No, the semantic debate on the meaning of Thelema which seems to be the core of your personal mission is not part of this discussion.

Oh so close Cam, sorry she lost interest and left. Maybe next time. 🙂 Keep working on those clasps, they can be tricky.

Moderator's Note

Camlion makes a relevant point about Noctifer's memorable post asserting, despite significant data to the contrary, that 'Do what thou wilt = Do what you want.' I was astonished at the naiveté of this opinion when expressed here and Noctifer was given ample opportunity to withdraw from that particular stance. He didn't take that opportunity. Is this relevant here, in this thread? Yes, I think so. It's a perspective on Thelema that demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding that, for me at least, has coloured every post he's since made. If the basics - the absolute basics - are misunderstood at such a fundamental level then this must at least mandate that his views on other matters be treated with real caution.

However…

This single comment manages to be offensive both to Typhonian Order members - who inevitably and correctly comprise a not insignificant proportion of the membership of LAShTAL.COM - but also to me personally.

'Squatting' here on LAShTAL? Nonsense. 'Parasite'? Nonsense. 'Beginning to be obstructive to the purpose of the site'? Nonsense.

I will have more to say later today on the progress of this thread but, meanwhile… I've found much on it that is both very interesting and suitably challenging. There was a risk that one particular member planned to to reveal more than was appropriate of the OTO initiation rituals in this public forum, but he has responded positively and discretely. What I'm growing irritated by is the increasingly mean-spirited personal ad hominems from a number of members…

If any member can't post here without resorting to personal insults then I'd really rather they didn't bother to post here at all.

Finally, my respect and admiration to kryzstof, who has seen this thread weave around a whole range of topics that he couldn't have predicted or wanted. That his response has been as mature, intelligent and polite as it has is a credit to his strength of character and commitment to the site.

I would love to hear again how my experiences and understanding of initiation in general - not just OTO, AA, or any other acronyms - have been a "part of the problem" that is this thread. You mean my, two posts that didn't even make it past the bickering? Oh, and I am somehow confused... as if!

You have known me longer than anyone else on these boards... it's a shame to see you peg me as confused on such a simple, tedious, and trifling matter that is this entire thread.
___________

Paul, you've said a mouthful, sir.

I foresee yet another thread on this subject soon to be locked, and rightly so. What is that famous quote, "familiarity breeds contempt," or something? Is this, and other recent threads, examples of the saying in action?

At any rate, bye guys. I don't see how some of you have the extra energy for this shit day in and day out. Time for a siesta...

agreed.

What is not agreeable, however, is the baseless accusation that men and women make themselves wealthy through the OTO. Unless, of course, you provide proofs, which you cannot, since there is not any.

I just wanted to mention (in following this thread), that I found it most interesting, insightful, and of such delight, that I had to actually sign up.. as opposed to just reading anonymously as I've done for several years.
Good work to all, and thanks to the mods for not "shutting it down", simply because a few supposedly 'secret' details came out-- which were quite relevant to the topic at hand anyhow.

For my own two cents worth, as someone who has been through the wash (in several Orders including the one mainly in question here), it is good to see people questioning the very essence of some of the foundation beliefs taken for granted, and operating in groups based on "grades", "levels", "secret knowledge" and "transmission". In the end, these concepts are taken way too seriously, and end up becoming the proverbial raft that seekers carry on their heads after they have long paddled across the river.

For a bit of a reality check though, and to comment on the very first topic quote, the author seems to have erroneously assumed the quality of an "officer of a lodge" relates to initiatory or magical perspectives at all- rather than just being good with admin, communications and the same abilities required of any self-run community group.. thus his whole argument that the officer should be a II* (and thus started the thread on 'well how do we know a II* has the appropriate level of initiatory/magical experience anyhow?)

Great thread though.. great thread. (And I personally loved the 'Minerval sh*tting out Buddhas' concept someone mentioned lol).

Welcome zazenji!

Glad you like that 🙂 Its totally true!

From an online O.T.O. Prospectus:

The letters stand for Ordo Templi Orientis, or Order of the Temple of the Orient and have a secret meaning for initiates: ©.™.®.

"Confusing?" Oh no, is that like "confusing the planes?" If one has a ticket for an A.'.A.'. (American Airlines) flight, it just won't be efficient to go to the S.'. A.'. (Sothwest Airways) gate.

I trust that we have only "confused" A.'.A.'. with OTO, and not G.'.B.'.G.'. or G.'.D.'. or the Globe, Arizona police or the U.S. Armed Forces.

Actually, I have always tried to be crystal (not meth) clear on this issue:

"Although Capricornus was the “Master,“ the organizational details fell to myself and I arranged it so that some real work was required. The Lodge used the O.T.O. ceremonial initiation rites but in order to qualify for a ceremony one had to perform the A.'.A.'. tasks required for the corresponding degree.
For example: After having taken the A.'.A.'. Oath of a Probationer, the aspirant would then be admitted to the O.T.O. Minerval degree (0°) initiation ceremony.
The aspirant would then commence to complete the tasks of a Probationer in the A.'.A.'., and upon completion of those tasks, take the A.'.A.'. Oath of a Neophyte before being admitted to the O.T.O. first-degree (I°) initiation ceremony; and after that, beginning to complete the tasks of a Neophyte in the A.'.A.'., and so on up through the degrees and grades.
For us, the designations Probationer, 0°, and Minerval all had the same meaning.
Now don’t get confused, for this is certainly not the way the systems were originally designed (i.e., to be equal to each other), but nonetheless, it was the way we did it.
From the perspective of one who has worked extensively with both systems, I must say that the A.'.A.'. “tasks of the grades“ are certainly of a greater scope and magnitude than the tasks required for the same numerically-designated levels of the O.T.O. Both systems can be correlated with the Tree of Life, but, if considered separately, they are not directly equal to each other."
..... - Inside Solar Lodge - Outside the Law (c)2007 ASI.

