lashtal.com :: View topic - Amrita, The Book of Lies & the supreme secret of the O.T

lashtal.com

Writer - Amrita, The Book of Lies & the supreme secret of the O.T

Cronus - Jul 10, 2006 - 02:02 AM
Post subject: Amrita, The Book of Lies & the supreme secret of the O.T

I'm not initiated to any of the magickal orders of Aleister Crowley. I don't consider myself a Thelemite, atleast not yet, and I'm rather new to reading the work of A.C., so please forgive me if my lack of knowledge makes itself present in this post.

After purchasing a copy of The Book of Lies and reading the Foreword, which quotes his book Confessions:

"[Reuss] said that since I was acquainted with the supreme secret of the Order, I must be allowed the IX° and obligated in regard to it. I protested that I knew no such secret. He said, "But you have printed it in the plainest language." I said that I could not have done so because I did not know it. He went to the bookshelves and, taking out a copy of The Book of Lies, pointed to a passage in the despised chapter. It instantly flashed upon me. The entire symbolism, not only of freemasonry but of many other traditions, blazed upon my spiritual vision. From that moment the O.T.O. assumed its proper importance in my mind. I understood that I held in my hands the key to the future progress of humanity."

I was curious, to say the least, after reading that quote and the 93 chapters of The Book of Lies (not that I completely understand this book, being so new to his work, although I'm still able to appreciate it) as to which chapter he was referring to. I first came across a bio of A.C. on the website Wikipedia, encyclopedia, so I thought I'd read up on any further info they had about The Book of Lies. This is what I got off that site regarding the possible secret chapters:

"readers have suggested various possible chapters that might contain the secret. Wilson points to Chapter 69, "The Way to Succeed—and the Way to Suck Eggs!" Crowley's book De Arte Magica names Chapter 36, "The Star Sapphire"."

I didn't do any further research regarding the secret chapter after reading that.

I recently purchased a copy of the book Amrita: Essays in Magical Rejuvenation off eBay. The very beginning of this book, before you get to the title page, there is a copy of Chapter 18, "Dewdrops." from The Book of Lies... According to the introduction to the book Amrita by Martin P. Starr (the editor of Amrita) he clearly states that Crowley's writings on Occult medicine, particularly Amrita, as being the Central Secret of the O.T.O. and he talks about Crowley becoming a member of the IX° in the Order due to this writing on Occult medicine. It doesn't specifically say so, but I'm assuming that "Dewdrops", which clearly refers to Amrita and the Elixir/Dew of Immortality, is the secret chapter from The Book of Lies which Crowley was referring to?

Since I'm so new to this I'm not sure if what I'm talking about here is common knowledge between those of you who are Thelemites and/or have been reading Crowley for a long period of time, but I thought this as the perfect place to ask. I was suprised that Wikipedia doesn't mention chapter 18 as the secret chapter, only mentioning chapter 36 and 69 as the possibilities. Even the reviews that I've read about The Book of Lies mentions chapter 69.

So, let me know what you think about this!

93

190 - Jan 23, 2007 - 09:51 PM
Post subject:

An article you may find interesting.

http://www.toolband.com/news/letter/2001_02.php

magispiegel - Jan 23, 2007 - 10:43 PM
Post subject:

Dear Cronus

I maybe wrong (but I dont think so)...but, I dont think that anybody here that uses this site would answer this question.

Best Wishes

Charles

666TSAEB - Jan 24, 2007 - 03:42 AM
Post subject:

Quote: ›
"[Reuss] said that since I was acquainted with the supreme secret of the Order, I must be allowed the IX° and obligated in regard to it. I protested that I knew no such secret. He said, "But you have printed it in the plainest language." I said that I could not have done so because I did not know it. He went to the bookshelves and, taking out a copy of The Book of Lies, pointed to a passage in the despised chapter. It instantly flashed upon me. The entire symbolism, not only of freemasonry but of many other traditions, blazed upon my spiritual vision. From that moment the O.T.O. assumed its proper importance in my mind. I understood that I held in my hands the key to the future progress of humanity."

In my opinion, this entire statement is a crock of ____ (Re: sigil within Chapter 87)

amadan-De - Jan 25, 2007 - 01:31 PM
Post subject:

Quote: ›
I dont think that anybody here that uses this site would answer this question

Even if they did that would only give information not understanding. (Actually the information is pretty easy to come by these days...) There is a 'learning curve' involved (or so I believe) that is not susceptible to extreme shortcuts.

[I note that we have 4 chapters from "Lies" alluded to - 18, 36, 69 and 87 - any advance?]

Parrisiastes - Feb 01, 2008 - 11:16 PM
Post subject: 33

Funny, I just posted this earlier today. Please check out my monograph and tell me what you think:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=ddcv4q ... &hl=en

barney - May 09, 2008 - 01:46 AM
Post subject:

All of the above suggestions are incorrect....although Gold Bricks comes into play. AC is alway eager to flaunt his knowledge and share when asked. His teachings and suggested reading material give all the info necessary to carry this out. It only took me 35 years. Bon voyage

h2h - May 09, 2008 - 02:03 AM
Post subject:

barney wrote: › All of the above suggestions are incorrect....although Gold Bricks comes into play. AC is alway eager to flaunt his knowledge and share when asked. His teachings and suggested reading material give all the info necessary to carry this out. It only took me 35 years. Bon voyage

Barney
I would be interested to hear your opinion on Liber Legis and the Cairo Working.

Draconuit - May 09, 2008 - 02:22 AM
Post subject:

Secrets? There are none. There are progressive states of unveiling, revealing further understanding of
All, as the lotus is revealed in its blossoming.

barney - May 09, 2008 - 01:22 PM
Post subject:

AC, being imperfect, spent so much time over the edge that he lost sight of that edge and could not determine his own limits. He blurred the sharpness dulling the blade and left himself just like the rest of us. Convinced that he alone was right and unable to focus his words to convey his experience to others. There is a reason for secrets. The lotus submits to peeling but does not care to be probed. Neuberg would concure.

newneubergOuch - May 09, 2008 - 02:14 PM
Post subject:

Yes I concur the cur turned me into a camel by jove!

the_real_simon_iff - May 09, 2008 - 03:32 PM
Post subject:

barney wrote: › He blurred the sharpness dulling the blade and left himself just like the rest of us. Convinced that he alone was right and unable to focus his words to convey his experience to others. There is a reason for secrets.

93!

I don't get this sentence fully - maybe it is the language barrier. It sounds like you like to say that AC was wrongly convinced that he was right (in his understanding of the "secret") - or why would you use the word "convinced"? Just for clarification.

I would not go so far to say that all the above posters were wrong.

Love=Law
Lutz

Walterfive - May 09, 2008 - 05:38 PM
Post subject:

The Supreme Secret of the O.T.O., as I have come to understand it, is a divine communion that is clearly illustrated in Crowley's Gnostic Mass, and explicitly described in the Panarion of Ephiphaneus Vol. 1, orginally written in the 4th Century E.V.

The most intelligent discussion of it I have ever publically experienced is the lecture "The Gnostic Mass and the secret of the 9th Degree" conducted by Lon and Constance Duquette. I highly reccomend attending this lecture if you ever have the opportunity, it is open to all, wether one is an O.T.O. Initiate or not. I further reccomend you create the opportunity for yourself by *booking* the Duquettes to come to your town or city to conduct this lecture/class.

zardoz - May 09, 2008 - 07:13 PM
Post subject:

barney wrote: › and unable to focus his words to convey his experience to others.

