 PM
Post subject:

Aum418 wrote: ›

kuniggety wrote: ›

jtm wrote: ›
Being slapped is by no means _necessarily_ a reason to slap someone back,

The problem is that youre 'interpreting' an esoteric work (yes I said it again). Arguing over the meaning of such a work is futile. It's an inner experience, at least for me.

Another problem is that you are arguing over interpretation of Crowley and Thelema and whose understanding and practice is 'correct' or whatever. Whereas I approach these topics from a position of objective reality. I do not accept Thelema or Liber AL as recieved truth anymore than I do the bible. They are all equal parts politics, personal delusion, symbolism, and psychosis. Same is true even for the Buddhist sutras. The discerning mind must pick his or her way through the morass to enlightenment.

Crowley's mind was never truly clear of the pollutions of desire, delusion, and addiction; and so any document produced by him must be taken in that light.

I know this puts me in the minority here, but as I understand it lashtal is open to Thelemites and non- alike. Actually, I consider myself as a thelemite with a small t, if you will.

Further, I'll say that interpretations like this lead to the common inclusion of the OTO in giant conspiracy theories concerning starting all wars int he world, the NWO, etc. etc., which I find laughable, but which some seem to take to heart, seemingly proven right by this type of rhetoric.

If only the OTO could get it together enough to be so powerful... but my guess is that if they DO have it together to that level, then they don't share your interpretation, else they'd have much more power and prestige than they do, instead of holding services in minimalls and cheap rented industrial space.

So in summation, stop quoting chapter and verse to me on this topic, and engage the mind. I do enjoy our exchanges when they're based in the realm of logic and history.

Oh, and finally - I don't apply those lines 'to myself'. I apply them in a very special way, which changes whenever I think about it. Such is the nature of esoteric works - always offering further insights that were never expected.

After all, do you envisage an actual woman riding an actual beast somewhere? Do you have an actual snake made of actual fire in your perineum?

jtm - Jul 12, 2007 - 08:13 PM
Post subject:

This thread strains me terribly.

There is nothing wrong with the 'self ceasing to exist'. In fact, it's kind of the whole point. So if that's what compassion does, so be it!

And I personally DO want to live in a nice snuggly love-in. What could possibly be better? It's called samadhi, satori, shunyata, nirvana. My flirtations with such experiences have been the highest points of my life. They require a shower and a nap, but they're why I'm alive.

Doctors in it for the money? Sure. But by no means all of them. Careful about speaking in absolutes, it's one of the main distinguishing characteristics of a fool. "The OTO has no full time temples..." "Everyone who reads this agrees"... "all doctors are in it for the money".

Not-speaking-in-absolutes is an elementary lesson which is probably required before even ENTERING on the path.

Evolve.
Seriously.

done with thread.

Azidonis - Jul 13, 2007 - 06:01 AM
Post subject:

93,

How about other things... such as: allowing this thread to continue extremely off-topic? Allowing it to go on and to continue to cater to the discussion and enjoin oneself into it without making the effort to stay on topic, is indeed a form of compassion. It denotes a passion for the subject that the posters have ran off onto, thereby dismantling the original theme of this thread.

As a Thelemite then, I am going to exercise my lack of compassion and say... why not make a f#*king compassion thread?

As for the Lineages themselves, the original subject of this thread... ahem.

In a discussion with another poster on these boards a couple of weeks ago, we talked about the various Lineages of A:.A:. Granted, there are some which are publicly known, and some which are not. It is assumed that the ones that aren't choose to remain so, which is fine as a rule.

Verily it must be true, the statement "ye shall know them by their fruits".

We have, according to my very understudied knowledge (due to my current position and predicament in space-time), quite a few public Lineages. We have the Cornelius Lineage which boasts its ties to Grady McMurtry. There is the (c)OTO Lineage, which has its ties to Frater Achad. There is Soror Meral and Soror Desti. Whether or not that Lineage is the same I don't remember. As I recall at least one of them has founded the Thelemic College. Also, there are at least two Lineages with ties to Marcelo Motta. Since neither of those are very public I'll not discuss names out of respect for privacy and personal restraint. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any points above. That gives at least 5 strong Lineages. This is perfectly okay, considering the very task of the Exempt Adept.

I also realized as I was writing this, that I've personally learned much more about the Lineage question in private conferences than public forums. However, it's still a good question to ask if anyone knows of other public Lineages around the world.

Of course there is always the debate of the differences between approaches of the various Lineages, and the various claims that some have made.

Alright, the topic has been reiterated due to my lack of compassion for constantly trying to follow a topic I created and having to read about f#*king compassion. Oddly, I've managed to stay on both topics.

As ye Will...

93 93/93,

Az

Azidonis - Aug 02, 2007 - 09:09 PM
Post subject:

93,

Alright, how about a few ideas... As I obviously don't mind being proved wrong from time to time (Re: some of my frivolous efforts on another thread), and I obviously don't mind "stirring the pot" with ideas, let's play...

In the course of discovery (two hours research on a slow connection and a good Google engine), we have a very few good points lurking about.