That [^] has always been my position. I (we) never confused them, I (we) sort of "combined" them. Then, to take the perplexity to an even higher level of insight, I recently noted that:

"PERHAPS it would be useful to approach the entire story of Solar Lodge once again, but this time from a different perspective.
Time and time again, various researchers and commentators have remarked upon the Lodge's rapid growth, its apparently effortless rise to financial independence, and its unusual application of the A.'.A.'. curriculum to daily life in a group setting.
Other, similar, organizations usually appear to grow slowly, to always need or want more money, and would probably lose a good portion of their membership if the A.'.A.'. Tasks of the Grades was the measuring stick of their common reality.
What was the secret?
What unique factors and forces were at play behind the veil of Solar Lodge?"
[the story goes on to reveal these mysteries ...]
..... - Inside Solar Lodge - Behind the Veil (c)2011 ASI.

OTO is self-proclaimed as a "temporal" order. "Temporal" means mundane, worldly, and even temporary (as Anicca: "Impermanence" - everything passes away). It deals with group-function.

A.'.A.'. is hinted at being "the eternal order that hath no name amongst men." It deals with individual progress.

These two can be correlated and simultaneously operated. If I had to do it all over again (which I don't, thank you very much), it would be in the same manner.

As to Azidonis' confusion, both he and I are wrong. The truth of the II* is not found in the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Army. It is found at NASA.

It doesn't suggest anything of the sort.

Having firsthand experience of the rituals as a candidate isn't necessary to "work the rites" as one of its officers.

Firsthand experience is only relevant as a (supposed) tool for interpreting the rite in the context of learning (supposed) lessons from that degree as part of the system. Someone who doesn't have firsthand experience obviously isn't going to "understand" the ritual in the same way, and isn't going to be equipped with the same tools for interpreting the lessons of the ritual, but that in no way prevents that person from 1) participating in the ritual as one of its officers, or 2) experiencing for themselves, independently and apart from any ritual, the internal change represented by and (supposedly) prompted by the ritual.

Now, whether or not firsthand experience really does provide a significant tool is a different question -- the point I'm making is that there's no internal contradiction in saying that people who haven't been through the rituals as candidates are perfectly capable of "working the rites" as officers. So regardless of what criticisms someone might advance, the whole "They're magically impotent!" critique -- at least when it's advanced on these grounds -- is utterly bizarre and groundless.

Los, the two users I quote below seem to be in conflict with your statement.

Nomad Aug 26, 2011 - 05:35 AM
"Non-initiates can surmise all they like about what an OTO ritual does or doesn't mean, but at the end of the day their opinions are baseless for they are not initiates. "

Heliopolis 156 Aug 26, 2011 - 11:12 AM
"you will never truly understand the process of initiation in the O.T.O. degrees if you do not experience it yourself. Every man must cut his own way through the jungle, a piece of paper will not help you to do that. "

Are willing then to agree any group can gather and perform the OTO initiations with total efficacy? If this is the case then it seems like the OTO attempts to pretend their initiation rites are not part of the public record are even more questionable since it means anyone can work the system... It seems the OTO wants to protect an artificial sense of mystery to publicly available rites.

Now this is obviously NOT the position of the OTO because of their position on the Solar Lodge.

Firsthand experience is only relevant as a (supposed) tool for interpreting the rite in the context of learning (supposed) lessons from that degree as part of the system... Someone who doesn't have firsthand experience obviously isn't going to "understand" the ritual in the same way, and isn't going to be equipped with the same tools for interpreting the lessons of the ritual, but that in no way prevents that person from 1) participating in the ritual as one of its officers, or 2) experiencing for themselves, independently and apart from any ritual, the internal change represented by and (supposedly) prompted by the ritual.

Then you cannot share the opinion that study of the initiation rites by non dues paying members of the American Reconstructed OTO is pointless.

Now, whether or not firsthand experience really does provide a significant tool is a different question -- the point I'm making is that there's no internal contradiction in saying that people who haven't been through the rituals as candidates are perfectly capable of "working the rites" as officers.

I happen to agree with you. Let me repeat that I AGREE WITH YOU! I read the comments of other posters arguing against the validity of non initiates reading and studying the rites and completely contrary to this very sensible position you have just stated! If one who has never experienced the rite is incapable of understanding it then Grady and his legacy is screwed, If you agree anyone can read, study and benefit from the rites then all makes perfect sense...

Really Los, all I am saying is its disingenuous to claim that a non OTO initiate cannot gain from and internalize the OTO initiation rites. My statements about magical impotency were intended, as I have said before, as a reduction to the extreme to point out the fallacy of the position onto which so many OTO members seemed to be instinctively latching.

So regardless of what criticisms someone might advance, the whole "They're magically impotent!" critique -- at least when it's advanced on these grounds -- is utterly bizarre and groundless.

as I have already said its supposed to be both! Its intended to make a point, albeit provocatively, via reductio ad absurdum. I have explicitely stated this already in earlier poss responding to you! I consider the OTO initiations as performed to be valid. I also consider those performed by Solar Lodge just as valid. If 3 folks got together to work through the Minerval initiations and did it with sincerity and accuracy to the script in OTO Rituals and sex Magick (which is accurate to one word which Kings book is not) then it would be valid.

Hell, even if they made it up, with sincerity, it would still be valid if they didn't try and pin some false claim of historicity to it.

Perhaps not as dramatic but Grady getting hammered and using Oreos for Cakes of Light (see Cornelius Liber Worth Fifteen Cents) but dramatic enough...

Of course. I don’t think that anyone would deny that the rites are easily available to anyone who wants to put in a tiny bit of effort looking for them.

Necessarily, any “sense of mystery” surrounding these rites will be “artificial” in the sense that someone who wants to experience the rituals “cold” has to deliberately avoid reading anything about them (in the same exact way that the “sense of mystery” about the ending of The Sixth Sense is an artificial mystery, willingly participated in by those members of the audience who deliberately try *not* to spoil themselves ahead of time).