This is the funniest statement I think I've ever seen on this site. Laughing

defile959 - May 09, 2008 - 07:21 PM
Post subject:

Walterfive wrote: › The most intelligent discussion of it I have ever publically experienced is the lecture "The Gnostic Mass and the secret of the 9th Degree" conducted by Lon and Constance Duquette. I highly reccomend attending this lecture if you ever have the opportunity, it is open to all, wether on is an O.T.O. Initiate or not.

I concur, Walter! Getting to see that lecture in Dallas was a thought-provoking (as well as side-splitting) experience. I'd love to catch a repeat.

barney - May 09, 2008 - 08:31 PM
Post subject:

I thouight that I chose my words carefully. Conveying information was AC's obsession. The double, triple ...meaning in his poetry is an example of his efforts to cram a great deal of info into each poem, word, slant of the letter. Every jot and tittle. The existance of this site is testimony of the fact that despite putting it in the plainest of words, and giving numerous hints, it remains hidden. That's what makes it occult. AC encourages me to reveal his meaning. But first the hints.
1 a passage from a chapter
2 something to insult his readers.
3 less structered than others...scribbled

post responses please
As a note, several years ago while reading the BOL for the umpteenth time, I read the despised chapter and the word "flashed" seems to have been very well chosen becauce that is exactly how I would describe it. aha

Walterfive - May 09, 2008 - 09:12 PM
Post subject:

defile959 wrote: ›

I concur, Walter! Getting to see that lecture in Dallas was a thought-provoking (as well as side-splitting) experience. I'd love to catch a repeat.

You and me both... tape it, or something... Lon & Constance go through so much, you just want to say "slow down! I can't parse all of this! The information rate is hitting critical mass! (You should pardon the pun!)"

"Whatever it is, it's NOT an Apple Pie!" Cool

h2h - May 10, 2008 - 11:35 PM
Post subject:

barney wrote: › I thouight that I chose my words carefully. Conveying information was AC's obsession. The double, triple ...meaning in his poetry is an example of his efforts to cram a great deal of info into each poem, word, slant of the letter. Every jot and tittle. The existance of this site is testimony of the fact that despite putting it in the plainest of words, and giving numerous hints, it remains hidden. That's what makes it occult. AC encourages me to reveal his meaning. But first the hints.
1 a passage from a chapter
2 something to insult his readers.
3 less structered than others...scribbled

post responses please
As a note, several years ago while reading the BOL for the umpteenth time, I read the despised chapter and the word "flashed" seems to have been very well chosen becauce that is exactly how I would describe it. aha

The way to succeed and the way to suck eggs? A sucker is born every minute??

Your point is defeated if you pull a "Crowley" on us..

barney - May 11, 2008 - 03:31 PM
Post subject:

Only one guess allowed. maybe we should work backwords.
Premise...The Great Work is evident in human history.
Those who we know shaped humanity practiced the secret.
Which one passage was practiced by: Da vinci Bacon
. Newton ..need I name those you have studied?
If this is the secret of the art, why would it not be filed under
art

h2h - May 11, 2008 - 04:22 PM
Post subject:

Barney,

You are being exceedingly cryptic but I think we agree that the 9th degree/sex magic answer is a red herring for the kids.

To give the historical answer, the supreme secret of the OTO is traced back to the Knights Templars and from there to the Order of the Assassins, the founder of which was in possession of it, and no doubt Sufi influence.

We dance around in a circle and suppose, but Baphomet sits in the center and knows

zardoz - May 11, 2008 - 06:50 PM
Post subject:

Baphomet deifies one (so-called) secret that dates back to at least the early Christian gnostics as far as I know. Took me about 35 or 36 years ( slow learner) to divine that secret but couldn't say for sure that it is THE secret Crowley refers to or to what others here think it is.

Quote: › Barney,

You are being exceedingly cryptic

Quote: › Convinced that he alone was right and unable to focus his words to convey his experience to others.

Who is referenced in the last quote, Crowley? When I first read it and thought AC I found it quite amusing. Now I suspect it to be self-revealing.

My take on this is along the lines of the lotus blooming. The only real secret appears to be that there are no secrets. Unless you want to call not understanding something until the light dawns a secret.

I suspect the Reuss story to be a ruse. Would love to see evidence to the contrary. The Reuss ruse allowed AC to rightfully advertise and point out the Book of Lies for what it is ( on one level) - a very advanced set of instructions for practicing sexual alchemy. Gold Bricks indeed. The search for the mysterious secret also generates this kind of interest and attention, obviously.

The 11th degree/ homosexual working also seems a pink herring as far as secrets go.

Nice riddling Barney and h2h and AC. I love a good puzzle.

Uni_Verse - May 12, 2008 - 01:27 AM
Post subject:

Quote: ›
From that moment the O.T.O. assumed its proper importance in my mind. I understood that I held in my hands the key to the future progress of humanity.

Why do you think the OTO suddenly became so important?

What service were they to provide?

h2h - May 12, 2008 - 05:35 PM
Post subject:

Uni_Verse wrote: ›

Quote: ›
From that moment the O.T.O. assumed its proper importance in my mind. I understood that I held in my hands the key to the future progress of humanity.

Why do you think the OTO suddenly became so important?

What service were they to provide?

Here's a hint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence

barney - May 12, 2008 - 06:48 PM
Post subject:

Those of you who have read AC extensively have a bit of him in your writing. His discussion of metaphores as well as his use of literary devices displays the fact that he knew that all words fall short of passing the full meaning intended.
This is such a simple and beautiful command. It is my intention to be revealing. You know AC because he spoke from depths beyoned the roar of the crowd. I am pulling a Crowley. The reason he never revealed the "despised chapter" was a marketing device. He was a true genuis in such matters. That in no way takes away from the importance and significance of said "passage". It can alter history, feed millions, even perform the Great Work. Without it, all hope is .....hopeless. Maybe it is the number of times I read it. A thousand thousand times a thousand thousand. Now it moves through me. The voice of AC. I can't imagine how anyone could think 36 was "scribbled" in a few moments. You should know when AC is musing and when he is straining. I am enjoying the responses but I hope to drag a few more of you into the conversation. I am not so sure that anybody in the OTO grasps it either. I find a great deal of knowledge on the theoretical, but little on the practical. I would have to see a direct line from Reuss to current OHO to decide. Even then, it is a personal thing, and he may have spoken of it to AC without revealing it elsewhere. You can see where knowing is a burden. It is possible that the link was broken. Fortunately we can gather the secret from AC himself. Why do you think he was always on the edge? One step, or a dozen beyond the limit of common sense. Mountaineer...he sought new peaks...why? Because it had not been done. Why? Because no one could or would. Can you cut a baby in half? Probably not, and so that becomes a metaphore for the secret. Would you cut a baby in half? I doubt it. Therefore child sacrifice is a metaphore for the secret. Kennedy said it in his "go to the Moon " speech. Dr. Seuss stated it plainly in an early work.

Tiger - May 13, 2008 - 12:57 AM
Post subject:

upaya-kaushalya (Skillful means) on the edge of uncertainty doubt leaps from Reuss to The Book of Lies, peering out here with upheaval of credence no doubt

Uni_Verse - May 13, 2008 - 02:11 AM
Post subject:

h2 wrote: ›

Here's a hint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence

That is a thought in the right direction Smile

zardoz - May 13, 2008 - 02:54 AM
Post subject:

barney wrote: › I am not so sure that anybody in the OTO grasps it either. I find a great deal of knowledge on the theoretical, but little on the practical. I would have to see a direct line from Reuss to current OHO to decide.

I just finished a course of Magick with OTO member Lon Milo Duquette and found the theory and praxis well balanced. The fact that you're not able to tell if anyone in the OTO knows the secret of the Great Work leads me to question and doubt your certainty, Barney, that you know this secret. Crowley never went so far beyond the realm of common sense to doubt his findings. See BOL ch 51 and the end of ch. 45

Quote: › That in no way takes away from the importance and significance of said "passage". It can alter history, feed millions, even perform the Great Work.