The first point to be made is the very definite stance on the difference between the S.O.T.O. and the (c)O.T.O. While this is NOT the thread to be debating the O.T.O. in, I will briefly say that the (c)O.T.O. has their claims, and the S.O.T.O. has theirs. In the attempt to provide some useful information, and with a very clear and concise statement that I TAKE NO SIDES here and have no affiliations with either party, I'll provide a bit of information.

There is quite a bit of information running around for either party. The first thing to do then, is to address some points of that information.

The reader can find the Home Page of Society Ordo Templi Orientis here: [url]http://www.castletower.org/[/url]
Likewise, the (c)Ordo Templi Orientis has it's U.S.A. Home Page here:
[url]http://oto-usa.org/[/url]

The point in putting these two links here, is to leave the decision to the reader, and to keep them out of this thread and Forum, as Paul has stated that he does not want to see the O.T.O. debate thrash itself around on Lashtal.com.

In the interest of the thread then, we go to information provided by the S.O.T.O. This information plainly states that Aleister Crowley appointed Karl Germer to be His successor in the A:.A:. and O.T.O. A copy of the letter is found here: [url]http://www.castletower.org/chief.html[/url].

Well, as the (c)O.T.O. has it's history set up, we find here: [url]http://www.hermetic.com/heidrick/oto_history.html[/url] that the (c)O.T.O. makes the claim that Karl Germer took the reigns as the O.H.O. of the O.T.O.

Of course, Mr. Koenig has to grace us with his presence in this search, for he attempts to explain that Mr. Germer quite simply had little to nothing to do with the O.T.O. here: [url]http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/sunrise/germer.htm[/url]

Well, that tosses things around a bit!

On top of this, we have the S.O.T.O., which makes their claims to the original O.T.O., and explains how it happened here: [url]http://www.castletower.org/sketch.html[/url]

In an attempt to put the pieces together, it would appear that Karl Germer did very little if anything as the O.H.O., and quite simply passed his duties onward to Marcelo Motta. This theory would make some sense as to Koenig's and the S.O.T.O's claims.

Where Mr. Grady McMurtry is concerned, we have here: [url]http://www.castletower.org/grady.html[/url] a copy of the letter sent to McMurtry expelling him from the O.T.O. on July 14, 1984 e.v. Mr. McMurtry died on July 12, 1985, all due respects given. The pertinence of this claim to our current discuss has only so much relevance however, and I will not attempt to expound it at this time. (It should be obvious.)

Alright, so there was a bit of a schism, as expected.

Aside from that, we have the following...

1. Mr. Grady McMurtry, Frater Hymenaeus Alpha, has passed on a Lineage of the A:.A:. in some form through Mr. Jerry Cornelius, Frater Achad Osher. One link for this Lineage can be found here: [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20050305024914/www.redflame93.com/RedFlame.html[/url]

2. Jane Wolfe, Soror Estai, has passed on a Lineage of the A:.A:. in some form through Phyllis Seckler, Soror Meral. Soror Meral has in turn passed on a Lineage of the A:.A:. in some form through James A. Eshelman. A link is provided here: [url]http://www.thelema.org/aa/index.html [/url]

3. The (c)O.T.O. - Fittingly, on the front page of the S.O.T.O. Home Page, it clearly states that Marcelo Motta expelled William (Bill) Breeze, Hymenaeus Beta, from the A:.A:. due to negligence. It is elsewhere stated, and I haven't the time to look as this took me two hours to comprise, that the connections to the (c)O.T.O. are with the Lineage of Frater Achad (somehow). This link is provided here: [url]http://www.oto-usa.org/aa.html[/url]

4. The S.O.T.O. - As per the History page of the Site here: [url]http://www.castletower.org/sketch.html[/url] David Bersson, Frater Sphinx, has carried on the Lineage of Mr. Marcelo Motta, Frater Parzival, in at least one way. Interestingly enough, Mr. Berrson's Web Site gives a special link to here: [url]http://www.hoor.org/[/url], The Holy Order of Ra Hoor Khuit, which is headed by Mr. Ray Eales. I will not go into much more detail here at this time.

So there you have at least 4 paper trails, even if the details are a bit sketchy. I'm positive that a creative and able mind can fill in the gaps, or debate the claims of either of these four trails. That is what this thread is about. Again, it IS NOT about the O.T.O. and the various claims made for succession of its rights.

Well, that's about it from me, for now. I've given 4 who have willingly put their names on the Web and elsewhere. There are two more who haven't done so, at least to my knowledge, and out of respect I will only slightly mention them here. That gives at least six, just in the U.S.A.

As always, good luck in the Great Work!

93 93/93,

Az

Azidonis - Aug 03, 2007 - 02:33 PM
Post subject:

93,

Again, we are graced with a wonderful exposition of how some things happened back then, where the 'paper trails' of the A:.A:. are concerned. I won't rant on this, but only place the partial information, and a link to the Site here: http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/minutes/minutes.htm

"William Breeze thought that after "Germer's death, Motta effectively held all of the offices [of the A\A\] as he was the only officer alive". But when Marcelo Motta (8=3) had dismissed Breeze as a failed probationer in June 1976, he decided - according to his own words to Marcelo Santos -- to form a link to "the A\A\ proper" and hit back that Motta gave up his authority to govern the A\A\ already in 1975 when commenting Liber AL.