And furthermore – OTO members, correct me if I’m wrong – I don’t think that anyone would deny that a person can learn *something* from independently studying the initiation rituals. I think that their position is that participating in the rituals gives one an opportunity to learn a great deal more. The point that other posters were making is twofold: 1) merely reading a ritual obviously isn’t going to “initiate” you and 2) merely reading a ritual means that you miss out on a part of how they were written and (so they claim) you miss out on having an important tool in interpreting them. [This in no way means that you can’t come to self-initiation by another path, just that you’re hampered in your ability to interpret that specific ritual]

Obviously, the rituals would be “valid” if performed by any group of people (that is, they would still be capable of providing the opportunity for an individual to learn its lessons). It’s just that experiencing the rituals in the context of an order that has resources like classes, study guides, mentors, regular meetings, and a whole group spirit (along with getting new privileges and duties in the club), etc. is – so it is claimed – more conducive to helping initiates go through the internal changes the rituals are supposed to provide impetus for.

The fact of the matter is, regardless if whether or not you read the rituals, experience the rituals, or are capable of performing the rituals, those old aeonic rituals do not Initiate, even if you are unaware that the Boogieman may jump out of a closet at some point during the rituals. The rituals do produce dues paying members who can produce more dues paying members. AC recognised this and in his last years he figured that he would let Germer in on it:

Aleister Crowley to Karl Germer dated 14 March 1942 e.v.:

"It is quite clear to me that a complete change in the structure of the Order and in its methods is necessary. The secret is the basis, and you must select the proper people."

I took the posters to be reacting against the idea of the rituals being discussed by "non initiates" to the OTO. I find this attitude a bit pompous and deluded as it seems to deny the rituals are public record. I see your point and it is well taken.

Obviously, the rituals would be “valid” if performed by any group of people (that is, they would still be capable of providing the opportunity for an individual to learn its lessons).

Im not convinced the OTO shares this belief. I would be heartened if they did but I don't see how it would be in their best interest.

Gee, everyone is having such a swell time on this thread that I hate to get picky about terms. But ...

What entrepreneurs and capitalists "believe" in their warm little hearts and minds IS NOT necessarily the same as the "official party line" that they present to their members and to the unwashed public.

That's all. No long posts from me today. I'm tired just watching the high speed action.

Having read the thread thus far, I would put the following points from personal experience only:

1) The issue of the validity of an 'initiate' who has bypassed certain initiations refers to an earlier
phase of development and I have had been told why, in certain circumstances this happened, which
is now irrelevant. Today, as far as I am aware, no candidate may bypass (nor is it necessary) the grades,
certainly in the MOE. Naturally, there will always be those who desire it otherwise.

2) It is difficult to judge just what kind of effects a particular initiation may have in the life experience
of the individual to who chooses to undergo that rite. There is no way of actually measuring it, except
through what one accepts as a sincere response on part of the candidate, prior to or after that event.
As far as I am aware, the OTO is set up this way to allow the candidate to discover for him/herself where
their true will may lie whether that is in continuation with the Order or not. It provides a very effective
way of checking the assumptions of other members about what 'initiation' really means, to themselves
and others, and how they think it should manifest in the life of a particular individual.

3) The issue for the OTO isn't whether it is magically impotent, or perceived to be so.
The question is whether it is effective in the methods it employs in order to achieve its aim,
bearing in mind that it is difficult to see the whole picture until you actually work through the grades.
This has absolutely nothing to do with a candidates 'magical' ability, whatever that may be. This
is solely about understanding the way the Order functions, what actually drives each level. In this
sense, my initiating this post was reflecting on whether the author's use of the word 'child' was
actually appropriate and was confusing the ability to carry out a role usefully and purposefully,
with the grade. Whatever insight the grade may give into the workings of the OTO doesn't mean
to say that the candidate is automatically mature enough to fulfill a given role. I would not choose
a role that I was unsuited for, no matter what my grade. I am only as good as the job I do, and
that itself is subject to the viewpoints of others who may disagree with the way in which I carry out
my task or my personal traits.

4) From many of the comments I have read since I started this thread, I see there is much that really
doesn't ring true in terms of when you actually talk to members of the Order(UK). Most are open and often
critical of the Order in all its aspects, but also seek to preserve that which they personally find of value.
It isn't for me to dictate what another's needs are, although I may disagree about the way the Order
is structured or the methods it employs. It isn't important to me who has the copyright, who believes
this way is the only way etc etc. What matters is that we are equally entitled to discuss and challenge,
if necessary, those members who wish to see a particular view or method prevail.

Atzilut

See ch.88 Book of Lies

The point being made is that McMurtry was an Initiate and was answering:

how can you justify the fact Germer, Grady, and others did not experience the initiation cycle?

I am not a member of the OTO but am grateful for their work. Why should a representative from the OTO contribute to a thread where there's so much hostility and disrespect directed at the OTO?

Because that's what the Typhonians have put up with for the last ten years with considerable grace (cf. Ian Rons' posts and the rest). It's called "reality".

That's only called "reality" in the Brute World. Glad to see you admitting deviating from the initial point of the thread to launch a general attack based on a past hurt.

The implication that Crowley was not an Initiate because he didn't jump through particular hoops shows a blindly literal minded, complete lack of Understanding of the process.

Agreed - this is the point Scott was making, in response to the assertion by our friends here that the OTO initiations are "necessary" in some way. They're not, as we've shown repeatedly, and as you have agreed here.

I didn't say OTO initiations are unnecessary to everyone everywhere or that they have to assume a particular form.

The point that:

is what I responded to.

Sorry to offend, Michael, but with respect, you should look closer. Members of OTO and the organization as a whole have been unjustifiably attacked, slandered and denigrated several times in this thread that goes way beyond the initial topic of the OP.

😆 😆 😆 You're right ein, you do have a wonderful sense of humor. Must come from such a rich imagination.

Glad to see we're out of the gutter 🙄

There were some comments which came over to me as intemperate, but I didn't find it as harsh as did you.

My apologies, by the way, for my reference last night to "language of the gutter". Viewed in the cold light of day, it was an over-reaction, and rather a pompous one at that.

Best wishes,

Michael.

I , Shiva, said this. Not Doppel. I hereby (c) copyright this phrase. (c) 2011 Frater Shiva. If you quote it again, I will sue you. "Fair Use?" Bah, humbug. 😛 ❓ 😛

That's keeping it in the spirit of the thread, the (c) part, I mean. 🙂
I am glad Paul decided not to lock this.
There are some very well written posts on this thread.

