1. There are several A.'.A.'. groups, often called "lineages." The real ones have a person-to-person chain link back to A.C. The phoney ones use the name (A.'.A,',) but have no link, The ones in the middle were founded by borderline linkages, often involving Probationers who leap up to 8=3 (Motta, McMurtry, others). What else do you want to know?

2. Has LAShTAL now become "The Home of the Los Society?" Surely not, but he's getting a lot of press these days - without even putting in an appearance. It's a miracle!

... or a mirage!

https://sites.google.com/site/truthaboutaa/ covers questions like: "What is the A∴A∴?", "Is the A∴A∴ Eternal or Temporal?", "Is there "One True A∴A∴"?", "Are there such things as "Lineages" in the A∴A∴?", and "Who is the "One True A∴A∴" then?"

https://sites.google.com/site/truthaboutaa/ has already been commented upon on this site in the following thread titled ' The ”Head” of A.A.'; https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/the-head-of-a-a/

Thanks Shiva, Wellread,

Any speculation on the difference between the bureaucratic, governmental, organizational structure and teaching systems between Gunther’s and Shoemaker’s A∴A∴ ?
according to The Truth about A∴A∴ Shoemaker’s seems to be the most Valid . Does it really matter ? Gunther’s version is just as good as Shoemaker’s just slightly different ?

The term A.'.A.'. is used to refer both to a terrestrial group founded by Aleister Crowley and George Cecil Jones -- from which several terrestrial groups today claim to descend -- and to an eternal order of which all the terrestrial groups are reflections. This eternal order might be thought of as the "order of things" -- that is to say, it is the universe itself, which works according to regular laws that can be studied and learned.

Crowley suggests as much in several places, including the part of the Confessions that gets quoted a lot in these discussions: "Many people may go through the ordeals and attain the degrees of the A.'. A.'. without ever hearing that such an Order exists. The universe is, in fact, busy with nothing else, for the relation of the Order to it is that of the man of science to his subject. He writes CaCl2 + H2SO4 = CaSO4 + 2HCl for his own convenience and that of others, but the operation was always in progress independently."

This passage suggests that attainment is something that happens naturally all the time, outside of any formal group. The grades are mere labels placed upon attainments that have been happening throughout history and would still be happening even if Crowley and Jones had never founded their A.'.A.'.

That is to say, there have been 0=0s, 5=6s, and 8=3s throughout history, in the same way that H2O has existed throughout history even before people called it by that name. The vast, vast, vast majority of these attained individuals have never heard of magick or the A.'.A.'. (in part because the vast majority of them lived before Crowley). All of this makes complete sense, as it would be pretty weird if spiritual attainment only became possible a little over a hundred years ago when Victorian freemasons sat down to create a "magical order."

There are two attainments in the A.'.A.'.: 5=6 (discovering the True Will) and 8=3 (annihilating the ego). The other grades signify intermediate steps, during which members of terrestrial groups practice and master techniques that Crowley thought useful for attaining 5=6. As Crowley puts it in "One Star in Sight," "the two crises – the Angel and the Abyss — are necessary features in every career. The other tasks are not always accomplished in the order given here; one man, for example, may acquire many of the qualities peculiar to the Adeptus Major, and yet lack some of those proper to the Practicus." Earlier in the document, Crowley notes that "these Grades are not necessarily attained fully, and in strict consecution, or manifested wholly on all planes." This is because only two of the grades are the actual attainments. The other grades exist to teach skills that Crowley thought might be useful to some aspirants in attaining.

Ultimately, all initiation is self-initiation. A terrestrial group is useful to an aspirant only to the extent that it has a "link" to the true, eternal order -- that is to say, only to the extent that it helps and encourages aspirants to initiate themselves into the "order of things" itself, helping them acquiesce to reality. No terrestrial group is necessary for attainment, and many of them -- along with the requirements for the intermediate grades, and along with inter- and intra-group politics -- can easily become impediments to actual progress.