Then why hasn't it yet?

The eye of horus link looks like a good clue.

newneubergOuch - May 13, 2008 - 12:11 PM
Post subject:

Isnt most stuff in libers Agape, natura and emblems anyway?

barney - May 13, 2008 - 12:13 PM
Post subject:

Thank you for your indulgence. The secret appears to be safe.

amadan-De - May 13, 2008 - 10:40 PM
Post subject:

Ahem.

"There are no secrets, you either know it or you don't
Its in front of your noses, you'll believe it or you won't
Follow your instincts, if that's what you want to do
But you gotta do something to get out of the zoo"

etc.

ErichZann333 - May 14, 2008 - 12:24 PM
Post subject:

Quote: ›
To give the historical answer, the supreme secret of the OTO is traced back to the Knights Templars and from there to the Order of the Assassins, the founder of which was in possession of it, and no doubt Sufi influence.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted. Cool

Nataraj418 - May 14, 2008 - 02:44 PM
Post subject: secret?

h2h wrote: › ...the supreme secret of the OTO is traced back to the Knights Templars and from there to the Order of the Assassins, the founder of which was in possession of it, and no doubt Sufi influence.

Yes, this is the Official Party Line that describes the lineage of the "supreme secret" of the Templars (both in the Knights Templar version and the modern Oriental Templar phenomenon).

However, one can also find the exact same "secret" described for everyone's enlightenment in ancient Chinese scrolls, where it falls under the general category of "Taoist Sexual Magic."

Oh my God! - You mean it's an universal secret, not restricted to Knights, Gnostics, Saladin and Sufi Saracens?

Verily! This seems to be the case.

Please note that the "secret" is alluded to, hinted at, veiled in symbol and allegory, and generally described in many of Crowley's writings, especially (more than one chapter of) The Book of Lies, and Agape, et al. But (the sometimes hard to find) Emblems and Mode of Use is the one document that displays the whole deal in the plainest possible language.

"Emblems" is (supposed to be) restricted to members of the IX degree, they having made their own copy immediately after completing that august ceremony. But you know how it is - Some people who stumble upon a copy (without undergoing the ceremony - gasp!) like to nail it up in the marketplace, or even digitally nail it up in cyberspace (www), and then the contemporary Oriental Templars have to run around and claim "copyright violation" and force the offender(s) to hide their display.

After all, how can you have a (semi-)secret Order that is based almost exclusively on a "central secret" that is common knowledge?

Walterfive - May 14, 2008 - 04:13 PM
Post subject:

newneubergOuch wrote: › Isnt most stuff in libers Agape, natura and emblems anyway?

Perhaps, but what are they to the profane? "For without are dogs and sorcerers and whoremongers and murders and idolators and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."

Most of us who have studied these mysteries for years, (some of us for decades) don't presume to stand "within the Sanctuary of the Gnosis" although some of us have been fortunate enough to discuss these matters with those who *do*, and in doing so come to a greater (if not perfect) understanding of the mysteries involved.

Anyone with a modicum of research can rattle off a list like you mentioned above. Very few can rightly claim the full knowing of them, and many so-called Thelemites are so hostile to Christianity that the prima facea meanings of these documents will be lost upon them, being objects of contempt, and beneath their consideration (showing that they're not even fit for the message of Liber Librae, let alone Liber Agape), not to mention the subtler meanings that might otherwise be found therein.

That is, presuming that the copies of the Libers listed above that you have access to are true, complete, and correct, and I gather from some unofficial statements I've heard by those in the Sanctuary that there's some debate about the accuracy and completeness of some of these alleged documents as previously published by Mssrs. King and/or Furnee.

Iskandar - May 14, 2008 - 07:31 PM
Post subject:

IMHO, the 'secret' of sexual (or any other) form of magick (or meditation) does not lie in information of 'how to' but in the ability to 'do' so. Crowley claims that it is not that religion may be reduced to sex, but that sex may be exalted to religion (or some other words to that effect). I am not being clear: what I am trying to say is that 'the secret of sex magick' does not consist of knowledge but of attitude. Can you approach sex as something divine? Can you recognize the sacred in the 'banality' of sexual acts, energies, and fluids? This is, in my opinion, only a different method (beside many others) of realizing that this world is the paradise, that samsara is nirvana. This realization implies, as Zen people often say, the skin, flesh, bone, and marrow. It is an attitude toward existence and a way of being-in-the-world that is not equivalent to the possession of a simple piece of information. Attitude is much more essential requirement. My five cents.

Walterfive - May 14, 2008 - 08:41 PM
Post subject: Re: secret?

Nataraj418 wrote: ›

Yes, this is the Official Party Line that describes the lineage of the "supreme secret" of the Templars (both in the Knights Templar version and the modern Oriental Templar phenomenon).

What ridiculous posturing! There is no such "Official Party Line." This, and the rest of your post is merely more thinly veiled Caliphate bashing. Rolling Eyes

And I object to it.

The *fact* of the matter is that the Order (or Caliphate, if you will) is now fully and well aware of its 19th Century predecessors in the matter of Sexual Magick, however it's only in the last two or three decades that this history has become known.

Crowley possibly, if indirectly refers to them himself in an available version of Liber Agape mentioning "the glories of Eulis, the stars upon the forheads of the Brothers of Hermetic Light." However this allusion is rather veiled: The book "Eulis!: The History Of Love" was published by Dr. P. B. Randolph in 1874, while the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light was a Georgia based Secret Society in the U.S. that descended from Dr. Randolph's Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, and used Dr. Randolph's theories and techniques.

Here's a quote from the Invisible Basilica of Sabazius website, written by Bishop T. Allen Greenfield-- "Dr. P. B. Randolph is either the author or the key Western transmitter of the core magical teaching of the Ordo Templi Orientis. Either way, the only thing remarkable at this point is why his name did not appear initially among the list of Saints read out in The Gnostic Mass. His elevation to the Order of the Lion by U.S. Grand Lodge of the OTO has done much to redress this omission. His contributions to the core teaching of the Western Magical Tradition are difficult to measure but very substantial--essential, in fact." Now, that's not exactly "ex-cathedra" from the Supreme and Holy King of North America, but it's a HEL of a lot closer to "Official Party Line" than anything *you* can probably dig up. Very Happy

M'kay?

barney - May 15, 2008 - 05:44 PM
Post subject:

The Wound of Amfortas 60 samekh XIV

SteveCranmer - May 16, 2008 - 12:35 PM
Post subject:

barney wrote: › The Wound of Amfortas 60 samekh XIV

Interesting. I haven't heard this chapter ever suggested as the one Reuss allegedly pointed to, but it does make some sense.

A big question, then, is whether Reuss' essay "Parsifal and the Secret of the Graal Unveiled" was written before his purported encounter with Crowley, or after. Peter Koenig posted scans of a 1914 handwritten version, but was that the earliest?

Steve

barney - May 16, 2008 - 05:58 PM
Post subject:

Assume the position of Tipareth. As the Sun, the truth will dawn on you. All sex magic is just foreplay without this. "Do what thou wilt" is made into lightning. All magic is candle magic if you do not reach beyond your grasp.

Camlion - May 16, 2008 - 07:18 PM
Post subject:

93 Barney,

barney wrote: › I am enjoying the responses but I hope to drag a few more of you into the conversation.

Okay. It seems to me, than if anyone practices sex magick, that everyone who practices sex practices magick, although usually unknowingly. What do you think of this line of musing, Barney?