Moderator's Note

I have renamed this thread to more accurately reflect its content and to provide the latitude necessary for continued discussion.

That's something that is under constant review, I can assure you!

Sorry for the misquote Shiva and Doppel, I conflated that post with an earlier one by Doppel. For some reason I'm reminded of Scrooge McDuck:

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

Voodoo Hoodoo, first published in August 1949, was the first story to hint at Scrooge's past with the introduction of two figures from it. The first was Foola Zoola, an old African sorcerer and chief of the Voodoo tribe who had cursed Scrooge, seeking revenge for the destruction of his village and the taking of his tribe's lands by Scrooge decades ago.

My sincere apologies for any offense taken by you personally, Paul, from my little example of reverse Order-bashing. That was certainly not my intention.

Yes, I do not apologize for this bit. In fact, I believe it is quite relevant here. We would be remiss if we did not consider the source of this critique of this Thelemic Order's Thelemic Initiation rituals by one or two individuals who apparently do not understand or do not accept the Law of Thelema at the 101 level. The word "Gnosis" is being bandied about, instead, without benefit of a consensus on its definition, as usual. How can we judge the effect of these Thelemic rituals without accepting or at least understanding their premise? We cannot.

Actually, he seems to have had to be reminded by others of your ruling on this point before it sunk in. Again, what would the motive be of his doing this? I'm sure that Scott sees some vague nobility in rescuing those who have been deceived by the 'evil masters' of the OTO. It must be really quite insulting to the intended beneficiaries of the rescue.

I heartily agree. I sincerely hope that he weathers the fart-storm and visits the forums often.

What are you talking about Cam? On Aug 26, 2011 - 12:16 AMI make direct reference to Paul's post 2 hours after he made it. At this point I have mentioned points from the II and especialy the III which I think would merit further discussion.

in my post at 12:16 I make mention of the symbolism of the journey from Corinth to Heliopolis. No one has had to "remind" me of anything Paul said and I challenge you to show an example. Paul obviously feels (as he stated) I reacted "positively and discreetly" to the parameters he laid out. I'm sorry this chafes you, but it just is.

My intent has always been plain. The rituals are part of the public record and open for discussion here as part of Crowley's body of work. Paul has agreed to that - with parameters. I accepted those parameters,and posted within them. Paul has acknowledged I was discreet and within the zone he found acceptable.

A rather transparent attempt to fabricate an imaginary controversy within a real one!

Does anyone have a link to the full text of this letter? ( respecting any site guidlines RE. Copyright etc. ) I have seen it before in its complete form , but cant seem to find it at present.

i do consider it interesting as it has been edited and partially presented in modern OTO documents to stress the importance of the gnostic mass and the model of the O.T.O. presented in the blue equinox. (while downplaying or ommitting references to the other rituals having to muddle along as best they can.)

This letter has also been partially quoted, to justify Grants revisions of the OTO system and abandonment of the Blue equinox model. (while convieniently ommiting the references in the letter to the importance of the Gnostic mass as the basis of a broad affiliation, and the point that the 'new social order' should be along the lines presented in the equinox.)

Given that a single letter can, and has been edited to justify to completly divergent views on the OTO's developement, it would be usefull to have it on record in its complete form.

The whole issue of authority to initiate and ' regularity' of initiations is interesting - in the case of masonry - Crowleys 'regularity' or otherwise has been well laid out in the article by Martin Starr, and D.R.Jones reply to it. regularity or legitamacy seem to be largely a 'political' issue, based on temporal owenership, authority and control, rather than any issue of the actual effect on the Candidate undergong a ceremony.

Also for those who think it necessary that there is some sort of unbroken chain of succession or authority for an initiatory process to be valid, it is worth remembering the following points from A.C.

"The chief duty which they laid upon me was to publish the Secret Wisdom of the Ages in such a form that after the wreck of civilization the scholars of subsequent generations would be able to restore the traditions. " ~ Confessions (emp. added)

"...although the traditions may be destroyed in the destruction of the Brains that bear it, it shall be possible for those that may be worthy coming after us to recover the Lost Word." Baphomet X' to Thomas Windram X'

a large part of Crowleys work on the Equinox (which of course related to A.A. and O.T.O. ) would seem to have been to create an 'ark' and rossetta stone, which would preserve the traditions, regardless of any physical continuity.

as to the distinction between reading the text of an initiation ceremony, and undergoing an actual ceremony , of course there will be a massive difference between these experiences, but it is clear that in the OTO at least Crowley considered it acceptable to simply read a candidate through an initiation (as mentioned in MWT), or give them authority without undergoing any actual ceremony at all. on that basis there can be no doubt that the benefits of OTO initiation are not - entirely- dependant on undergoing the actual rites.
.

the question is, would people consider it more 'effective' for a candidate to have recieved a degree in OTO by reading through a ritual posted to them by Crowley,( or simply by being 'authorised' by Crowley)

or to have undergone the full formal initiatory ritual adminstered by officers with no charter, continuity or authority from Crowley or his sucessors whatsoever ? 😀

You are quite right in asking for an explanation, Az. The relevant posts regarding the Initiations in question (and Paul has since changed the title) pertained to OTO Initiations, which are unique in their design by Crowley, imo. In short, based on our having known one another for all these years, I would say that they are a 'prequel' to our ordinary personal understanding of the word "Initiation," at least at their onset. Many OTO members are also A.'.A.'. members, but many are not. I trust that you will follow my vague ramblings here. (Or I will have to strangle you, Brother! 😉 )

Kudos on you guys, sincerely, Shiva, but that is not the way things are now with these Orders, imo. It is wise, I think, to separate fond memories (both yours and mine) from the way things really are now.

I'm so sorry, Scott, it was Noc that I had to remind:

Perhaps you can help me in differentiating between the two of you, as I quite rightfully should do, by kindly answering my earlier question:

Again, my apologies for confusing you with Noc.