Phyllis Seckler had 'expelled' McMurtry from her Jane Wolfe A\A\ lineage back in 1979 although McMurtry had assumed the 9=2 in 1977 and Seckler was a 5=6 only. Breeze was not able to join either the Wolfe or the McMurtry lineage (eventually pretending that Phyllis Seckler was not very well-trained) and having no links to the many other A\A\ lineages all over the world, e.g. Arnoldo Krumm-Heller's (8=3) or Charles W.'s (5=6), Friedrich Mellinger's, etc. he still had to find another tie, although Liber Causae says that the A\A\ knocks but once at one's door.

Harry Smith, born 1923, a friend of Karl Germer (8=3), began A\A\ work with Charles Stansfeld Jones (1885-1950, Magister Templi, some say Magus) and Albert Handel around 1950. But as this survivorship of Jones came after Crowley had expelled Jones, some people consider this lineage as invalid. Nevertheless, from 1978 on, William Breeze living partime together with the 'American Magus' Smith, admired him as "my guru, friend and guide" (similarly did James Wasserman who never went above Probationer in Motta's A\A\). After Breeze became head of his 'Caliphate' he immediately began bringing people into his A\A\. This was 1985.

After Grady McMurtry's death in 1985, the pertinent A\A\ had splintered into 'at least' three lineages, run by J. Edward Cornelius, William Heidrick and James T. Graeb. Therefore, the 'Caliphate' under Breeze became a battleground for Breeze's new A\A\ (sometimes mistaken for Motta's A\A\) vs. McMurtry's A\A\.

Harry Smith died in 1991. Maybe around this time, James Daniel Gunther came forward because he had a Charter by Marcelo Motta (although he had resigned by letter when he was 4=7): On 18 July 1976, Gunther, Wasserman and Richard Gernon had left Motta: Wasserman and Gernon in order to join McMurtry's 'Caliphate'.
In the back of those books which Breeze published, such as 'Magick (Liber ABA)' in late 1994 Breeze's A\A\ officially moved out into the public's eye. In 'The Commentaries on The Holy Books' (1996) one got a first official mention of Martin Starr's involvement. In a piece entitled 'Liber Vesta' (not written by Crowley) they listed on the inside, Frater V as 7=4 which is Gunther. Then Frater VV as 6=5 which is Breeze and Frater SUA as 5=6 or Starr (with his address as Cancellarius)." -P.R.Koenig

That effectively clears up what happened with Hymenaeus Alpha and Soror Meral, as well as how the events occurred with Hymenaeus Beta and Frater Achad, in a round-a-bout way.

93 93/93,
Az

Edit - Here is yet another interesting Site on the subject, with a bit of a different viewpoint than I've been approaching thus far: http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Fcrowley.htm

JohnS - Aug 03, 2007 - 09:20 PM
Post subject:

Hmmm, methinks we are all just a bunch of slappers !!

wolf354 - Aug 03, 2007 - 11:01 PM
Post subject:

Greetings
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

After reading the last posts on this thread... personaly I don't like Koenig's texts because they are always full of hatred towards someone (most of the times the target is Hymanaeus Beta).

I am not implying that Koenig and Breeze should be best friens, lol, he can hate him as much as he likes. But his texts loose much interest (and probably more readers) with his continuous banging on "OTO Inc." and similar stuff.
Most people don't really care about it. Readers that are looking for hate targets will be pleased with these texts, but are these readers the aim of such texts?

Love is the law, love under will
Best regards

MichaelStaley - Aug 03, 2007 - 11:22 PM
Post subject:

wolf354 wrote: › After reading the last posts on this thread... personaly I don't like Koenig's texts because they are always full of hatred towards someone (most of the times the target is Hymanaeus Beta).

Although it's a little off-topic, your remarks cannot stand without comment. Koenig's texts, although often critical, are certainly not "always full of hatred towards someone". Although Peter Koenig - like all of us - does have some bees in his bonnet, he doesn't hate Bill Breeze, or anything like it. Breeze is simply one individual amongst many of whom he is critical, and it is absurd to describe such criticism as "hatred".

The topic of this thread is the A.'. A.'., and the quote by Azidonis of the account by Koenig is within that context, and within this thread should be viewed in that context only.

KCh - Aug 03, 2007 - 11:26 PM
Post subject:

From the "Praemonstrance" of the Equinox IV Number 1:

Quote: › "Since its establishment, the many, whose name is legion, have sought to profit by the reputation of the A.'. A.'., and some have been deceived thereby. How can one tell the false from the True? The principles of the Order of A.'. A.'. are clear and unequivocal; those who act in a manner contrary to them are automatically excluded from its fold. It requires no oaths of secrecy, or vows of obedience to any individual. No money is ever requested when its teachings are dispensed or when an attainment is recognized by its Authority. The Order does not operate in lodges, campuses, lecture circles or groups of any kind. From the start the Work is individual and private; every Aspirant to the Order has the benefit of working under the direction of one who has trod the Path before him or her, and who in turn can seek assistance from one yet more experienced.

The Order is One, unbroken in its Chain of succession from V.V.V.V.V. through its senior living Adepti. The Order is One, although it functions in a threefold manner: Speech in Silence, Silence, and Silence in Speech. The Order is One, as there is but One Eye in the Triangle."