Crowley puts it best: "It is impossible to lay down precise rules by which a man may attain to the knowledge and conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel; for that is the particular secret of each one of us; a secret not to be told or even divined by any other, whatever his grade. It is the Holy of Holies, whereof each man is his own High Priest, and none knoweth the Name of his brother's God, or the Rite that invokes Him."

Bickering over which A.'.A.'. group is the "real" one is missing the point entirely.

Tiger: As the "Truth About A.'. A.'." doc recites, Gunther's "A.'. A.'." lacks any chain of succession back to AC, and is a group of folks basing their rituals, practices, and instruction of students on published materials, and perhaps rare documents purchased by the (c)OTO, not on an unbroken chain of initiation and teaching. If you care about that, they don't sound like the "terrestrial order" you would want to join.

Or you could just play make-believe like S.'. H.'. Fra. Los, and invent your own attainments, and say you are a member of the "eternal" order, the one that doesn't have "existence upon the Earth" and isn't "an organised body of men and women" [OSIS], but rather something that exists in your own private fantasies.

ignant666 argued that.....

Or you could just play make-believe like S.’. H.’. Fra. Los, and invent your own attainments, and say you are a member of the “eternal” order, the one that doesn’t have “existence upon the Earth” and isn’t “an organised body of men and women” [OSIS], but rather something that exists in your own private fantasies

....but didn't e.g. Crowley say in one of his books on yoga that myriad of Oriental people have "attained" throughout the ages?

Were they "playing make-believe" as well?

They weren't in any terrestrial A.A. order.

Yes, david, but they didn't go around saying they were Exalted High Initiates of a particular degree and title in the A.'.A.'. described in One Star In Sight, since they attained "without ever hearing that such an Order exists" [Hag].

Yes, david, but they didn’t go around saying they were Exalted High Initiates of a particular degree and title in the A.’.A.’. described in One Star In Sight, since they attained “without ever hearing that such an Order exists” [Hag].

8=3 isn't that just modern day metaphor for describing those ancient attainments? We've been through this.

Do you know what a metaphor is, david? How can a title be a metaphor?

As far as i know, "8=3" denotes a specific very very advanced grade, "Magister Templi", in the A.'. A.'., and G.'. D.'., and has no other meaning.

Thanks Los, ignant666,

"This passage suggests that attainment is something that happens naturally all the time, outside of any formal group. The grades are mere labels placed upon attainments that have been happening throughout history and would still be happening even if Crowley and Jones had never founded their A.’.A.’.

All of this makes complete sense, as it would be pretty weird if spiritual attainment only became possible a little over a hundred years ago when Victorian freemasons sat down to create a “magical order.”

and how does the Aeon of Horus fit in with this ?

I still need to study more but I guess the conundrum as far as the title of an exalted adept or enlightened master is if the garden flowers? And one garden might be different than another?

♬ ... Cuz we've got to get ourselves back to the garden!? ♬
  
И ∫ºλ
 

And one garden might be different than another?
As a very good lady friend once said to me many moons ago!... 🙂

Scattering my seeds,
N Joy

“Scattering my seeds,”

Boom Boom Kak Boom Boom Kak Boom Boom and 123
the vamp
get ya ?

"... know thou that every man that is called NEMO hath a garden that he tendeth 9. [...] 9. Every Magister Templi [= 8=3] has a Work to do for the world (source: The Vision & the Voice With Commentary, The Cry of the 13th Aethyr, Which is Called ZIM --- http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/418/aetyr13.htm) ."

Tiger: "... and how does the Aeon of Horus fit in with this?"

If, as already stated above in this thread, "... there have been 0=0s, 5=6s, and 8=3s throughout history, in the same way that H2O has existed throughout history even before people called it by that name.", this has been so before 'The Aeon of Horus', and will remain to be so after 'The Aeon of Horus'.

Tiger: "I still need to study more but I guess the conundrum as far as the title of an exalted adept or enlightened master is if the garden flowers? And one garden might be different than another?"

As also already stated above in this thread, "The term A.’.A.’.", refers to "the universe itself". Which is "busy with nothing else" than many people going through the ordeals and attaining the degrees of "the universe itself". Does this imply that "the universe itself", through the degree 8=3, assigns every recipient of this degree with "a Work to do for the world"?

