| From the Galleries |
1658 pictures in 25 albums
Boleskine
Last Updated Picture:
'The Watcher' C A Wills
|
|
| Statistics |
Site visits since 30 September 2003:
20,378,536
Yesterday's visits:
24,992
Registrations:
Today: 1
Yesterday: 2
Overall: 5259
Newest Members:
|
|
| Review Submissions |
Attention authors, publishers and retailers! Are you trying to market a newly-released Thelemic product? This site is viewed daily up to 20,000 times by some of the most influential Thelemites. If you'd like to bring your product to their attention, contact us now to arrange for a review to be placed on lashtal.com.
|
|
| Random Quote |
|
I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
Without ever having felt sorry for itself.
-- D H Lawrence
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
zardoz |
|
Post subject: Re: secret?
 Posted: May 23, 2008 - 12:02 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
Posts: 147
Location: Grass Valley, CA USA
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: secret?
Posted: May 23, 2008 - 08:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Posts: 669
Location: U.K.
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: Re: secret?
Posted: May 23, 2008 - 04:42 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 03, 2005
Posts: 116
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: secret?
Posted: May 23, 2008 - 09:30 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 23, 2008
Posts: 68
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: secret?
Posted: May 23, 2008 - 10:15 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
Posts: 170
Location: 13th Floor Elevator, Enron Hubbard Bldg. Houston, Texxas
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: secret?
Posted: May 23, 2008 - 11:32 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 03, 2005
Posts: 116
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: secret?
Posted: May 24, 2008 - 08:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Posts: 669
Location: U.K.
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: secret?
Posted: May 24, 2008 - 12:45 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 03, 2005
Posts: 116
Status: Offline
|
|
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  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ianrons |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: secret?
Posted: May 24, 2008 - 01:24 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Posts: 669
Location: U.K.
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Patriarch156 |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: secret?
Posted: May 24, 2008 - 01:50 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 03, 2005
Posts: 116
Status: Offline
|
|
ianrons wrote: › 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
I think the russian connection might be plausible since Crowley's first active usage of the materials happens in Liber XXIV in 1914 e.v., where he explicitely connects it to the Gnostic Church, which also mentions certain "secret practices" of the russian "christians" as well. Perhaps he got talking with someone who had read Panarion in russian?
Since it is not a quote or even a paraphrase but instead an account of what happened, it is doubtful a tectual analysis would reveal much. But it is striking that the "legend" recounted has much more in common with Panarion's view of the Gnostics than say L'Euchariste. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ianrons |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: secret?
Posted: May 24, 2008 - 02:24 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Posts: 669
Location: U.K.
Status: Offline
|
|
| That sounds quite plausible to me, given the nature of the story to which you allude and the fact that AC clearly distinguished between the Jewish blood libel going around Russia at the time and the earlier blood libel against the Gnostics. He is, however, vague enough to let it be argued that he wasn't necessarily aware of the Panarion by name; which leads credibility to the idea that he heard about it via the report of a Russian. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: secret?
Posted: May 24, 2008 - 09:50 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 409
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
93 Ian,
ianrons wrote: › 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.)
Mine are also just random thoughts. I take it that you are an OTO member. I am not, and have never been. At the time when I might have been, I could find nothing in operation that I recognized as such. By the time that Grady's "Aleister Crowley's OTO" became available, I no longer had an immediate use for it, along with a sense that it might eventually be an impediment to my Will. Nevertheless, over the years, I've had many very good friends and lesser acquaintances who are or were members, at almost all degree levels, and I feel that I've had a fairly good opportunity to observe the subject, as an outsider, of course. I wouldn't call my opinions 'qualified.'
Whether by genuine justification or by convenient rationalization, I think that Crowley felt comfortable in publishing the GD material, as per AL:I:49. It did successfully expose the old foundation upon which to erect the new A.'.A.'., and in doing so retained an initiatory continuity in which he recognized value.
There is no doubt that Crowley employed the OTO 'central secret' as a marketing device to attract membership to the Order, teasing his readers generously with very revealing glimpses. However, I do not believe that, once it was well established, he would have shared similar liberal license with future heads of the OTO. I definitely get the sense that he felt that the secrets, both large and small, are protocol essential to the internal structural integrity of the organization. This, despite the fact that this protocol is essentially derivative and artificial. I also do not believe that, were Crowley alive and heading the 'Caliphate' OTO today, it would be as well established as it is. He would have been as self-defeating to his own redesign of it as he was in other instances during his lifetime. His own 'Abbey of Thelema,' much romanticized today, is another messy example of this. He lacked the discipline required to manage circumstances involving groups of people.