No.. I wont answer that question here. I was not part of the thread where Noc made this statement and furthermore it has no bearing on me. Those were Noc's words and he has every right to them. I wont defend or denounce them as my own when I have nothing to do with them!

I find the idea of your "Thelema test" tasteless and dropping beneath your ever lowering standards. This is all high talk from a man who says one thing to me in private message about the OTO then publicly tries to curry their favor. I am quite tired of you Cam. If you have something pertinent to add please do so. Otherwise, you seem to be doing nothing but still grinding your little agenda and fumbling around the edges of the discussion, trying desperately to bait and engage. I should know better than to indulge you.

Aleister Crowley to Karl Germer dated 14 March 1942 e.v.:

"It is quite clear to me that a complete change in the structure of the Order and in its methods is necessary. The secret is the basis, and you must select the proper people."

There is more regarding the original OTO "structure" and its potential for change. I mentioned it back in 2008:

This last letter (cable) has been quoted In the Continuum (by Seckler) and in Perdurabo (by Kaczynski) -

On November 19, 1947 Karl Germer received a cable from Aleister in Hastings: -
"Perdurabo born 49 years ago. Therion sends deepest love. Highest blessing yourselves and Thelemites, the Universe"

Interestingly, both authors fail to provide the P.S. that I cited above.

I had a copy of this "cable" in 1970, but I remember seeing the P.S. in handwriting (not "cable print"), so maybe I'm confused.

What I'm not confused about is the fact that Aleister saw the need to revise the OTO structure. Why? Probably because it wasn't working - in terms of income.

For my own part, I found that the "Profess House System" worked just fine. We had two (2) Profess Houses (operated by two different people), plus a Ranch that was community property. That is, several male-female pairs each owned 2.5 acres, and when one looked at the overall holding, it totaled 20 acres.

Of course, a Profess House deal involves community living in one form or another (the dreaded "commune"), and to my knowledge only Agape Lodge and Solar Lodge offered these shared accommodations - Well, there was The Abbey of Thelema at Cefalu, but that seemed to be The Lair of the Beast and not a Profess House of the OTO.

I think the problem always came down to money (income). Agape Lodge and Cefalu were just places of residence. The carried on no business. Solar Lodge launched itself into the external business world, and we never lacked for money after the early days of poverty (a few months in 1966 - just before the first business was launched).

As far as "The secret is the basis," I disagree. Aleister gave us the real secret (the "real" one), not in "Gold Bricks" (Ch Eighty-eight), but in "Bull-Baiting" (Ch 52) of Liber 333:

"O Babblers, Prattlers, Talkers, Loquacious Ones,
Tatlers, Chewers of the Red Rag that inflameth
Apis the Redeemer to fury, learn first what is
Work! and THE GREAT WORK is not so far
beyond!"

Regarding that letter:

"The....rituals will have to tail along as best they can...absurdly slow, cumbersome and clumsy; the secrecy part of it is purely comic...I feel doubtful whether the time will ever return when there is either need to use such methods or leisure to cultivate them....."

More can be found here in its proper context:

http://rodneyorpheus.com/?page_id=110

PS: The secrecy part is indeed comical, as a quick test, within minutes I was just able to Google and deliver to my desktop, free of charge, both King’s “Secret Rituals of the O.T.O.” and Crowley’s “Emblems and Modes of Use” (both promptly deleted afterwards as to not waste valuable space)

Or, as I would put put, asking you to declare yourself honestly, so that we might know where you are coming from. You boldly stand in judgement over matters which may or may not be relevant to you. We might not bother with listening to a Baptist's view of the OTO Thelemic Initiation rituals, for example, because we would know where they're coming from.

"Thelema test," interesting.

As I have already explained to you when you revealed some of a private correspondence between us, thinking that you might really 'get my goat,' I have mixed feelings about the OTO. One thing that I know for sure, though, is that they deserve to have proprietary ritual elements kept from them in public spaces designated for free and open discourse, so that the integrity of their system might be preserved.

Curry their favor? Stay tuned on that, I don't give at rat's ass what 'they' or you think of me. This is not a popularity contest for me.

No doubt.

What does
"Do what you want"
mean?

I am acutely aware of the differences. Crowley's OTO in England, Agape Lodge, Solar Lodge, the Caliphate, and the current OTO, Inc all had or have their distinctive "flavor" or mode of operation.

I am posting Solar Lodge material for its historical value and for consideration of details, like "work" and "business" - the "business" part being hard work and not just printing books (from time to time) and collecting dues. "Printing Books" IS hard work, in its own rite, but it fails to produce SIGNIFICANT income in short print runs.

I am now too elderly and aged to even consider the path of hard work again - that's for the younger folks; perhaps those who are reading our words and thinking, "WTF?" 😯

Agreed. "In a business way."

I am on record regarding this, but of course, 'money and materialism' is 'wicked' stuff. We had best indulge ourselves in 'pity for the poor and envy of the rich.' The self defeating nonsense of our times.

But we digress...

You are absurd. "Declare myself honestly?" You are asking me if I share an opinion Nocifer expressed in a thread you cannot even link to. A thread I have nothing to do with. Of course I won't comment because your interest is disingenuous and transparent.

Don't try and pretend you are trying to determine my fitness to comment on Thelema. You want to drag the discussion into Nocifers statements - you want it so bad you can taste it.

While I do not identify as Christian I might point out Paul has said on record Christianity and Thelema must not be mutually exclusive.

Why the hate speech Cam? Why don't you define Thelema for us since you obviously feel that those who might identify as Christian Thelemites or Sufi Thelemites should be excluded, ignored, and possibly scorned.

lashtal - Aug 18, 2010 - 11:40 AM
Azidonis wrote: › Select ›‹ Expand
The term "Christian Thelemite" is an oxymoron.

You think so? I don't see why it must be so.[/url:3s38u1dd]

True.. it is pretty much accepted that AC never took part in many of the degrees he even purported to have attained. A simple example, AC taking the 33* title of the masonic AASR, yet never having undergone any of the degrees in the AASR let alone taking the Chair in any one of these degrees (yet signing off on documents as MWS, GZ, SGC etc.) totally invalidates the whole succession and "need to experience" argument. It is pretty clear AC simply wanted the honorary titles to give some form of quick "authority" to enable him to start things in new directions or give authority to his writings.
Of course this is easily refuted by the idea that AC received some kind of hidden teaching or current from unseen forces.. the whole "chosen one" idea which leads to..