93 93/93
Camlion

barney - May 16, 2008 - 10:34 PM
Post subject:

Every act is an act of magick. Anyone here play golf? Pool? Every shot is magick, but when you hold your mouth right, the magick is refined. I find reading 333 as one work takes me through the angst, frustration, prejudice, lust, illumination that AC must have felt upon releasing the work. All the stupid human tricks that we do bring us closer to the Ultimate secret. You know, the one where you are the creator of all reality. Don't tell the Illuminatus that I told you.

h2h - May 16, 2008 - 11:25 PM
Post subject: Re: secret?

Walterfive wrote: ›
What ridiculous posturing! There is no such "Official Party Line." This, and the rest of your post is merely more thinly veiled Caliphate bashing. Rolling Eyes

And I object to it.

Walterfive,

Nataraj418’s comments on the “Official Party Line” are, more or less, correct:
http://www.rahoorkhuit.net/ota/jgraeb/c ... alifa.html

zardoz - May 17, 2008 - 09:06 AM
Post subject:

barney wrote: › Every act is an act of magick. Anyone here play golf? Pool? Every shot is magick, but when you hold your mouth right, the magick is refined. I find reading 333 as one work takes me through the angst, frustration, prejudice, lust, illumination that AC must have felt upon releasing the work. All the stupid human tricks that we do bring us closer to the Ultimate secret. You know, the one where you are the creator of all reality. Don't tell the Illuminatus that I told you.

Every act is not an act of magick. Every intentional act is an act of magick.

Seems to me that one of the biggest stupid human tricks is this notion of an Ultimate secret.

Nataraj418 - May 17, 2008 - 02:35 PM
Post subject: secret

zardoz wrote: › Seems to me that one of the biggest stupid human tricks is this notion of an Ultimate secret.

Of course, you are correct.

But then there's that one true, ultimate secret: It's called: "Developing the ability to transcend the ego and dwell with the angels and the fairies." Well, maybe that's not its real title, but the key phrase is Transcend the Ego.

Only with this component in action will all of the lesser "secrets" be workable.

zardoz - May 17, 2008 - 07:00 PM
Post subject: Re: secret

Nataraj418 wrote: ›

But then there's that one true, ultimate secret: It's called: "Developing the ability to transcend the ego and dwell with the angels and the fairies." Well, maybe that's not its real title, but the key phrase is Transcend the Ego.

Only with this component in action will all of the lesser "secrets" be workable.

Well said. In the BOL perhaps this component corresponds with NEMO? Some groups call this the 'waking state.'

Walterfive - May 20, 2008 - 03:00 PM
Post subject: Re: secret?

h2h wrote: ›

Walterfive wrote: ›
What ridiculous posturing! There is no such "Official Party Line." This, and the rest of your post is merely more thinly veiled Caliphate bashing. Rolling Eyes

And I object to it.

Walterfive,

Nataraj418’s comments on the “Official Party Line” are, more or less, correct:
http://www.rahoorkhuit.net/ota/jgraeb/c ... alifa.html

Exsqueeze me? Are you *seriously* suggesting that Jim Graeb's personal and highly critical opinions of Hymaneus Beta be taken as "official party line?" PUH-LEEZE, baby. Rolling Eyes

Don't try and bullshit us. You know perfectly well that in that WHOLE article you referred us to, there's only TWO sentences that are even vaugely on-topic? There they are:

"Now, legend has it that the Knights Templars meet up with a particular Shi'ite sect called the "Assassins" or as we liked to say when McMurty was Caliph,"the "hash hasheens" (See Crowley's "The Hashish Eater"). There is a connection between the Ismaili Gnostics and the Assassins under the leadership of Sal el Din (Saladin), but that takes us too far afield."

Now you *could* have just quoted them. But you had to refer us to a article full of whole lot of Graeb's personal problems, extraneous observations on Islam, and their alleged and make us dig through them instead of simply cutting to the chase. Smile

That's extraneous and unneccesary. Stick to the point.

And the POINT IS that Natajara418's comments on "the Official Party Line" *are not* correct, and your supposition that

"...the supreme secret of the OTO is traced back to the Knights Templars and from there to the Order of the Assassins, the founder of which was in possession of it, and no doubt Sufi influence"

is at best legend, at worst, pure invention, and in all liklihood myth. Furthermore, the O.T.O. today (or the Caliphate, anyway) claims only a 'spiritual heirdom' from the Templars, not a direct and traceable lineage.

In closing, I repeat T. Bishop Greenfield's quote, because you haven't acknowledged it, and *certainly* haven't refuted it: "Dr. P. B. Randolph is either the author or the key Western transmitter of the core magical teaching of the Ordo Templi Orientis. Either way, the only thing remarkable at this point is why his name did not appear initially among the list of Saints read out in The Gnostic Mass. His elevation to the Order of the Lion by U.S. Grand Lodge of the OTO has done much to redress this omission. His contributions to the core teaching of the Western Magical Tradition are difficult to measure but very substantial--essential, in fact."

Have a nice day.

Camlion - May 20, 2008 - 05:42 PM
Post subject: Re: secret

93 Zardoz and Nataraj418,

zardoz wrote: ›

Well said. In the BOL perhaps this component corresponds with NEMO? Some groups call this the 'waking state.'

Very well put. There is a very curious minority of those professing "Thelema"* who are determined to cling to the ego at all costs, despite the fact that this ultimately contradicts the message of Thelema and Liber AL. This would be a serious impediment to true magical attainment, IMO.

It seems important to note that AC placed Book Four, part one, 'Mysticism' so as to precede part two, 'Magick - Elementary Theory.' The methods of attaining to 'transcendent experience' are clearly emphasized as essential to magical attainment.

Again, in Liber O, probably AC's most basic treatment on magical practice, he writes in the introduction: "Before entering upon any of these practices, the student should be in good health, and have attained a fair mastery of Asana, Pranayama and Dharana."

It seems clear to me that methods of transcending the common obsessive attachment to the ego are essential to magical attainment.

* I recall that while glancing at little Erwin's weird website I noticed certain descriptions of meditation results, presumably some lesser form of Samadhi such as Dhyana, where the retaining of an attachment to or presence of the ego in consciousness was emphasized, or some such nonsense that would render the entire process useless.

Anyway, yes, a very good point raised in connection with success with the 'secret' of sex magick.

93 93/93
Camlion

h2h - May 20, 2008 - 09:01 PM
Post subject: Re: secret?

Walterfive wrote: ›

h2h wrote: ›

Walterfive wrote: ›
What ridiculous posturing! There is no such "Official Party Line." This, and the rest of your post is merely more thinly veiled Caliphate bashing. Rolling Eyes

And I object to it.

Walterfive,

Nataraj418’s comments on the “Official Party Line” are, more or less, correct:
http://www.rahoorkhuit.net/ota/jgraeb/c ... alifa.html

Exsqueeze me? Are you *seriously* suggesting that Jim Graeb's personal and highly critical opinions of Hymaneus Beta be taken as "official party line?" PUH-LEEZE, baby. Rolling Eyes

Walterfive,

I never said Graeb’s comments on HB were the official party line, but you did note the relevant two sentences. Graeb’s “extraneous observations” on Islam were also quite fascinating – especially where he speaks about the Iman and its correspondence in the OTO (Speaking of, HB is an excellent OHO and discussion about the secret of the order should not be construed as criticism of him or the Caliphate.). Do I think the OTO is the direct successor to a secret that was transmitted from Templars and before that from Assassins in an unbroken lineage? No more than the list of saints in the Gnostic Mass.

I ignored the P.B. Randolph reference for a reason. Greenfield is entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't concern me.

Go back to AC’s anecdote on Reuss in the Book of Lies and try to figure out his realization of the importance of the OTO. In any case the incident strikes me as a characteristic AC “signature”.

zardoz - May 21, 2008 - 04:58 AM
Post subject:

93 Camlion,

One magical aspect of ego identification gets illustrated in Ch. 27.