From "Occultism" by Aleister Crowley:

Quote: › "Is it wonderful that the most difficult of all subjects, the science which above all others has occupied the minds of the greatest thinkers from the dawn of history until today, the pyramid to which the greatest builder would hardly dare to claim that he had added a single stone, should need more work, and harder work, than any other? The subtlest of sciences, is it not the most in need of precision? The most dangerous, is it not that which must be fenced with every armour of caution, and cool judgment, and common sense?

Does any man expect to learn trigonometry from a popular handbook in an hour? Does any man throw away a treatise on conic sections with the remark that it is "obscure" or "all rubbish"? What is the cost to life of every advance in knowledge? How many men have died that other men might fly? How many lives were lost in the mere building of the Forth Bridge?

Do you think that you will succeed where Plato half failed, rush in where Aristotle feared to tread? You may. But not without giving all that you have and are.

Does this discourage you? Then it is not written in vain.

Does this encourage you? Then you have passed the first ordeal. You are chosen. To the work!

All great men of science and art have been members of the A.'. A.'., the true lineage. The true lineage of those that have given themselves in the progression of art and science so that others may enjoy the fruits of the convenience that makes even further progression possible.

Round and Round and Round we Go,
Where we stop, No One knows...

jcyn1973 - Aug 04, 2007 - 12:23 AM
Post subject:

"Onward through the Fog !"

Thanx for the ReSearch, Azi

wolf354 - Aug 04, 2007 - 12:55 AM
Post subject:

Greetings
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

MichaelStaley wrote: ›
Although it's a little off-topic, your remarks cannot stand without comment. Koenig's texts, although often critical, are certainly not "always full of hatred towards someone". Although Peter Koenig - like all of us - does have some bees in his bonnet, he doesn't hate Bill Breeze, or anything like it. Breeze is simply one individual amongst many of whom he is critical, and it is absurd to describe such criticism as "hatred".

The topic of this thread is the A.'. A.'., and the quote by Azidonis of the account by Koenig is within that context, and within this thread should be viewed in that context only.

You are sugesting that we should ignore all comments about Breeze in the text? Well I was sugesting that the author doesn't have much credit (at leas for me) due to that kind of comments.

We have diferent opinions on several subjects and this is just another one.

An interesting experience can be to write one post about any subject and at the same time making the text words and style as close as possible to a random Koenig's article from his site.
That can be much clearer than my explanations.

Love is the law, love under will
Best regards

Alex_Bennett - Aug 04, 2007 - 10:52 AM
Post subject:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Lineages real or imaginary seem to me to miss the point. Th A.:A.: was a revival of the G. Very Happy

.: which after all was a hoax. The grade papers for the Golden Dawn were mysteriously discovered in a bookshop in London and then lost in a cab. It sounds to me like it was more likely made up down the pub and ended up in a bookshop.
Trying to establish who is the true and rightfull heir and ruler of a system that dennies egomania is such a brilliant joke, I wish I had thought of it. Crowley deliberately threw everyone, yes including McMurtry, out of the OTO just prior to his death, in order for people not to fall into this trap. The fact that some people have then gone on to build the trap and move right on back in, is a testament to the stupidity of man, not as they would hope, to its enlightenment. I can read their dreams of our grovelling bows and worship to which I must shout, "WAKE UP!".
The A.:A.: is a poem, an anology, for what occurs on the higher plains amongst the truely enlightened beings that secretly live here on Earth. The Tantrikas call it Shambhalla for instance. On Earth they could be anyone, tramps even. Only on the higher plains do they have the beautiful robes and crowns in truth, all down here are mere props at best, costume jewelry.
Religion has never owned enlightenment. It may own countries, armies, gold and slaves but never enlightenment. Anyone and I mean anyone who says that this or that is the ONLY WAY to enlightenment, shoot them. They are the evil ones, the fascists of the soul.

Love & Law,
Alex

Love is the law, love under will.

Azidonis - Aug 04, 2007 - 12:21 PM
Post subject:

93,

Alex, I agree with what you say, above, and only want to ask one thing. You said that Crowley deliberately threw everyone out of the O.T.O. before his death. Do you know where we might find this information?

Wolf354, the main reason I posted the texts I did, is that they are easily accessible documents providing information on the ways that the many people involved in both the A:.A:. and O.T.O. went after the death of Aleister Crowley. As such, P.R. Koenig's apparent "agenda" towards the Caliphate. It was clearly stated at the outset of those posts, that the Caliphate or any such mess concerning any O.T.O. is not the subject of this thread.

However, I'll humor you on just one point. I've read through Koenig's Site a few times, and it's interesting to me how he puts forth such a large mass of information. If his personal views would have overflowed too much into his Site, he would've possibly went into the realm of "slander" which he could indeed be sued for, but hasn't to my knowledge. On top of this, I've had conversations with both Jim Graeb and Bill Heidrick on this matter and others, and both parties have constantly declined to prove or disprove any claims made by Koenig or others. With that said, I'll continue with the thread...

Ahem. It is indeed true that "who has the copyrights" doesn't really matter. It is indeed true that the A:.A:. proper is not to be defined by any such paper trail. It is also true, at least in my experience, that to go "searching" for the A:.A:. will simply end nowhere. "When the Student is ready, the Teacher will appear." This thread is not about how to get into contact with the A:.A:. though. In truth, we are all, always in contact with the A:.A:. even when we know it not.