The here implied belief seems to be that "the universe itself" is purposeful.

As also already stated above in this thread, “The term A.’.A.’.”, refers to “the universe itself”.

As the so-called "order of things", rather unoriginal and presumptuous thinking: did Crowley ever state this so baldly anywhere? (and don't anyone come out with that 'busy doing nothing else' quote again!)

But, even if so: what exactly do you think "the Secret Chiefs" refers to?

N Joy

wellreadwellbred: "As also already stated above in this thread, “The term A.’.A.’.”, refers to “the universe itself”. Which is “busy with nothing else” than many people going through the ordeals and attaining the degrees of “the universe itself”. Does this imply that “the universe itself”, through the degree 8=3, assigns every recipient of this degree with “a Work to do for the world”?

The here implied belief seems to be that “the universe itself” is purposeful."

The default position of Los without the degree 8=3, seems to have been "(not accepting that there is any intrinsic meaning or purpose to the universe).":

Los: "The issue here is whether there is sufficient evidence to think that the universe has some kind of “intrinsic meaning” or “purpose.” There isn’t such sufficient evidence (if you think there is, present some).

Until such evidence is forthcoming, I’m going to remain in the default position (not accepting that there is any intrinsic meaning or purpose to the universe). Now, my not accepting that claim doesn’t automatically mean that I accept the converse claim (“The universe has no intrinsic meaning!”)…it just means that I’m not in a position of accepting it. [...] there’s insufficient evidence for the claim that the universe has intrinsic meaning and [...] one is more than justified for not accepting it and living one’s life without it (source: Aleister Crowley and the Argument from Design --- https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/aleister-crowley-and-the-argument-from-design/page/4/#post-83111). "

Quite so, well --- you make a good point here re 'purpose' or 'design'. Hence my question which was indirectly addressed to Los, although of course he won't bother to answer me directly anymore.

Sniff! 🙁
N Joy

Los wrote
That is to say, there have been 0=0s, 5=6s, and 8=3s throughout history, in the same way that H2O has existed throughout history even before people called it by that name. The vast, vast, vast majority of these attained individuals have never heard of magick or the A.’.A.’. (in part because the vast majority of them lived before Crowley). All of this makes complete sense, as it would be pretty weird if spiritual attainment only became possible a little over a hundred years ago when Victorian freemasons sat down to create a “magical order.”

I commented that this does appear to be totally reasonable assessment but

@ignant666 (man of science.....?) tried to argue that such modern initiates who choose to use the symbolic moniker of 8=3 are "playing make believe" when he said Yes, david, but they didn’t go around saying they were Exalted High Initiates of a particular degree and title in the A.’.A.’. described in One Star In Sight, since they attained “without ever hearing that such an Order exists” [Hag].

Ignant666 appears to have a mental block and doesn't appear to know what a symbol is.

8=3 initiates have always existed and that is Crowley's firm assertion. When some citizen of e.g. ancient Egypt extinguished fire with water he didn't think "wow I need some H2O to put a stop to that combustion".

Ignant's entire beef around this Los 8=3 thing appears to be about lineage-territorialism which as defrocked Prof Leary showed us is part of toddler brain functionality. Note that Leary attributed this genetically triggered stage to Freud's anal phase.

Read into that as ye will.

I'm open to being proven wrong however Ignant's understanding of the scientific method appears to be lacking. Why?

He is convinced that I am a liar i.e he somehow telepathically (?) knows my real age

2)
he claims I never owned a copy of the Abramelin book when I did. Don't have the receipt as it was years ago when I purchased it.
3)
I said I read The Confessiosn "must've been a 100 times". Ok it was an off the cuff remark y'know like when people say "i must've told that guy a 100 times not to use that power drill as it's faulty". However I read it a lot of times over the years particularly my favourite excerpts but didn't make an exact tally.

Scientific method. Rigorous and proper data sampling, proper methodology in forming hypotheses as oppose to HE'S A LIAR BECAUSE I SAY SO!!!