Can't really fully love with ego - see the next chapter 28 which seems a beautiful illustration of a waking state - egolessness, the exact opposite of the preceding chapter.

Love destroyeth self, uniting self with that which is
not-self, so that Love breedeth All and None in
One.

Quote: › In any case the incident strikes me as a characteristic AC “signature”.

I agree. It bears some similarities with the Cairo Working. Crowley seemingly encounters higher authorities in both instances that verify his work.

Camlion - May 21, 2008 - 08:12 PM
Post subject:

93 Zardoz

zardoz wrote: ›
One magical aspect of ego identification gets illustrated in Ch. 27.

Can't really fully love with ego - see the next chapter 28 which seems a beautiful illustration of a waking state - egolessness, the exact opposite of the preceding chapter.

Love destroyeth self, uniting self with that which is
not-self, so that Love breedeth All and None in
One.

For the sake of balanced perspective, I should note that I am certainly not 'anti-ego.' I value mine as much as I do my feet. Great for getting me around in many situations, just not suited for all circumstances. In some cases, one must defer to other means. Otherwise, one is definitely limited in one's scope and range. Wink

93 93/93
Camlion

Walterfive - May 21, 2008 - 09:16 PM
Post subject: Re: secret?

h2h wrote: ›
I never said Graeb’s comments on HB were the official party line, but you did note the relevant two sentences. Graeb’s “extraneous observations” on Islam were also quite fascinating – especially where he speaks about the Iman and its correspondence in the OTO (Speaking of, HB is an excellent OHO and discussion about the secret of the order should not be construed as criticism of him or the Caliphate.)

Well I'm glad to hear you say that. I didn't construe the topic or discussion as critical of him or the Caliphate, but some people have crossed that line in the course of of the discussion, IMNSHO. You found Graeb's observations "fascinating", that's cool. I found them over-analyzed and contrived, but to each his or her own.

h2h wrote: ›
Go back to AC’s anecdote on Reuss in the Book of Lies and try to figure out his realization of the importance of the OTO. In any case the incident strikes me as a characteristic AC “signature”.

Ah, I think I see your point. You're suggesting that it's fictionalized, much like some claim his account of the recieving of the Book of the Law is fictionalized?

Interesting that. A brother was relating to me that he'd heard about the records of a ship's passenger manifest that included Crowley, but the alleged date of it would have meant that Crowley couldn't have possibly have been in Cairo when he claimed to have recieved the Book of the Law; but that researchers who'd tried to locate the document in question hadn't been able to find it...

And a correspondent was speculating to me that Crowley looks impossibly young in that photo of him with the Stele... that it looked like the picture had to have been taken prior to 1904... interesting... But I don't know the history of that photo... who took it, the date it was taken, where's the original, etc.

Nataraj418 - May 22, 2008 - 03:14 AM
Post subject: Re: secret?

Walterfive wrote: › What ridiculous posturing! There is no such "Official Party Line." This, and the rest of your post is merely more thinly veiled Caliphate bashing…And I object to it.

Actually, my phrase "Official Party Line" is simply one of those often-used clichés that should be interpreted as "The Usual Train of Thought," or "The Common Conception," and was not meant to apply to any particular party (least of all the "Communist Party" from which it is possibly derived).
I am not aware of what the term "posturing" means here. Does it mean striking a particular "pose" or taking a particular position? If so, I guess I'm Guilty of "posturing." The "ridiculous" part is your own invention and your own rather aggressive manner.
Also, in reference to "caliphate bashing", it would be true IF I were attacking some evil empire called Caliphate, but I am not! I am merely pointing out that the written description of the secret-IX is written in plain language in a document that was never copyrighted, yet certain individuals and/or groups are quick to bring terror from the skies (or the courts - or threat of same) in the name of "copyright protection" against poor, innocent people who are just tying to post something from the public domain in the public marketplace. If these actions fit the shoe worn by Mister Caliph, then it must be worn.
Ah! You object! Your objection is noted for the record, but overruled at this end of the game.

h2h wrote: › [Nataraj418’s comments on the “Official Party Line” are, more or less, correct: http://www.rahoorkhuit.net/ota/jgraeb/c ... alifa.html

Now this, it turns out, is an absolutely precious piece of work. I heartily encourage everyone to read it carefully. I especially liked the part where it is explained how a IX has full authority to initiate without formal charter. This is the way that many of us always looked upon the matter. After all, a IX is the "personal representative" of the X, much like a samurai was the representative of the shogun, able to perform as judge, jury, and executioner. Let's see - How did Crowley phrase part of one definition of the IX?: "… they must be prepared to act as direct representatives of the Supreme and Most Holy King, radiating his light upon the whole world."

[quote="Walterfive]Exsqueeze me? Are you *seriously* suggesting that Jim Graeb's personal and highly critical opinions of Hymaneus Beta be taken as "official party line?" [/quote]
What is an "Exsqueeze"?
Perhaps Graeb's opinions should be taken as an analysis of the Party? Yes, I think so.

[quote="Walterfive]Don't try and bullshit us. [/quote]
Heaven forbid! (And such language to boot!)

[quote="Walterfive]Now you *could* have just quoted them. But you had to refer us to a article full of whole lot of Graeb's personal problems, extraneous observations on Islam, and their alleged and make us dig through them instead of simply cutting to the chase. Smile

That's extraneous and unneccesary. Stick to the point. [/quote]
Why are you trying to suppress h2h's right to free speech? What are you attempting to cover up? Why are you so angry? I (and apparently others) find h2h's reference to be associated with the point. And besides that, it sheds a WHOLE LOT OF LIGHT on the broader picture.

[quote="Walterfive]And the POINT IS that Natajara418's comments on "the Official Party Line" *are not* correct…[/quote]
According to you. Thank you so much for being the Supreme Translator of Truth and Correctness. I believe you might be in line for an Ayatollahship. My God! I'm even beginning to think you're associated with that Mister Caliph.

zardoz wrote: › Well said. In the BOL perhaps this component corresponds with NEMO? Some groups call this the 'waking state.'

I don't believe NEMO is mentioned in the BOL, but I think he shows up in the 30 aethyrs. Anyway, that's him (or her), and he/she can operate all those lesser secrets, while those below just ramble and rave.

Camlion wrote: › There is a very curious minority of those professing "Thelema"* who are determined to cling to the ego at all costs, despite the fact that this ultimately contradicts the message of Thelema and Liber AL. This would be a serious impediment to true magical attainment…

Has it ever been any different? Even worse is the "superego," where the ego attaches to something bigger and better than itself (like an Order or a lineage or a famous person or a rock group) and then uses it to inflate their own importance.

Camlion wrote: › I recall that while glancing at little Erwin's weird website I noticed certain descriptions of meditation results, presumably some lesser form of Samadhi such as Dhyana, where the retaining of an attachment to or presence of the ego in consciousness was emphasized, or some such nonsense that would render the entire process useless.

Aha! Perhaps he (and you) have discovered the real key to mystical attainment. How much do you want to explain it to me? (I just can't take another trip to Erwin's place).

Many of us ignored the Rudolph and Greenfeld references for the same reason mentioned above. It just doesn't concern us.

Walterfive wrote: › You found Graeb's observations "fascinating", that's cool. I found them over-analyzed and contrived, but to each his or her own.

How does one over-analyze? The term (analyze - analysis) means to "break down." Does "over" mean the truth got broken down into pieces smaller than is permitted?
Contrived means "built" or "constructed." Yes, he built an analogy, and he did a really good job of it while he also exposed a lot of what many of us know to be the (attemptedly suppressed) truth.

ianrons - May 22, 2008 - 05:00 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: secret?