So then, the point of this thread is to simply put out, by means of simple research, which directions the various Adepts went after Crowley's death, and to shine some light on what could possibly be the current situation. It is too often that Seekers end up falling for full loads of horse shit just because they are instinctively "looking" for something they do not quite know how to find. Experience says, "just do the Work, and the rest will come together as it shows." However, anyone who has done/is doing even the Probationer work knows that to just "Do the Work" can at times be a monstrous effort!

With that in mind, I've decided to create this thread. I've decided to do the research to put something on the Lashtal.com Website that can easily be found in other places, but is not always found in one place. In short, I've made an attempt at consolidating all of the information lurking around, in an attempt to make it more readily available.

The A:.A:. System, as comprised by George Cecil Jones and Aleister Crowley, has taken many different Outer Courses since its inception. This is wonderful for growth, and is encouraged. As such, each Exempt Adept is required to formulate hir own school of thought. That's part of the Beauty in the System.

When we go to trace our own existence, through Liber Thisharb or any other method, we invariably arrive at our own state of material and even Spiritual Infancy. In that light, all events from that Point until this one comprise who we are. It is in that same light that I have endeavored to assist others by bringing all of the various Ways and Methods to the A:.A:. into a single thread, here on Lashtal.com. For those that would like to assist and/or debate, you are more than welcome. For those that may find this of future use, you are welcome as well. For those that think I'm wasting my time or tampering with something that is better left alone, I honestly think that you are full of it. The information is there already. I am doing nothing but putting it into one place.

Where the personal opinions of those writing works cited are concerned (ie. Mr. Koenig and others), I must say that if the information he presents is false, please help the Thelemic community by providing proof of the appropriate information, for Mystery if the Enemy of Truth. If the information is sound, use your best judgment to leave the personal quirks of the writers out of it, and just use the information contained therein. It has been a big problem for the past few decades that instead of presenting factual information, people have been concerned with their own slants to it. As someone who has no affiliation with any of the groups mentioned, I feel that I am in a good place to take the fruits of either side, and leave their personal dispositions where they should be, and that's with them.

93 93/93,

Az

wolf354 - Aug 04, 2007 - 12:48 PM
Post subject:

Greetings
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

Azidonis wrote: › 93,
..

Wolf354, the main reason I posted the texts I did, is that they are easily accessible documents providing information on the ways that the many people involved in both the A:.A:. and O.T.O. went after the death of Aleister Crowley. As such, P.R. Koenig's apparent "agenda" towards the Caliphate. It was clearly stated at the outset of those posts, that the Caliphate or any such mess concerning any O.T.O. is not the subject of this thread.

However, I'll humor you on just one point. I've read through Koenig's Site a few times, and it's interesting to me how he puts forth such a large mass of information. If his personal views would have overflowed too much into his Site, he would've possibly went into the realm of "slander" which he could indeed be sued for, but hasn't to my knowledge. On top of this, I've had conversations with both Jim Graeb and Bill Heidrick on this matter and others, and both parties have constantly declined to prove or disprove any claims made by Koenig or others. With that said, I'll continue with the thread...
y should be, and that's with them.
...

There isn't much information available regarding the A.'.A.'. from most of it's members among most lineages.
With one exception, Marcelo Ramos Motta. There are many documents floating on the internet (including mp3) from Motta and most of the times they mention the A.'.A.'.
Many of the texts I've read are in portuguese thou, maybe it is a nice language for you to learn! It will surely make very clear that Breeze isn't working with Motta's lineage.
Motta did mention that Kenneth Grant was a Probationer he was teaching (not a student) and if I met Grant in person this experience from him would surely be one of the questions for me to ask.

Love is the law, love under will
Best regards

Alex_Bennett - Aug 04, 2007 - 01:04 PM
Post subject:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

There were several letters sent out arround the time Crowley's death, from him to his various students at the time. All of the letters he sent to magcikal order students (as they were by no means all in his orders) made it quite clear that any magickal order that he was head of, he did not intend to continue after his death. He may not have made specific statements and was deliberately vague. The message was clear though, he saw nobody who had stuck with his various orders as up to the task. Caliphate's love to say how Kenneth Grant was formally expelled when his expulsion was more of a falling out over some silly idea. Grant's and indeed everyone's expulsions was all part of Crowley's general displeasure with the idea that someone's ego was going to replace him after his death. He wrote letters to everone saying he sconsidered the order pretty much disolved and that everyone would have to do it for themselves after his death. Of course the big egos interpreted that to mean that they could all be the OHO, and why not they had done the grovelling (sorry work as you call it) after all.