I personally have reservations about this, though that's for another time and place. One side note- I find the word "scholars" amusing, since "scholars" are usually the very people who end up distorting or fossilizing the teachings that are meant to be passed on alive, practical, and organic.

I would say it all depends on what your AIM is.. to what end? And this is where things get murky. You have people looking for all kinds of things in the OTO- authority, power, "magical attainments", "secrets", etc. etc. and then you have the OTO authorities themselves not in alignment with the original writings of what the Order was about, or even in agreement with the Order's aims. I have seen people waste a decade on admin duties and spiritually progress very little, when it is obvious that wasn't an aim of the Order originally or the candidate initially.
It is said in one place that the OTO is mundane, concerned with doing the proper work of where freemasonry fails (I always have a laugh at this), and being a social order inculcating morality & ethics-- fair enough, but then why does it start mixing in arcane concepts of magic (even a II* is now a "Magician", & most lodges will workshop on magick, yoga, tarot, qabbalah etc), triggers related to the AA, and possessing an authority structure that is anything but moral, social, or ethical?
The whole obligation section of the degrees, which coming from masonry, was simply a way of urging someone to better follow a set of moral and ethical guidelines, while as a secondary consequence keeping the ceremony secret (more as a token of personal honour and integrity), ended up becoming (in the OTO) a way of delivering the candidate into more service (to who?), giving, silence, & duties to the Order with each degree.
Then you have AC saying the whole raison d'etre and "vital matter" was a "gradual progress" towards the secret of the IX. Fair enough, however, less than 0.1% of all entrants ever get to the IX.. of which whose secret is completely arcane, unrelated to a social organisation in any way, and was practiced and known by many who didn't take 30 years to progress up the tree of a dues paying, post-fabricated (ie. the OTO was created AFTER those with the "big secret" had it already) order attempting to teach morality and social virtues as a preparatory ground.

Apologies for getting in too thick here, but the short of it is really for candidates to self-inquire on what they are seeking, validate the visible results of the initiation and its requirements, and then decide if the means can actually deliver what they are seeking. It always comes down to one's aims and objectives when working out if a process (such as initiation) is "effective".

As you well know, the analogy to a "Baptist's" opinion of Thelema was an arbitrary selection on my part, and an example of absurdity. It was not intended to allow you a dodge into a discussion of "Christian Thelemites" with me.

The ideas naturally associated with Thelema are well known here. You are not going to divert attention to a repeated recitation by me. 'Alternative Thelema' should be clearly identified as such, to avoid confusion with 'serious Thelema.' The notion that just any crackpot can hitch his or her ideas to the bandwagon of 'Thelema' is absurd.

The question remains simple, and you still won't answer it.

When did this become about "Alternative Thelema?" First you want to know if I agree with Nocifer. Now you want to talk about defining Thelema. Talk about dispersion.

You are grasping at this point and its sad to watch. The thread has developed into much more interesting parallel discussions than your little fixations. I prefer to divert my attention there. I wont indulge you again.

good day.

I am beginning to see that it takes almost as much energy to lurk and read as it does to post... sigh. Am I "addicted" to talking to you all? Whatever, who cares. It was a nice siesta, though it did not last long.

Yes, ein, since it was brought up, I still believe that "the term 'Christian Thelemite' is an oxymoron". While I understand the initiatory paths of Christianity, I also understand the initiatory paths of Thelema. They do not completely coincide. If they did completely coincide, they would be one in the same. Likewise, I think that the term "Buddhist Thelemite" is an oxymoron, as there are some tenets of each worldview that oppose each other.

When I see "creeping things" as it were, say and ant or beetle, sometimes I just squish the thing and name it "ignorance, sloth, doubt, hatred, restlessness", what-have-you. In short, the living world becomes as a virtual talisman for the Great Work. Such a practice would hardly work in accordance with ahimsa.

So yes, I still see it, I still believe it, and I still think that people can pick and choose as they please. The "right way" and "wrong way" is really between the individual and his/her HGA.

Would you say, zazenji, that "less than 0.1% of entrant ever get into the IX" is a problem?

Surely, it's not a problem if I am, say, the President of the United States. I don't want everyone to become President. Hell, I don't want everyone to become a politician, a lobbyist, or get involved in Congress in any way. I want as few people as possible involved in decision-making, and as few people as possible with their hands in the cookie jar, or a stake in the overall scheme of things. Sure, the President is a bad analogy, but it functions well, as long as people don't run off complaining about the example. (Remember, my recent LSD example was fitting, even though LSD is not recognized as an addictive chemical).

All I'm saying is, if I am an Initiator, I want to Initiate. It is my job, my responsibility, occupation, calling, duty, will, whatever-else-you-want-to-call-it... to Initiate. The Initiator, Initiates. Well, if I have 100 people, and 1 of them gets Initiated fully, then maybe I should look at my policies, and see how they fit into the grand scheme of things. If I have 100 in 10,000, it is the same. If "the Law is for All", then everyone should be able to make it to the top of the mountain. That they don't says one of two things: 1) the path leading to the top of that mountain is not as clear as some may believe it to be, or 2) your climbers just aren't making it.

With (2), I can agree. I've been through/seen many things in my life concerning initiation in general, and sometimes what people want is not necessarily what they are capable of. In some cases, those people remain associates of whatever type, and continue to assist as per their own capacities to do so.

With (1), I have to say that it is worth the effort to look into the nature of these "initiations", perhaps in a more private place than this (something for the O.T.O. heads to do perhaps), and find out just what they are doing wrong. Surely, they do not have a Buddha or Crowley to guide them in all cases, but if they are indeed Initiated, and they are indeed Initiators, then perhaps they need to figure out why more people aren't getting Initiated.