Quote: › I am merely pointing out that the written description of the secret-IX is written in plain language in a document that was never copyrighted, yet certain individuals and/or groups are quick to bring terror from the skies (or the courts - or threat of same) in the name of "copyright protection" against poor, innocent people who are just tying to post something from the public domain in the public marketplace.

I don't believe that either Liber Agape or Emblems and Mode of Use is public domain. The pre-1923 rule in the USA only applies to works published in the USA before that time; copyright subsists in unpublished works for the usual term, which is currently lifetime + 70 years. This term is the same in the UK. Copyright will then expire on 1st Jan 1918 unless the OTO takes advantage of the first publication rule to do a limited run and thereby get another 25 years in the EU (if not elsewhere -- I think something similar might exist in the US).

Unfortunately, this may mean we have another 35 years of people whinging like this and citing legal rights spuriously (in this case, "public domain"), whilst casually dismissing the OTO's proven legal rights. In particular the use of the term "terror from the skies" seems a trifle hysterical, don't you think? I mean, I don't think Andrew Nicol actually uses an Apache gunship, does he? And the OTO has a record of being reasonable in allowing small-press publication of works. HB does seem to want to prevent publications of "secret" OTO or A.'.A.'. documents, but this is hardly surprising, is it? He is, one presumes, obliged by oath to keep the works in question secret. Maybe he takes the oaths of the OTO seriously -- I don't know.

This disagreement is about property, pure and simple. They have it, you want it. Well you can't have it yet, so get over it. Or console yourself with those pirated copies which are available online. But referring to those would rather spoil your whole argument, wouldn't it? Razz

FWIW, I also think the earlier comment by Walterfive about an absent participant's alleged "personal problems" was pretty disingenuous.

Now, as the saying goes, let's get back to the topic...

Walterfive - May 22, 2008 - 01:44 PM
Post subject: Re: secret?

Nataraj418 wrote: ›

Walterfive wrote: › What ridiculous posturing! There is no such "Official Party Line." This, and the rest of your post is merely more thinly veiled Caliphate bashing…And I object to it.

...and more posturing. *yawn*

Quote: › Also, in reference to "caliphate bashing", it would be true IF I were attacking some evil empire called Caliphate, but I am not! I am merely pointing out that the written description of the secret-IX is written in plain language in a document that was never copyrighted, yet certain individuals and/or groups are quick to bring terror from the skies (or the courts - or threat of same) in the name of "copyright protection" against poor, innocent people who are just tying to post something from the public domain in the public marketplace. If these actions fit the shoe worn by Mister Caliph, then it must be worn.

Oooh. "Terror from the skies." How melodramatic. Rolling Eyes

I point you to Ironrons excellent post blowing this argument out of the water. Disagree all you want. You've had proverbial rings ran around you logically.

Quote: › Ah! You object! Your objection is noted for the record, but overruled at this end of the game.

Then I suppose an appeal for mature behavior and the use of logical syllogisms is out of the question?

h2h wrote: › [Nataraj418’s comments on the “Official Party Line” are, more or less, correct: http://www.rahoorkhuit.net/ota/jgraeb/c ... alifa.html

Nataraj418 wrote: › Now this, it turns out, is an absolutely precious piece of work. I heartily encourage everyone to read it carefully. I especially liked the part where it is explained how a IX has full authority to initiate without formal charter. This is the way that many of us always looked upon the matter. After all, a IX is the "personal representative" of the X, much like a samurai was the representative of the shogun, able to perform as judge, jury, and executioner. Let's see - How did Crowley phrase part of one definition of the IX?: "… they must be prepared to act as direct representatives of the Supreme and Most Holy King, radiating his light upon the whole world."

Q: Which has to do with this topic exactly HOW?

A: It doesn't.

We could start growing Magic Mushrooms in the compost of this post.

The remainder I cut for brevity's sake.

Now, if we could just get back to intelligent discussion *on the topic at hand* instead of rehashing old business that has already resulted in other locked threads, I for one would be delighted!

Nataraj418 - May 22, 2008 - 02:15 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: secret?

ianrons wrote: › The pre-1923 rule in the USA only applies to works published in the USA before that time

Emblems was a hand-written letter. It was not a "published" work. It bore no copyright notification or imprint. It was signed "Baphomet" and the legal name of the originator of this letter could not be identified. Today, we can guess, but we can prove nothing.

ianrons wrote: › …the term "terror from the skies" seems a trifle hysterical, don't you think? I mean, I don't think Andrew Nicol actually uses an Apache gunship, does he?

I guess you have not been on the receiving end of said "terror." If you're rich and you enjoy battling things out in courtrooms, then it's not terror, it's just a challenge to be accepted. But if you're poor, and you can't afford a solicitor, then the terror hits home quite hard. I have no idea who Andrew Nichol is or was; All my experiences in these matters, and the experiences of other individuals that I know about, are based on direct threats from a breezy person.

ianrons wrote: › And the OTO has a record of being reasonable in allowing small-press publication of works. HB does seem to want to prevent publications of "secret" OTO or A.'.A.'. documents, but this is hardly surprising, is it?

Yes and No on the small press runs. I have experience of direct intervention in miniscule runs of previously uncopyrighted material.
You are correct, it is not surprising that "secret" OTO documents would be guarded when possible. I do not believe the A.'.A.'. has any "secret" documents, and anyway, HB/OTO have no legal jurisdiction over any such A.'.A.'. material.

ianrons wrote: › They have it, you want it. Well you can't have it yet, so get over it. Or console yourself with those pirated copies which are available online. But referring to those would rather spoil your whole argument, wouldn't it?

Now, in your exalted exuberance, you have moved into the realm of supposition and guessing. (a) "They have it." - True! (b) "you want it." - Untrue, as I already have it. (c) "get over it." - Never! (d) "pirated copies" - Gee whiz, my copy was earned in the traditional manner in the gnosis and was transmitted "legally" and in full ceremonial style. Can you say the same? My interest in this matter has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I want or need. I had it all a long time ago.

ianrons wrote: › Now, as the saying goes, let's get back to the topic...

But the topic in this thread is the supreme secret of the OTO, and I fail to see where that subject has been disregarded. All this talk of copyrights and documents and heavy-handedness pertains directly to that "secret."
I wonder why people keep wanting to "get back to the point" when the point has never been out of sight. Could it be that there's throwing of flak, erecting veils, and providing disinformation?

Camlion - May 22, 2008 - 06:22 PM
Post subject: Re: secret?

93 Nataraj418,

Nataraj418 wrote: ›

Aha! Perhaps he (and you) have discovered the real key to mystical attainment. How much do you want to explain it to me? (I just can't take another trip to Erwin's place).

I believe that my post has been sucked into a vacuum created by your momentary storm of hysteria over a few of the tired old issues that divide some of us? That's too bad, because I'm sure that the other sub-thread in which I had engaged myself had more true relevance to the real 'secret.' There is much more to 'sex magick' than the mechanics described in most of the very old papers that you are squabbling about.

FYI, Jim Graeb, certain members of his family and many others in the cast of characters surrounding the drama being replayed here [again!] are old acquaintances [carefully chosen word] of mine, and I can assure you that the whole matter is not really worth the distraction that it causes when the subject is raised over and over again.

As for the old papers themselves, which are, after all, relevant to the topic of this thread, and the now clearly defined legal issues aside, I tend to like to see Crowley's intent for his writings being honored, at least officially, as Crowley was the author. Crowley's intent was that they remain officially restricted to qualified and designated OTO members. (This dispite the fact that he personally dispersed them at will.) I like seeing an author's intent for his work being honored, in general.

In reality, we all know that virtually anything is available today, unofficially, to those that would have it. So what is all this fuss really about?