The true work changed completely after Crowley. By the 50s it was Wicca, the 60s and 70s Tantra, the late 70s and 80s Chaos Magick and so on. Nowadays it seems to be eclectic Neo-Paganism or something like that. Crowley has and will remain a cornerstone to all of this work, the names though will change with time to protect the inocent. The Theosophical based systems, with those extreemly boring Golden Dawn rituals and patraichal interpretations of everything (e.g. Tzaddi is the Star) is now thankfully dead and buried.
I have read the A.:A.: reading list, gone through their meditations, studied yoga intensively with various teachers, been in several magickal groups and so on. I hold initiations as an Adi-Nath, a Gardnerian Wiccan, from the Golden Dawn but none of them mean as much to me as my self initaition that happened prior to that. I see the others as mere formalities. I considered myself a self initiate of the A.:A.: in my youth until I met some of that and other orders and was put off them for life. They are a joke if they actually believe that they are doing any 'work' at all really. I think the Boyscouts are probably more vital to the world.

Crowley seems to me to be about the only member of any of his orders that actually went out into the world and achieved anything. Perhaps Fuller helped Hitler and the Nazis (if you call that an achievement) for a bit and Parsons indulged his pyromania. Spare is the only one who was to become anyone in his own right and he was expelled as a Black Brother (the only thing to be in Thelema in truth).
No if you want to believe that ascending the grades is 'work' then you would be better off in Skull & Bones or mainstream Freemasonry really. The real work is done in secret with only your gaurdian angel as witness.

Love & Law,
Alex

Love is the law, love under will.

ianrons - Aug 04, 2007 - 01:30 PM
Post subject:

93 Alex,

Alex_Bennett wrote: › There were several letters sent out arround the time Crowley's death, from him to his various students at the time. All of the letters he sent to magcikal order students (as they were by no means all in his orders) made it quite clear that any magickal order that he was head of, he did not intend to continue after his death. He may not have made specific statements and was deliberately vague.

The evidence sharply contradicts this claim. You've been a member of this site for long enough to know that unsubstantiated claims of this nature aren't to be made lightly.

The evidence is that Crowley spent a good deal of time and consideration on the question of his successor in OTO (Germer), and even on the question of the subsequent successor. The instruction "Trust not a stranger, fail not of an heir" was at the forefront of his mind. Various letters are available in the Downloads section, to which I suggest you refer.

Note that Crowley also considered Germer to be his successor in the A.'.A.'.. Re: Grant's expulsion, yes it was formal and there is documentation to support that. As far as I am aware, it isn't even a contentious issue.

Quote: › They are a joke if they actually believe that they are doing any 'work' at all really.

The universe is a magick mirror...

Quote: › Crowley seems to me to be about the only member of any of his orders that actually went out into the world and achieved anything. [...] The real work is done in secret with only your gaurdian angel as witness.

I assume, then, that you will be keeping your achievements very secret and only occasionally coming out to air the resultant insights in public.

93 93/93
Ian

Alex_Bennett - Aug 04, 2007 - 06:22 PM
Post subject:

This subject drags on and on and on and on.., that's my complaint really. I am not nor have ever been interested enough to keep sources but in the 25 years I have been a dedicated Thelemite, I have never met anyone who didn't if they were truely honest, think that McMurtry didn't just reinvent it all for some of his mates. I couldn't care less about Germer or whoever really. Most people I know in the Caliphate OTO join because they first want to be the OHO and when they realise that all the other bastards aren't going to let them, they stay in the order to be a thorn in their side and spy from within or just to make sure that the person who pissed them off doesn't become OHO either. The result is just a more cleeky freemasonry, except not many of them are judges or CEOs of companys or anything usefull like that. In Victorian times freemasonry was the British Mafia really, not a religion and still is to some extent.

On second thought perhaps the like of Lon Milo DuQuette is not so bad but the 19th centuary approach of neo-freemasonic Thelema seems to stiffle individuality rather than encourage it. While I love Crowley's books with a passion, virtually all the other Thelemite authors put me to sleep immediately, Grant included. Only the ones who went on to explore different avenues of Thelema are exciting. In my own work I have studdied the likes of Spare, Gardner, Lawrence Miles (aka Sri Mahendranath Maharaj) who all contributed something that made Thelema greater. That is what I mean by achievement and if I do nothing but point that out, I will have done more than all the OHOs or whatever, since Crowley, put together. I am always happy to put my back into building the overall Thelemic comunity, I resent the OTO thinking that they have done it all, when they do nothing but for themselves as a rule.
I guess I am bored with the lack of interesting stuff in the stagnant Thelemic scene of recent. I take your point that I can do something about this too. Thank you for your criticism I will attempt to make amends.
I will say this though. The trouble with an extreemely over intelectualised system that some have made or more accurately, interpreted the A.:A.: to be, is that it gets you to a point then actaully becomes a hindrance to further developement. Analysis is useless without synthesis and we have plenty to digest but not the will to challenge an allready over burdenning orthodoxy. Crowley is no longer here to yay or nay everything so we may just have to agree to disgree instead. Spending your lives trying to interpret a shopping note that he may have left behind, as to whether that meant that Crowley agrees with the eating of halibut or not, is not really the point is it?

Love & Law,
Alex

Azidonis - Aug 04, 2007 - 08:52 PM
Post subject:

93,

Alex_Bennett wrote: › The trouble with an extreemely over intelectualised system that some have made or more accurately, interpreted the A.:A.: to be, is that it gets you to a point then actaully becomes a hindrance to further developement. Analysis is useless without synthesis

Good point. Therefore, what we have on this particular thread is the "analysis" of the various things which occurred after Crowley's death, the potential for the "analysis" of what each of these individuals decided to do with themselves with that which was entrusted to them, and the potential "synthesis" of this information into a clear idea of "where they are now", which is what Lineage is all about anyway, right?