One year ago Los toned down his rhetoric, when someone thought he was playing "a language game" invoking “the perspective of the universe”, and pointed out to him that the perspective of the universe can't be determined, as "the universe has no perspective, “it is apart from the minds of conscious beings (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/thelema/comments/53i9ej/why_thelema/). ”"

I wonder if Los' position now with a 8=3 degree from “the universe itself”, is that “the universe itself” has assigned him with “a Work to do for the world”?, "a Work" in which he is now truly operating as a representative of “the universe itself”?

For the grammar neo Nazis, what I meant was hypothetically speaking when some citizen of e.g. ancient Egypt extinguished fire with water if he was told that in the future that that substance would be classified as "H2O" it would be neither here nor there. It's "water" the same sort of water we use today.

Likewise, initiation then initiation now. The same.

A symbol, young david, is a thing that represents another thing. The symbol "8=3" after someone's name represents a claim one is a Magister Templi, that is a "Exalted High Initiate of a particular degree and title in the A.’.A.’. described in One Star In Sight", the grade our S.'. H.'. Frater has publicly claimed. It is a quite specific claim. I have to agree with JB that whether there are little squares and degree marks is irrelevant here.

You are unquestionably correct that AC says people have attained throughout history, although he says it will happen more often and faster in the New Aeon, with his methods (the ones S.'. H.'. Fra. "The Hand Of A Hanged Man" Los has repeatedly demonstrated he understands very little of, by posting extensively here and elsewhere about his misreadings and misunderstandings).

You do not appear to recognize that when you say a "citizen of e.g. ancient Egypt extinguished fire with water he didn’t think “wow I need some H2O to put a stop to that combustion”", you are supporting my point, and undercutting your own. No, they probably did not employ a symbolic summary of a phenomenon derived from a specific modern discipline.

Saying that being an "8=3" is an objective phenomenon (as I agree with you AC did), like a certain substance being veritably water/H2O, means there should be some means of verifying, of providing evidence for, such a claim.

What is the evidence for your Holy Goo-Roo's claim? All we have to go on is his writings. Post-"attainment", he is still a smug jerk who greatly overestimates his own intelligence and reasoning powers, but this is no objection- AC certainly retained many character traits after his 8=3 claim. The problem is, he remains a person who lacks the good general education (his lacks are particularly glaring in science and philosophy, two areas where he imagines himself an expert) AC said should precede The Work, and remains a person who lacks understanding of AC's work, and, more importantly in evaluating his claim to be a Master, he lacks anything very interesting to say of his own.

As Shiva points out, he makes no original contribution, and must quote because he lacks authority- this is how we know his claim is unlikely to be true. Compare AC's work to the point where he claimed 8=3, to the productions of "Captain NEMO"- posts here, on reddit, and at "The Fruitcake Factory" (til he got banned), and his blog (which contains no account of his "attainment" last time i checked).

As to your recent "saying AC died with an Abramelin talisman in his pocket is obvious nonsense only a superstitious religionist could possibly believe" fiasco, i don't think you will walk back your clear confusion as to what an "Abramelin talisman" even is so easily.

No one who has read (it's not enough to own books, david, you have to read them) the Confessions even once could possibly have misunderstood what Shiva and i said unless they: a) have serious reading comprehension deficits; or b) are as dumb as a rock.

As to what you say are my difficulties with scientific method, thanks be unto the gods that the peer-reviewers who gate-keep my publications, and fund my work, haven't caught on!

@ignant666

You are unquestionably correct that AC says people have attained throughout history, although he says it will happen more often and faster in the New Aeon, with his methods

Do you have a citation for more often and faster in new aeon quote?

Also do you think that it's impossible for someone to attain 8=3 outside of the A'A'? If no then your argument must rely on the A'A' membership reaching the millions in this aeon or 100s of 1000s anyway.

Has it? Is it? How many 8=3s does it produce?

(the ones S.’. H.’. Fra. “The Hand Of A Hanged Man” Los has repeatedly demonstrated he understands very little of, by posting extensively here and elsewhere about his misreadings and misunderstandings).