Note that there was a similar difference between point (1) and point (2) in the Buddhist tradition as well, such differences resulting in the Theravada and Mahayana schools, with those in the Theravada school proclaiming that only Theravada monks can become enlightened in the current lifetime, while the Mahayana school states that anyone can thus become enlightened.

It seems to me that Crowley possibly foresaw something of this in his own work, and in other religions the world over. Thus, it was only natural for him to use the O.T.O. as the sort of "Mahayana brand" of Thelema, in that "even if you don't attain, you can still help out", and his A:.A:. vision was more along the lines of the Theravada view, "Do it, or die trying."

Interestingly enough, he also said that utilizing the O.T.O. system, one can become a fully developed 5=6 in the A:.A:., which incidentally, is the "one thing" you need in order to succeed in the A:.A:.! So I really don't see how having a less than 0.1% turn out of full initiates in the O.T.O. is any indication of a "working" system. One could say the same about A:.A:., but I'm more inclined to believe it's a mixture of points 1 and 2: the climbers don't make it, AND there are problems with the Initiatory structure. Having what limited Work I have had with the A:.A:. (about 13 years worth), I am making such a statement from experience.

So what do we do now? We have defined what Initiation is, in this thread, haven't we? We have defined all of the various meticulous points that are involved in an Initiation from both the Candidate and Initiator's position, haven't we? Or, we at least have some understanding of each position? The next question, the one I have raised in a very elongated form (I'd be famous for the form, but some have me beat), is are these initiations beneficial to both the Candidates and the Initiators, and more expansively, are these initiations bringing benefit to the world in which we live?

It's a serious question, and something I feel that is worth looking into here. This thread began with the idea of whether or not to put 2nd degree O.T.O. initiates into officer (official) roles. On that point, I think such a thing should be based on the individual. Some individuals are ready for such responsibilities, some should not. Forcing more responsibilities on those who are not ready for them would only server to reduce that number lower than 0.1%. Not challenging initiates enough however, could indeed stunt their growth.

Something pretty interesting... when I make visits to various O.T.O. places, I do what I can to help out, even though I am not a member (and have never been) in any shape, form, or fashion. I volunteer to help with cooking, cleaning, building, prepping, etc. I do it out of courtesy and decency, and to "help a Brother out". I don't do it for a rank insignia. Why people are joining these places of interest (O.T.O. camps, lodges, and other organization's equivalencies) and then procrastinating or making a fuss about things that need to be done around the place is beyond me. Is there a sense of "welfare spirituality" going on these days? Am I missing something? Are these "initiations" not functioning properly? Is the notion of Karma Yoga slowly receding from this increasingly technologically dependent populace?

Cam... I'll PM you soon. One of these days, you and I will meet, damnit. So hold out. There are at least 5 or more people I just have to spend some real life time with (again in some cases) before I die, and you are one of them. And when we do, I predict much wine and strange... stories!

...and if you strangle me with wine in my mouth you'll have to clean it up. 🙂

Yes.

...

One (1) is all you need. the rest is frivolous or fortuitous. Unless it's a group structure. Crowley warned against forming groups later in his life.

This is a correct statement. An axiom. A flag to rally around. We want everyone to make it, don't we?

However: Let my servants be FEW and secret. Maybe some folks are going to need another incarnation or two. Or more.

Bingo! Give the man a cigar. Or a joint.

I started in 1964; you count the years, I'll just agree with you.

Refuse none. But you shall know and destroy the traitors. Unless you want to keep them as dues paying members. The tiny percentage of initiates that make it to the 9th degree is usually artificially regulated. There is no well-defined curriculum (work; tasks of the grades; specific reqirements) that leads to the top in OTO. A.'.A.'. is better at this, and sometimes we see human error in outer orders of the Star, but internally, inherent in "nature," the system, the electro-magnetic struture, is perfect.

"All is in divine order!" Until some human starts fiddling with the system, for his or her own benefit.

You are saying that you are willing to perform hard work out of a sense of voluntary "service." And you've done it. Congratulations, you may now proceed to the really hairy third degree.

...

I lol'd. My wife enjoyed it too. 🙂

Yes, I agree. If we were talking about the A:.A:., I would agree even more. But isn't the O.T.O. a group structure? Your statements, and others, indicate that a group dynamic is quite different. This makes one wonder just what these groups aim to accomplish? If it is the K&C, well, that can be accomplished quite solo, in the privacy of one's own home (with quite a few sanity checks, in case the casual reader thinks it is a joke). So what is it then? Is the O.T.O. supposed to be some sort of "Thelemic community outreach"? What is their overall aim? To have sex with each other for money?

I know it sounds brash, but it seems this is not too clearly defined in layman's terms. I have found, both in my studies and working, as you and others know, that the "language of Thelema" is sometimes just another fancy way of veiling real concepts and real intentions.

"Hit me back." Sure... do I want you to hit me? Have I hit you? No. It is street slang saying that, "I want to you call me when you find out more, or are interested in engaging in whatever it is we are talking about. (This is not for you, Shiva, but forums in general.)

Which I do not deny whatsoever. If some people need more time, so be it. Hell, it took me many years just as a Pronationer (2nd)! I understand that everyone evolves at one's own pace. But, if this is the purpose of the O.T.O., a sort of garden for people who "may be ready one day", then where is it explicitly stated? If is this is also the case, wouldn't Crowley have succeeded partially in creating a "prime breeding ground" for A:.A:. Probationers? I'd much rather find Students at a local Lodge than a local Baptist Church (think about it, everyone).

It sounds like a merit system, on the outside. Of course, I could sit and read through King's book (which I've never done), and many other papers, and come up with something else, but from prior knowledge and just what you say, it sounds like a merit system.

If that was the case, I doubt my O.T.O. would have very many members. :/

AHA!

Woohoo! Can I have a Cake of Light? Not one of those little "we baked this in the oven and it tastes great" Cakes, not one of those "well you have to eat the whole thing for it to work" Cakes, but one of those "omfg I just had a little bit of this thing and it feels like ALL of my chakras are completely charged" Cakes. It has been related to sex.

I love sex.

Just because Aleister says it's so, does that make it so?

No.