It's funny. There has been mention of slapping in the face, the Caliphate, and Mr. Koenig... but no mention of David Berrson, Ray Eales, or two of the other two apparent "successors" of Motta's Lineage? We've about covered McMurtry in less words and Soror Estai in even less...

About Mr. Motta... there is much more information in English than which I was aware, actually. It seems the guy did indeed write his share, and definitely had the "force & fire" idea worked out, in my opinion.

93 93/93,

Az

whitewolfman999 - Dec 03, 2007 - 11:29 PM
Post subject:

Quote: › There has been mention of slapping in the face, the Caliphate, and Mr. Koenig... but no mention of David Berrson, Ray Eales, or two of the other two apparent "successors" of Motta's Lineage? We've about covered McMurtry in less words and Soror Estai in even less...

93.

Dear Brother, where you have been denied by others, I will attempt to assist. Out of the whole by two hands, then!

First, and most important. The A.'.A.'. is separate and distinct from the O.T.O. One does not lead to the other. One is a fraternal organization, the other an august brotherhood. So, it is of no value to compare the various groups going by that name. Please don't mistake this as criticism of anyone's claims. It is irrelevant.

I will not engage in name calling. Your links to research are fine. Read them all, especially what they say about themselves and each other. "By their fruits you shall know them." Use it like a mantra.

I've personally looked through all available information, and have been in contact with a few representatives from different lineages. Ask yourself, "Do I want to follow in their example?, be my own Aleph to their Lamed? In other words, "do I want to be as f[expletive]d up as this person?" Association breeds assimilation. Again, "By their fruits you shall know them."

And when you have gathered your thoughts, cast your ballot, for, "By your fruits, shall they know you."

93, 93/93

gurugeorge - Dec 04, 2007 - 03:08 AM
Post subject:

What fun!

My thoughts on lineage: as a Probationer in good standing with Motta at the time of his death, I have to say that it's quite simple: to me Germer was obviously Crowley's successor (because Crowley said so) and Marcelo Motta was obviously Germer's (because Germer said so). To me, Motta's the only one of the bunch at that time who had any intelligence and fire, whose writings made me feel the exact same sense of weirdness I get when reading Crowley - a sort of bracing feeling, a sense of fearlessness, a feeling of breathing clean air at lofty heights (similar to Nietzsche too). (Germer didn't seem to write anything public, but when you read his letters to people, there's the same loftiness and clarity there too. I don't find the same clarity in many other writings by people who are interested in Thelema, only flashes here and there, but not as strong or consistent as in these 3 people. Horses for courses I guess.)

However, my feeling is that Motta may have gone wrong in going to court. I had a bad feeling about it at the time because a) most people, even smart people like those in the legal profession, don't understand initiation, and b) it seemed that while, to anyone who has ears to hear, Motta's claim as Germer's spiritual successor is sound (Germer's dying wish being reported as it was by a lady - Germer's wife - who had made no secret of disliking Motta), it's true that "Follower" is not an OTO term, and there was little actual hard evidence that would hold up in court (not that there was any more for McMurtry! Smile

). The court judgement was laughable - "OHO for the USA" anyone? On the other hand, I'm not a military man, and it may have been Motta's intention for things to work out the way they did (cf. the letter from Soror Khalih Athena on Koenig's site, where she says "the OTO field has been mined", whatever that means!).

I don't see any successors to Motta. Possibly Barden (his little essay on initiation appended to the court case material tucked away on his now-defunct website was superb), but he seems to have fallen off the edge of the world. Bersson seems to be a mini-Motta, Eales seems smart but a bit limp-wristed, and as for the guys who betrayed their teacher and then went on to become part of McMurtry's OTO, the less said the better. I'm a bit of a Koenig fan, and I reckon he's got about the right take on the OTO at the moment: "McDonaldasation of Occulture." OTOH, having said that, I've seen a few websites of some of the OTO camps where people seem to be doing good stuff, particularly the ones that are run by women.

I reckon it's all to play for in the future of Thelema. Forms of social and initiatic order are going to evolve naturally that we can have no inkling of now. It would have been nice to have a consistent linkage to the past through the OTO and A:.A:., but most of the people involved were too crazy to do anything sensibly, and it doesn't really matter in the end. The world is already undergoing transformation in a Thelemic manner due to the Magick of Crowley (early 20th century social changes), Germer (mid 20th century social changes) and Motta (late 20th century social changes). All that sundry shagging of wives, girlfriends and prostitutes was to some purpose you know! (*Ahem*, if you believe in that sort of thing ... Smile

)

Re. compassion: it's a vice, but we know what Liber AL says about vices. Metaphysically it's actually an idea that doesn't even fit in with Buddhism (compassion for non-existent entities? What's that all about?) but nevertheless it is felt (if you're a strong, decent human being) - it's the natural result of an overflowing abundance of energy, a sort of leakage or defect arising therefrom.