93 93/93
Camlion

h2h - May 22, 2008 - 06:36 PM
Post subject: Re: secret?

Walterfive wrote: › Ah, I think I see your point. You're suggesting that it's fictionalized, much like some claim his account of the recieving of the Book of the Law is fictionalized?

To call it “fictionalizing” oversimplifies the matter. Whenever AC is suspected of fabrication, the question to ask is - what is his motive? Chances are, the lie conceals an important truth. For example alchemists, aside from inserting blinds to deter the profane, would misspell a word or insert a wrong illustration (e.g. a man with four fingers) to signal the alert reader to pay attention to that area of the text.

I would be interested to know whether the date of AC’s alleged discussion with Reuss preceded or came after AC took over the order and put his stamp on it.

Walterfive - May 22, 2008 - 07:05 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: secret?

Nataraj418 wrote: › All my experiences in these matters, and the experiences of other individuals that I know about, are based on direct threats from a breezy person.

Let me get this straight-- you personally claim to have recieved "direct threats"? As in Legal letters that made you cease and desist?

LMAO!! Sounds like it couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.
No wonder your poor li'l ego is so bruised! Get *over* it, Mary!

lashtal - May 22, 2008 - 09:05 PM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: secret?

Nataraj418,

I'm following this thread closely and feel it only appropriate to put you on notice that I will react robustly to any legal or guideline infringements.

SteveCranmer - May 22, 2008 - 09:52 PM
Post subject: Re: secret?

h2h wrote: › I would be interested to know whether the date of AC’s alleged discussion with Reuss preceded or came after AC took over the order and put his stamp on it.

Although I have a feeling that the alleged discussion came before AC's ascendancy to important posts (or even official membership) in the OTO, I don't know for sure.

Was the infamous confrontation the first meeting between Crowley and Reuss? I went back to the introduction to the Book of Lies, but it didn't make that clear. Maybe some of the confusion about the year (pre-publication of the BoL) comes from mistaking that encounter for their first meeting?

I still am curious if the confrontation took place before or after Reuss wrote Parsifal and the Secret of the Graal Unveiled. No takers on that one? (That's not a "secret" OTO paper, is it?)

Steve

Camlion - May 22, 2008 - 11:17 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: secret?

93 Walter,

Walterfive wrote: ›

Nataraj418 wrote: › All my experiences in these matters, and the experiences of other individuals that I know about, are based on direct threats from a breezy person.

It seemeth to me that these little antagonisms are getting really, really old. How 'bout you?

93 93/93
Camlion

zardoz - May 23, 2008 - 12:02 AM
Post subject: Re: secret?

Nataraj418 wrote: ›
I don't believe NEMO is mentioned in the BOL, but I think he shows up in the 30 aethyrs. Anyway, that's him (or her), and he/she can operate all those lesser secrets, while those below just ramble and rave.

NEMO is mentioned in the commentary to ch. 65. The concept of NEMO without direct mention runs throughout the BOL.

ianrons - May 23, 2008 - 08:48 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: secret?

Camlion wrote: › As for the old papers themselves, which are, after all, relevant to the topic of this thread, and the now clearly defined legal issues aside, I tend to like to see Crowley's intent for his writings being honored, at least officially, as Crowley was the author. Crowley's intent was that they remain officially restricted to qualified and designated OTO members. (This dispite the fact that he personally dispersed them at will.) I like seeing an author's intent for his work being honored, in general.

I think this is rather moot. After all, AC published the G.D. rituals in The Equinox and showed every sign of being a man who regarded publication and open discussion and study of magickal techniques (without "mystery-mongering") as the way forward; or, at the very least, the way to best make his own name.

If one believes what AC himself says, the only reason he kept the IX secret a secret was because he had sworn to, and he would rather have been free to publish. He makes it sound almost as if the oath were a regrettable circumstance beyond his control; but in this statement, as elsewhere, he is in my opinion merely promoting the secret and "talking it up" openly (with many a grand claim for it).

In other words, the fact of its secrecy was (intentionally or otherwise) a means of marketing it (and consequently Thelema, in the most grandiose terms); but as you point out he gave it to anyone who showed the slightest interest in the OTO, which is surely evidence enough of his view that it needn't be secret at all ("can't be profaned").

In other words it seems that he wanted to be able to use the fact of its secrecy as a marketing tool, and use it to lure people into the OTO, after which he could tell them the secret. This doesn't really indicate either way whether or not AC would want anyone else to keep it secret or not.

There are, however, other and more prosaic issues, to do with the Obscene Publications Act, that ought perhaps to be considered. Could AC have published it if he had wanted to and been free to do so? And was his oath to Reuss really what held him back? He found a way around the G.D. oath; why couldn't he do the same here?

These are just random thoughts... I have no real opinion on the subject; but I know that if I were free to do so, I would certainly write openly about the OTO secret. For myself, I see no compelling reason for it to be kept secret anymore -- after all, it's no longer secret, whatever the OTO would wish. This is just the end of a wedge that leads into areas of consideration of magickal orders and where magick and concentration -- as subjects of study and mastery -- are today; but I don't think there's much point in publicly debating that.

(P.S. Are we really talking about the same thing that Randolph was talking about? I don't think so at all, and that is perhaps why Randolph isn't properly credited.)

Patriarch156 - May 23, 2008 - 04:42 PM
Post subject: Re: secret?

SteveCranmer wrote: › Was the infamous confrontation the first meeting between Crowley and Reuss?

No as Crowley remarks in Confession Reuss first approached him in 1910 after the "Rosicrucian Scandal" and conferred upon him the seventh degree of the O.T.O. Crowley makes out as if there were little contact between him and Reuss after that and that he paid him little attention until 1912, where Reuss accused him of publishing the secret. However his correspondence and indeed the Golden Book of the Grand Lodge of Britain shows that him, Yarker and Reuss were actively involved with the Antient and Primitive Rite between 1910-1912, from which the british Grand Lodge of M.M.M. arose from after Yarker's death.

Quote: › I still am curious if the confrontation took place before or after Reuss wrote Parsifal and the Secret of the Graal Unveiled. No takers on that one? (That's not a "secret" OTO paper, is it?)

Parsifal and the unveiled Grailsecret was written around 1914, four years after their initial meeting, two years after the proposed confrontation and one year after the actual publication of Liber CCCXXXIII. And no it is not a secret paper. It was sold freely and reading it it is clear that it includes enough hints to the secrets that Reuss has in his hand to see that he hoped to bring in a few members into his Order from this.

h2h - May 23, 2008 - 09:30 PM
Post subject: RE: Re: secret?

The fact Parsifal and the Secret of the Grail Unveiled was not a secret paper would cast doubt on AC’s alleged conversation with Reuss two years prior. Sex magick was of interest to Reuss, but is it the supreme secret of the OTO as AC claims repeatedly? A comparison of OTO initiation rituals before and after AC’s reworking of them in 1914 would certainly shed light on this question.

Until then, note the similarities between AC’s conversation with Reuss and Cairo Working:

1. As zardoz notes, both incidents appeal to a higher authority to consolidate AC’s authority
2. AC’s “accidental” disclosure of the secret is similar to his bumbling and fumbling with Rose before the reception of Liber Legis, namely both accounts deny intent on his part

Walterfive - May 23, 2008 - 10:15 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: secret?

ianrons wrote: › Are we really talking about the same thing that Randolph was talking about? I don't think so at all, and that is perhaps why Randolph isn't properly credited.

Oh, I think we are. Or at least we're talking about the roots of the same thing. Crowley's mention of "Euliss" and the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light (the self-claimed predecessors of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor who taught Randolph's sex magick techniques/mysteries) in Liber Agape would certainly seem to point in that direction.