I fail to see why you and Camlion continue to miss the entire point of my position on this phrase.

My observation that "do what thou wilt" does, in fact, mean "do what you want" in the English language can be corroborated by using an English dictionary. It's as simple as that.

I'm not suggesting that that's what Crowley consciously wished to interpret it as, so please stop patronising me with the "naive" stuff, I'm perfectly aware of what Crowley wrote about that term, thank you very much. That is a separate matter. The term itself does, in fact, mean "do what you want". I'm stating the rather obvious fact - lost on Crowleyites and mystagogues and those who, like yourself, seem blinkered by his endless contortions over a pretty plain statement of unconditional freedom - that that is in fact what this phrase means in English. Nothing more, nothing less. Your opinion of my view, and Camlion's, do not change this simple fact of language.

Crowley stated his opinion of what it means. I'm not stating my opinion of what it means. I'm stating what it means, in English.

I'm not interested in debating this further. English is English, however Crowley wished to deliberately obfuscate or "interpret" it.

It's an important distinction, I think, as Crowley didn't consider himself the author of the phrase to start with.

<span style="font-size:24px]

Is this relevant here, in this thread? Yes, I think so. It's a perspective on Thelema that demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding that, for me at least, has coloured every post he's since made. If the basics - the absolute basics - are misunderstood at such a fundamental level then this must at least mandate that his views on other matters be treated with real caution.

This would be an absurd thing to say, if it wasn't based on a misunderstanding on your part (spurred on by Camlion and the like) of the distinction which I am making between what Crowley (years afterward) wished to publicly interpret that phrase as meaning, and what it actually means in the English language.

I hope this clarifies my position for you and anyone else that feels a similar state of moral panic over my statement that "do what thou wilt" means "do what you want", which it actually does.

Just ask a translator.

Best regards,
N.

Do you prefer order/structure, or anarchy/chaos? I'm asking because if you just tossed out to 7 billion people that this "great new prophet" put out this "purely enlightened and religious text" telling everyone "it's okay to do whatever the hell you want", then we would have quite a problem, no?

Besides, I find it extremely hard to believe, all of your semantics and "ask a translator" and "do what you want" stuff aside, that the approach you are taking will produce Adepts, both now and in the long term. And in the topic of this thread, Initiation, "do what you want" is, from my limited understanding at least, quite the antithesis of any heretofore mentioned Initiation.

Hey Az,

I cant speak for Noc but I will venture this... Based on what he says above
I don't think Noc means thats how Crowley intended it to be read, but Nocifer is saying semanticly thats the literal meaning of the phrase. I may be wrong but it seems pretty clear to me thats what Nocifer means here.

Its a minor nitpick point from what I can tell. I don't think Nocifer will disagree... but it is semantic and kinda beside the point because AC had his own intentions for the phrase, which he made clear. Nocifer acknowledges that AC didn't intend it to mean "Do what you want." I was never privy to the original thread but this looks like a semantic point that got out of hand.

Nocifer, from what I can see, is not suggesting "Do what you want" is the approach he is taking or an approach to produce adepts. He is just making a point about some possibly dodgy English on Crowley's part...
It dosen't change the way the phrase is intended.

There seems to be this big controversy about Nocifer believing Crowley intended "Do what thou wilt" do mean "Do what you want" when he has plainly stated he does not think that's what AC intended.

That's my understanding too.

There's no big controversy.

Best wishes,

Michael.

All I'm saying is... I'm not going to point out the the upper, southwest corner of ceiling title is in need of repair unless for some odd reason me saying it will benefit either myself or the owner of the ceiling.

Noc created an entire thread on this "semantic bit". I tried to find the thread... it was long ago, I forgot the title of it, and hence gave up the search. But he brought this idea up ages ago, pounded it into the ground, and made it pretty much a staple of his own little lashtal identity. I'm not making this up.

My only question is, why bring it up? If you don't believe it, you don't care, the semantics don't mean that much to you, you believe "do what thou wilt" instead of "do what you want", then why bring it up and force the issue as he did?

I smell "re-nig".

Az, that is not a fair assessment. You sound like you just *want* it to be true even when it isn't. I don't smell a renig. Even when I heard it referenced the first time without context I naturally assumed it was a semantic point. It suprises me that (a couple) others dont get this...

Why did he bring it up? I don't know.. perhaps

because it is an interesting detail about the discrepancy between what Crowley wrote and how he interpreted it.

Because it is a literal reading of the work of AC which shows an insight into how Crowley interpreted his own writing, even when it might have involved a semantic twist to make it work.

Because it was supposed to have been written by something *other* than Crowley.

He brought it up because he has an established tendency to point out details, especially when they show Crowley to he human or fallible. This (seems to really piss off some folks... )

He mentioned it because it is not any more or less banal than any number of other details brought up and dissected on this forum in the past.

I assume he pointed it out because Nocifer seems to be fond of details. He is also not afraid to argue a point. Much in the same way Cam is fond of driving semantic arguments into the ground.

He pointed it out because it is pertinent to the AC society forum. It is one of those nitpicky details like "what side did AC like to hold his pipe on" or "did Crowley's penis curve left right or up? OMG I need to know before the Gnostic Mass, LOL"

Anyway, I think it is obvious what he meant and any further attempts to pretend its otherwise smells of agenda.

Fuck if I know , why did you mention it Noc?

Does it even matter? I think he made his point clear and yet people still seem to want to peruse it.

I didn't "bring it up", Az. Not once.

Camlion brought it up on page 5, as he seems to do every few weeks (which I find simultaneously gratifying and yet strangely disappointing), and then Paul bewilderingly went out of his way to devote an entire - and rather unpleasant - "Moderator" post to the matter, based on an irrelevant misunderstanding introduced by Camlion.

Here is an example of a fundamental inabiolity to grasp this thread from the very outset.

The point has been clearly stated since page 2 that the rituals are not proprietary or private. They are and have been for some time part of the public record. As a result of this and their pertinence to the life and work of Aleister Crowley, they are open to discussion here under the parameters set forth by the webmaster... Parameters which have been respected for all 7 pages so far.