You do not appear to recognize that when you say a “citizen of e.g. ancient Egypt extinguished fire with water he didn’t think “wow I need some H2O to put a stop to that combustion””, you are supporting my point, and undercutting your own. No, they probably did not employ a symbolic summary of a phenomenon derived from a specific modern discipline.

How did I undercut my own point?

Saying that being an “8=3” is an objective phenomenon (as I agree with you AC did), like a certain substance being veritably water/H2O, means there should be some means of verifying, of providing evidence for, such a claim.

What is the evidence for your Holy Goo-Roo’s claim

I don't recall Crowley saying that all of those 1000s who attained provided evidence for such a claim either so err....you're wrong here.

Crowley in Book 4 said There is no difficulty in our assuming that these men themselves did not understand clearly what happened to them. The only one who explains his system thoroughly is Buddha, and Buddha is the only one that is not dogmatic. We may also suppose that the others thought it inadvisable to explain too clearly to their followers; St. Paul evidently took this line.

He quotes Patanjali extensively in his Eight Lectures if I recall correctly so yeah, there's two.

? All we have to go on is his writings. Post-“attainment”, he is still a smug jerk who greatly overestimates his own intelligence and reasoning powers, but this is no objection- AC certainly retained many character traits after his 8=3 claim. The problem is, he remains a person who lacks the good general education (his lacks are particularly glaring in science and philosophy, two areas where he imagines himself an expert) AC said should precede The Work, and remains a person who lacks understanding of AC’s work, and, more importantly in evaluating his claim to be a Master, he lacks anything very interesting to say of his own.

Do you know how many esteemed Zen masters were illiterate?

Do you know how many esteemed Zen masters were illiterate?

61.

Huineng for one. Masters? Mohammed two.

@shiva

61.

It's my understanding that the number is 62. Perhaps you're overlooking Hu Flung Dung (1361-1448), who it is said spent 25 years sitting on the left bank of the Yellow River - meditating, so legend has it, on Shöa, the Evil Woman amidst the poppy-fields of Honân.

david: It would take a considerable amount of time to address all the logical-reasoning/reading comprehension errors in your recent post addressed to me, one that is beyond what i care to spend on once again out pointing out the holes in your sloppy reasoning. The responses you provide mostly miss the point, or are based on misunderstanding what i wrote.

It is sometimes difficult to believe you are not trolling- how can anyone be as thick as you portray yourself? Are the high schools (grammar schools?) in the UK really this bad? I taught freshmen straight out of NYC public high schools for 20 years, and can't recall many as bad as you. I also can recall few college freshmen who displayed your consistent emotional immaturity. Perhaps that's why so many think you are much younger than you claim.

Little wonder that you are baffled by AC's work, and seek refuge in the simplistic twaddle dispensed by your Master and High Holy Goo-Roo. (I typed Goo-Goo, which maybe I should have let stand).

Where is the S.'.H.'. Dolphin-Tooth & Pile Of Dust anyway? We miss you, Lossy-Wossy!
-----
Michael's post above leaves me speechless with awe.

ignant666: "The problem [with Los' 8=3 claim] is, he remains a person who lacks the good general education (his lacks are particularly glaring in science and philosophy, two areas where he imagines himself an expert) AC said should precede The Work, and remains a person who lacks understanding of AC’s work, and, more importantly in evaluating his claim to be a Master, he lacks anything very interesting to say of his own."

Los' premise is the following: "5=6 (discovering the True Will) and 8=3 (annihilating the ego)" are degrees from “the universe itself”. "The other grades exist to teach skills that Crowley thought might be useful to some aspirants in attaining." "No terrestrial group is necessary for attainment, and many of them — along with the requirements for the intermediate grades, and along with inter- and intra-group politics — can easily become impediments to actual progress."

The good general education AC said should precede The Work, might according to Los' said premise be understood as a requirement among those that "can easily become impediments to actual progress."

@ignant666

david: It would take a considerable amount of time to address all the logical-reasoning/reading comprehension errors in your recent post addressed to me, one that is beyond what i care to spend on once again out pointing out the holes in your sloppy reasoning. The responses you provide mostly miss the point, or are based on misunderstanding what i wrote.