I consider OTO to be a highly experimental attempt to enrich and organize Thelemites, as well as to manage that organization (!), establish Thelema as a religion protected as such by vulgar law, create and sustain an instrument for the promulgation of the Law of Thelema and Crowley publication related and unrelated thereto, and provide a system of Initiation, sexual and otherwise, toward personal enlightenment and self-fulfillment; along with a few interesting lesser goals. A daunting challenge, overall, with mixed results so far, IMO. (Personally, I would like to see more promulgation of the Law of Thelema. I don't think that Masses for the masses are an adequate public interface, for example.)
I don't really think that the Obscene Publications Act in England and Wales was that much of a significant factor, nor do I think that Crowley's oath to a predecessor's previously 'unThelemized' OTO was ultimately a factor, certainly not in his later years. I think that, lacking a viable alternative, he put all of his eggs, including Thelema, in the OTO basket. OTO is intended to be a hierarchal meritocracy, it seems, where the cream tends to float to the top over time as it simultaneously becomes inclined toward service to the general principals of the Order, to the Order itself and toward comprehension of the 'central secret.' This was not a perfect basket to which to entrust all of his eggs, perhaps, but this was clearly Crowley's inclination at the end of his life. This despite the fact that the Order hardly existed at the time and was more or less hypothetical.
Today we have the rub. The rub is that the sexual component of Liber AL and Thelema, being of enormous and indispensable significance, is of primary concern to most Thelemites, and most Thelemites today are not 'Caliphate' OTO members, nor any sort of OTO member at all. The sexual component of Liber AL and Thelema has implications far greater than those within the confines of the 'central secret' of the 'Caliphate' OTO, in the opinion of many. Naturally, most Thelemites feel entitled to access to the writings of 'the Prophet' on this subject, so as to make appeal thereto in navigating their own personal paths. This access is officially denied them without 'Caliphate' OTO membership, although it is certainly available unofficially, one way or another.
Did Crowley anticipate this dilemma in any way? Certainly not, IMO. It seems that, in his worst personal moments of doubt, at least, he felt that the last best chance for the survival and eventual flourishing of Thelema (and the rest of his lesser eggs and legacy) rested in the hands of his version of the OTO, along with its 'central secret.' He may very well have been right, as a certain degree of debt to the 'Caliphate' OTO is owed by all Thelemites for the preservation and perpetuation efforts of that organization.
As for the 'central secret' itself, its much discussed and debated actual origins, and its subsequent development within and without the 'Caliphate' OTO through the subsequent years, I tend to confine my concerns to my own personal experience with the matter. I believe that it remains today much less than perfectly understood.
End of my rambling random thoughts on the subject, thank goodness! 
93 93/93
Camlion |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tenri-Kyo |
|
|
Post subject: L'Eucharistie
Posted: May 25, 2008 - 08:07 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2008
Posts: 10
Status: Offline
|
|
93!
I found this on the Net
Chevalier Le Clément de Saint-Marcq: "L'Eucharistie"
In 1906, the 38-page brochure of Chevalier de Saint-Marcq appears,
in which Reuss sees the very highest O.T.O. secrets laid bare: L'Eucharistie. [87] In 1914 Reuss points to the sins of sexual loneliness (= masturbation) in his "Parsifal" and he mentions Saint-Marcq as a quasi-remedy. Reuss called this pamphlet a revealing of the central secret of the OTO: only sperm contains the Logos: no women needed. Reuss wrote to Le Clément the following meaningful lines (we carefully reproduce his jargon): "I enclose two numbers of the "Oriflamme" which will show you that the Order of the Oriental Templars is in possesion of that same knowledge contained in your "L'Eucharistie"". In effect, we find in the "Oriflamme", published in 1912, this, which clears the matter: "Our Order is in possesion of the key which opens all the masonic and hermetic secrets: it is the doctrine of sexual magicc, and this doctrine explains, leaving nothing in the dark, all masonic symbolism, every religious system". The quote is in chapter X (La question du satanisme) of René Guénon's "L'Erreur Spirite", originally published in 1923.