I own copies of all of Randolph's pertinant works, some in 1st Edition. It's at least the base or root of the 9th degree Secret (you should pardon the unintentional entendre), based on my research, which admittedly began with the Magickal Childe's alleged Randolph publication more than 2 decades ago, and then reading Deveney and Greenfield's books several years back, and continued by combing rare book shops and internet lists to get as early of copies of his books as I could locate. I admit here my suspicion of Swineburn Clymer's editions of Randolph's works as much as I am Besant's editions of Blavatsky, but I haven't found any evidence of tampering.

Having Clymer's 2-volume "History of Rosicrucianism in America", I am aware of his problems with AMORC, and his claims that AMORC derives their authority from the O.T.O., which he claims is not a Rosicrucian organization, primarily because Sex Magic is not a doctrine of Rosicrucian teaching. (Odd then, that Clymer's Rosicrucian organization should have connection with a proponent of Sex Magic like Dr. Randolph, isn't it??)

But the question of the origins of the O.T.O.'s 9th Degree secret is more complex than that. For what we have presented to us in documents like Amrita, Liber Agape and the Gnostic Mass may be much more than the formulae taught to Theodore Reuss by his three mysterious "Adepts from the East." Re-read that last sentence again. I'm beginning to get the impression that the formulae Reuss claimed that Uncle Al had revealed in Book of Lies was what Reuss was communicated, and that was Randolph's formulae. Nothing that I have read from Reuss spells out the 9th Degree formulae in coherent manner. However, it is clear Randolph's formulae is not Crowley's "Amrita."

And so we come to the Panarion of Epiphanius. This was written back in the 4th Century C.E. as a spiritual medicine cabinet, whereby Orthodox Catholic Bishops & Clergy would learn of the errors in doctrine and practice of the heretics, who were largely Gnostic sects, and how to argue the errors and decry the heretical practices. Three Latin versions were published in the 16th and 17th Centuries. A full Russian translation was published in the 19th Century. No English translation was available during Crowley's lifetime.

It seems certain that Crowley read one of these versions. When & where, there's no record that I am aware of, but reading Frank Williams English translation of Vol. I that was done in 1987, one finds literally dozens of appearant congruities with passages in the 1973 Edition of "Secret Rituals of the O.T.O." as well as in the Gnostic Mass. And in the Rite of Shiraz version of the 11th Degree, appearantly, as well-- I note that Fr. (West Coast) Patrick King misspells both the name and the author, but he reccomends them as neccesary reading in his Liber Qadosh (if memory serves), just before (or after) the complete writings of William S. Burroughs. (This is in itself interesting, as no complete English translation of the Panarion existed at the time of the writing of Liber Qadosh. I know from personal accquaintance that its' author was well-travelled and spoke several languages, but I don't know if he read Russian, or had mastery of enough late-classical Latin to read the 16th or 17th century editions. But I digress...)

The Panarion tells of the practices and beliefs of a number of Gnostic Sects.
Among these practices are a celebration of the Mass that uses the product of the sexual union of the Priest and Priestess as the divine Pasch, with which the Priest and Priestess perform the miracle of transubstantiation, and consume, in a manner very similar to the symbolism of the Gnostic Mass. Crowley wrote the Gnostic Mass in 1913, while travelling in Moscow; one wonders if he read the 19th Century Russian translation there, then.

To be continued...

Patriarch156 - May 23, 2008 - 11:32 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: secret?

Walterfive wrote: › Oh, I think we are. Or at least we're talking about the roots of the same thing. Crowley's mention of "Euliss" and the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light (the self-claimed predecessors of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor who taught Randolph's sex magick techniques/mysteries) in Liber Agape would certainly seem to point in that direction.

In fact as witnessed in Oriflamme in 1912 e.v., the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light link was not only admitted openly but declared as the place where Reuss got access to the secret of the O.T.O. (look at the second paragraph of the relevant page that I uploaded a scan of at imageshack), from which he wanted to use as the foundation for an Academia Masonica:

The three "adepts" while being namedropped were never presented as the place where Kellner got the secret of the O.T.O. from by Reuss, though for certain this aspect has been played up a lot by those who preferred a more tantric approach to the O.T.O. That the basis of the secret (unsystematic and unscientific as it was as Crowley lamented in letters to Jones) came from the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light not only becomes clear not only upon reading the actual "history" that Reuss presented, but also the instructions that I note below.

Quote: › I'm beginning to get the impression that the formulae Reuss claimed that Uncle Al had revealed in Book of Lies was what Reuss was communicated, and that was Randolph's formulae. Nothing that I have read from Reuss spells out the 9th Degree formulae in coherent manner. However, it is clear Randolph's formulae is not Crowley's "Amrita."

Reuss only wrote one thing hiself, which was an instruction to Crowley called "M.M.M.", which he wrote after Crowley despaired to him about how to make proper use of the secret. It formed the basis of Crowley's negative view of Reuss, since Reuss admitted in there that he had only managed to make use successfully of the secret once, making Crowley remark to Achad regarding the state of the knowledge of the secret that it was like that of automobiles in the past: sometimes they work, sometimes they don't and we don't know why.

What Reuss however did give Crowley was a german compilation of parts of the Mysteries of Eros and Hartman's Geheime Symbolem der Rosenkreutzers (as witnessed in Crowley keeping huge parts of both these two instructions in his own revision of Liber C, after noting that he translated it from the original german in his first draft), but everything new in that instruction was added by Crowley, who additionally embarked upon a huge undertaking in order to gain what he thought would be a more scientific understanding and work with the secret, an approach Reuss scoffed at.

The H.B.L. being the origin of the secret of the O.T.O. was never hidden though and besides the frank and open admission that the secret came from this organisation in the 1912 e.v. edition of the Oriflamme, the Constitutions of the O.T.O. likewise points out that the Order is an reorganisation of an older organisation going by the name of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.

ianrons - May 24, 2008 - 08:48 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: secret?

Very interesting stuff. Just to be clear, I was making a distinction between the technicalities of the Randolph and Liber Agape practices and not disputing a historical link.

Patriarch156 - May 24, 2008 - 12:45 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: secret?

ianrons wrote: › Very interesting stuff. Just to be clear, I was making a distinction between the technicalities of the Randolph and Liber Agape practices and not disputing a historical link.

Just saying that Reuss openly admitted that Kellner received the secret from the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, which is also likely the reason why in all the english constitutions it was written (1906, 1913, 1917):

"Under the style and title: ANCIENT ORDER OF ORIENTAL TEMPLARS, an organization, formerly known as: 'The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light', has been reorganized and reconstituted. This reconstituted association is an international organization, and is hereinafter referred to as the O.T.O."

As already pointed out the main sources of Liber C is Geheime Symbolem and an instruction from the H.B.L. which itself used materials from Randolph. So it is clear that though the secret was in rudimentary form as presented to Crowley, that the source of it comes from H.B.L.

That being said Crowley did develop it through his own researches into something far more. I also believe that the reframing of the secret in Christian symbolsim by reference to materials from Panarion comes from him as it is a facet that doesn't enter into the materials until Crowley brings it up in other instructions. Reuss use of "Gnostic" references seems to have been limited to straight sexual interpretations of the Mass as presented in semipopular ideas in the neognostic revival at the time as in "L'Euchariste." It is with Crowley we get the reframing through blood libel of child sacrifice Wink

ianrons - May 24, 2008 - 01:24 PM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: secret?

I'm curious about this connection with the Panarion, especially since it was apparently only available in Latin and Russian. Crowley's Latin was very basic, and as he says himself he couldn't face Russian. I suppose somebody could have read it to him. I would suggest doing a textual analysis here, but I have a feeling that won't be possible Wink

Patriarch156 - May 24, 2008 - 01:50 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: secret?

ianrons wrote: ›