Yeah yeah sure.

It is sometimes difficult to believe you are not trolling-

Take note kids, when your arguments are dashed to pieces....play the troll card..seen it all before.

how can anyone be as thick as you portray yourself? Are the high schools (grammar schools?) in the UK really this bad? I taught freshmen straight out of NYC public high schools for 20 years, and can’t recall many as bad as you. I also can recall few college freshmen who displayed your consistent emotional immaturity. Perhaps that’s why so many think you are much younger than you claim.

Face the points that you made, face the fact that I dashed them to pieces and you don't like it. Don't involve your ego. It's not scientific.

Little wonder that you are baffled by AC’s work, and seek refuge in the simplistic twaddle dispensed by your Master and High Holy Goo-Roo. (I typed Goo-Goo, which maybe I should have let stand).

...etc etc

You said Los is not educated. Anyone can see that he is very educated. What you mean is he's not educated enough . Who gave Aristotle the philosophy degree?

Noone basically.

Look, I just proved you wrong when I provided evidence about initiates Mohammed and one of the most important Zen masters ever as being illiterate and you just dismissed it for all to see.

I also challenged you directly on whether one can be an 8=3 initiate outside of the traditional A'A' membership. A simple question but yet again for all to see .....you ignored it then resorted to playing the troll card.

MS: It’s my understanding that the number is 62. Perhaps you’re overlooking Hu Flung Dung (1361-1448)

He was included in the 61. Sixty-one the Jews call it, I call it "nothing" or "emptiness," which represents any and all who found their way to the Zero point, many of whom were illiterate, some of whom were kranky, and some of whom just went straight up the middle pillar, foregoing Qabalah, logic, grades, and concern over the illusions of the mind. 61 is a symbol, a common [non]quality of the multitude, er, few who made it.

Should you wish to adjust the symbol, you may include Los 8=3 in the litany of saints. However, that may reformulate the symbol, causing it to resemble the many threads now featuring Los(t) Angeles in the City of the Angular Megaliths.

David: Dance your little dance of triumph at having "dashed to pieces" my "arguments". Your mentor used to often express his gratification at his own Relentless Reasoning Powers, after having his trousers handed to him in debate- is this a "Skeptical" thing?

One hint: avoid analogies- they are not your friend, based on the fact that your last two efforts have backfired.

Here are answers to your mostly silly and irrelevant questions in your triumphant post #101234:

1) No, sorry.
2) Why on earth would you think that i think this, or have somehow implied this?
3) Probably not, but this AC's idea not mine.
4) No idea.
5) Figure it out with the hint above.
6) 62, as Michael says.

@ignant666 and @michaelstaley

when the troll card fails for you two...play the dumb card.. so let's see what we got here;

ignant666

You are unquestionably correct that AC says people have attained throughout history, although he says it will happen more often and faster in the New Aeon, with his methods

Do you have a citation for more often and faster in new aeon quote?
1) No, sorry.

Fair enough. More initiation in modern times. Makes sense seeing as enhanced post Victorian electronic technology means faster information flow and easier access to education. Add to that more wealth, economies of scale and leisure being more prolific in the modern age. No big weird mystical prophecy involved there. Not that you were implying that there was.
.
Also do you think that it’s impossible for someone to attain 8=3 outside of the A’A’? If no then your argument must rely on the A’A’ membership reaching the millions in this aeon or 100s of 1000s anyway.

2) Why on earth would you think that i think this, or have somehow implied this?

Oh y'know only because for the last god-damned 30 pages (of your Los thread) you have persistently specified that e.g. Los is not worthy of the 8=3 title as it only appertains to a certain organization's members and he therefore, has no right to use it. Just a little clue I had there y'know.

Has it (the A'A') produced hordes of initiates/8=3s?

3) Probably not, but this AC’s idea not mine.

Well we don't know that until you actually answer the last question.

N.B. The following may produce a rare phenomenon. Igant666 (a self-styled man of science but one who clings hard onto his own paradigms) may actually try and resist the urge to backpedal and may concede that yes he was in fact wrong......he may actually adjust his scientific model......