Furthermore, IMHO Liber AL isn't something to be "obeyed" unless you're in an "official" position in the Heirarchy, if that be your Will. In fact, it's one book that should definitely be burnt Wink

Iskandar - Dec 04, 2007 - 06:46 AM
Post subject:

gurugeorge wrote: ›

Re. compassion: it's a vice, but we know what Liber AL says about vices. Metaphysically it's actually an idea that doesn't even fit in with Buddhism (compassion for non-existent entities? What's that all about?) but nevertheless it is felt (if you're a strong, decent human being) - it's the natural result of an overflowing abundance of energy, a sort of leakage or defect arising therefrom.

I was surprised a bit with the above satement by gurugeorge, whose posts are habitually very mature and informed about good academic writing. So compassion, then. The point of it in Buddhism is not related to 'non-existing entities.' This is misunderstanding of the concept of emptiness (shunyata). Emptiness does not mean that phenomena do not exist at all; it only means that their existence is contingent. Terminology creates problems. When we say 'emptiness,' the question is, empty of what? And the answer is, empty of independent eternal unchanging self-existence (svabhava). All phenomena are mutually co-dependent. Nothing and nobody can exist in isolation, unrelated to and unaffected by the others. This being so, we are all part of a large network, famously described by a metaphor of Indra's net, where every knot in the net is a jewel in which every other jewel is reflected, as it itself is also reflected in every other jewel. (Very much like Crowley's Star Sponge Vision.) The practical outcome of this is that there is no other. Everything is co-dependent. Thus compassion in Buddhism naturally arises from the insight into emptiness and to be compassionate does not mean to feel a pity towards somebody who is lower than you; it means, helping oneself, taking care of larger 'you,' since, to repeat, there is no other.

Also, in all this talk about compassion, I am somewhat puzzled by the fact that - it seems to me - everybody is overlooking "Love is the law" aspect of Thelema. So I would propose that in Thelema compassion is expressed as 'love under will.' This is significant, I would say. Christian 'caritas,' Buddhist 'caruna,' Thelemic 'love' are - from at least one point of view - various expressions of the same phenomenon. It might be significant that in the New Aeon this is conceptualized as 'love' and qualified as 'under will.' The existence is the same, the phenomena are the same, but our understanding and our expression changes.

And I apologize that I have also strayed off the topic of lineages.

phthah - Dec 04, 2007 - 11:00 PM
Post subject:

93 gurugeorge,

I enjoyed your post regarding Lineages.

Quote: › gurugeorge wrote: Re. compassion: it's a vice, but we know what Liber AL says about vices. Metaphysically it's actually an idea that doesn't even fit in with Buddhism (compassion for non-existent entities? What's that all about?) but nevertheless it is felt (if you're a strong, decent human being) - it's the natural result of an overflowing abundance of energy, a sort of leakage or defect arising therefrom.

There was an interesting thread (at least it started out that way) regarding compassion here: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/PNphpBB2-vi ... sion.phtml

Also regarding Compassion, you had mentioned Motta, take a look at his comments to AL II 21 and see what you think.

Sorry for the off topic reply. It was somewhat prompted by Gordan's post.

93 93/93

ALHA - Dec 05, 2007 - 11:25 AM
Post subject:

Talking about A:.A:. lineages, is anybody on the list aware of late W.W.Webb's claims to an A:.A:. lineage, and where his lineage is coming from? Is it authenthic (in a sense that it is possible to trace it down to Crowley somehow, like in tradition of 'apostolic succession')? I am interested in this historically, if anybody got any historic information of Webb's contacts with people claiming membership in A:.A:. ... Thanks.

MichaelStaley - Dec 06, 2007 - 05:00 PM
Post subject:

I seem to recall Webb being mentioned in a couple of letters by Germer. There's information about Webb on Peter Koenig's website. I'll try and dig up some more information for you from the McStaley Archives when I get some time.

Smile

uranus - Dec 07, 2007 - 10:59 PM
Post subject:

gurugeorge wrote: ›
I don't see any successors to Motta. Possibly Barden (his little essay on initiation appended to the court case material tucked away on his now-defunct website was superb), but he seems to have fallen off the edge of the world. Bersson seems to be a mini-Motta, Eales seems smart but a bit limp-wristed,

Snipped what I mostly agree with. LOL.

For some clarifications on this though. Barden did indeed pass away. Bersson is much more than a mini-Motta though for all appearances he is a mini-Motta but that is because most people haven't read his material. IS he all he claims to be? I can not be the judge but I do think most people do NOT understand what a Master is and often confuse it the way that Black Brother, Black Lodge and Black School get confused. I place a big emphasis on LIber 418.

Eales I wouldn't say is limp wristed so much as "let's just get along, put the past behind us for the most part and go on".

Azidonis - Dec 08, 2007 - 05:13 AM
Post subject:

93,

A string of personal opinions...

Caliphate, Breeze, Achad - Wholly Negative, save the publishing act
McMurtry, et al - Negative beginnings, possibly Positive at the current moment.
Soror Estai et al - Negative beginnings, possibly Positive at the moment.

As for Motta and his string of beans...
Motta - Positive but crazy.
Bersson, Possibly crazy
Eales - Possibly crazy but means well.
I can see Motta's point in slandering Christianity as he did. However, I believe Motta made his point. I do not believe the Masters' Understanding of the Word has been reduced to constant sland