[88] The fact that Reuss printed and published his Parsifal-manuscript in 1920, indicates that, despite his comrades in arms being Kurtzahn, Peithmann, Krumm-Heller, etc., he retains a penchant for the libertine interpretation of sex-magic. The adherents of the two orientations generally disapprove of each other. [89]
Who is this Saint-Marcq? In 1804 the Parisian Doctor Bérnard-Raymond Fabre-Palaprat (1773-1838) believes to have discovered the papers of the "original" Templars and establishes his Templar order one year later. He consecrates the radical socialist and former catholic Ferdinand-François Châtel (1795-1857) as a bishop and since this time history seethes with the offspring of this Order and its church. [90] One example is the poet Joséphin Péladan (1858-1918), who annealed his order ("Ordre de la Rose-Croix du Temple et du Graal," that bears the early O.T.O.-Lamen since 1895) [91] with that of Gérard Encausse/Papus'.
The succession of the Order of Fabre-Palaprat lives on in Papus' "Independent Group of Esoteric Studies" and its Belgian branch KVMRIS. One of the "secretaries" of the KVMRIS is the Chevalier de Saint-Marcq. [92]
Since Aleister Crowley was surely mindful of Saint-Marcq in his chapter on "The Eucharist" in "Magick in Theory and Practice" (Paris 1929), [93] several (translated) excepts follow.
Saint-Marcq: "The host is not an image, nor symbol of divinity: according to catholic faith it is divinity itself, at the same time materially and spiritually present in the person of Jesus Christ, whose conscience and sensibility are entirely present and alive in the smallest particle of a consecrated host." Here the teaching, "that Christ entrusted into the ears of his disciples:" [Follows John VI, 47-55, from that: "He who eats of my flesh, and drinks of my blood, has eternal life."] [94]
"How does a man give of his flesh to eat and of his blood to drink
without cutting himself or rending his limbs, without injuring himself, without damaging the integrity of his body? We have no choice. We are obliged to take that which science furnished us with: the procreative semen is a comestible material, semi-solid, semi-liquid, which therefore can be eaten or drunk; it is at once flesh and blood [...] it is always the same act repeated with the same words, and the same effects, which still brings to life among us, in thousands of different places, the figure of the founder of Christianity." Saint-Marcq now brings in texts from the Bhagavad-Gità, finding for example. "VII.8. I am, so speaketh God, the masculine force in the Man" or "IX.18. I am the immortal Seed" and draws in Egyptian and Greek examples. "This universal belief in the possibility of establishing a bond between man and God is therefor anything but a local superstition." Of course there is never any need for "congress with the opposite sex", for that would bring us to the XI°. [95]
Saint-Marcq calls this "agape, du grec agapo." Long before Crowley.
From The Correct Gnosticism
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
newneubergOuch |
|
|
Post subject: RE: L
Posted: May 25, 2008 - 09:21 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 19, 2007
Posts: 59
Status: Offline
|
|
I still don`t think we have arrived at a `solid` (nor liquid) conclusion yet. Though this thread has been one of the best for a long time.
As there are different ways to read the Bible (literal, allegorical, metaphorical, archetypal.......etc) wouldn`t this perhaps also apply to the central mystery? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: L
Posted: May 25, 2008 - 05:48 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 23, 2008
Posts: 68
|
|
No, there is no solid conclusion. And that's a good thing. Some questions to ask:
1. How is it possible that AC would be appointed by Reuss as X degree over Great Britain, North American and Ireland in 1912 and yet be unaware of the supreme secret of the OTO per his conversation with Reuss that same year?
2. The status quo interpretation of the secret cannot explain why AC refers to the relevant chapter in Book of Lies as a “despised” chapter.
Someone mentioned Patrick King and the 11th degree earlier. I recommend reading the online version of his magickal record Liber Qadosh (Rites of Mitylene) because it’s a hilarious read and may place the status quo interpretation into perspective. Try to grasp the poetic sensibilities in play.
The following is dedicated to Patrick King:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C5XuylNFLo |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ianrons |
|
|
Post subject: RE: L
Posted: May 27, 2008 - 10:45 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Posts: 669
Location: U.K.
Status: Offline
|
|
93 Camlion,
I don't think there's anything in what you say that I would take issue with, except that I don't agree with the general statement about cream tending to rise to the top, unless it includes the understanding that chief amongst the qualities that are rewarded in a meritocratic system is political ruthlessness!
93 93/93
Ian |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zardoz |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: L
Posted: May 27, 2008 - 05:36 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
Posts: 147
Location: Grass Valley, CA USA
Status: Offline
|
|
h2h wrote: ›
2. The status quo interpretation of the secret cannot explain why AC refers to the relevant chapter in Book of Lies as a “despised” chapter.
He could have been taking Reuss' point of view - Reuss despised the chapter because of what it revealed...if the story is true. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
in 15° 
: 
in 23° 
: Anno IVxvi 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