Saying that being an “8=3” is an objective phenomenon (as I agree with you AC did), like a certain substance being veritably water/H2O, means there should be some means of verifying, of providing evidence for, such a claim.

What is the evidence for your Holy Goo-Roo’s claim

I don’t recall Crowley saying that all of those 1000s who attained throughout history provided evidence for such a claim either so err….you’re wrong here.

Crowley in Book 4 Part 1, said There is no difficulty in our assuming that these men (initiates/masters/8=3s~ DOM) themselves did not understand clearly what happened to them. The only one who explains his system thoroughly is Buddha, and Buddha is the only one that is not dogmatic. We may also suppose that the others thought it inadvisable to explain too clearly to their followers; St. Paul evidently took this line. Crowley quotes Patanjali extensively in his Eight Lectures if I recall correctly so yeah, there’s two.

? All we have to go on is his (Los) writings. Post-“attainment”, he is still a smug jerk who greatly overestimates his own intelligence and reasoning powers, but this is no objection- AC certainly retained many character traits after his 8=3 claim. The problem is, he remains a person who lacks the good general education (his lacks are particularly glaring in science and philosophy, two areas where he imagines himself an expert) AC said should precede The Work, and remains a person who lacks understanding of AC’s work, and, more importantly in evaluating his claim to be a Master, he lacks anything very interesting to say of his own.

Do you know how many esteemed Zen masters were illiterate?
.
6) 62, as Michael says.

You and Michael playing the dumb card on that glaringly obvious dismissal of my exposure of your error in thinking about uneducated initiates. You accept that those initiates were Masters (one of whom (Mohammed) Crowley held in high regard) but you're demanding philosophy papers from them.

I'm surprised you never tried to backpedal into the Jim Eshelman trick of shoehorning modern (A'A') initiation into a different space as compared to "old aeon" initiation. Now maybe someone can convince me that modern initiation is
different but wouldn't that be proving that AC contradicted himself?.

@dom

. . . but wouldn’t that be proving that AC contradicted himself?.

Of course "AC contradicted himself". In the first place, that has been demonstrated quite clearly on the long-running and labyrinthene thread on Los's claim to 8=3. Crowley went through a lot of magical and mystical experience across several decades, and wrote his books at various points across those decades, at various stages of insight. It would be astonishing if he didn't contradict himself.

There is no need for anyone to prove, or to fear that it might be proved, that "AC contradicted himself", since it's already clear to all but the voluntarily blind.

And of course AC contradicted himself because of his fondness for paradox, as well as the change over time Michael mentions.

david: Since you think i am being somehow elusive- No, i don't think attainment is only possible through A.'. A.'..

I do however think it is correct that the "8=3 title [...] only appertains to a certain organization’s members"- your Master has not said he is a "Master of Mysticism" who is the equivalent of an A.'. A.'. 8=3, he has said he is 8=3.

Before you accuse me again of "lineage territorialism", let me again state that the only organization with oaths and initiations of which i have ever been a member is that organization known among men by the dread initials B.'. S.'. A.'.

Care to respond to my main point (you know, the one you have been evading with this "how many illiterate Zen masters does it take to change a lightbulb?" diversion)- your Goo-Roo has no accomplishments, and certainly none to compare with AC's by the time he claimed 8=3?

@ignant666 :

[L]et me again state that the only organization with oaths and initiations of which i have ever been a member is that organization known among men by the dread initials B.’. S.’. A.’
I'm thoroughly shocked.  I've heard all sorts of rumours that organization's a hotbed --- and even worse, a veritable hotbed!

@dom :

You said Los is not educated. Anyone can see that he is very educated. What you mean is he’s not educated enough.
But not educated enough for what?   To carry on with a debate here on a subject & over a matter which he in a sense started off to begin with?

Seem to hear some poultry-like clucking sounds somewhere off in the distance,
N Joy

ignant666

Care to respond to my main point (you know, the one you have been evading with this “how many illiterate Zen masters does it take to change a lightbulb?” diversion)- your Goo-Roo has no accomplishments, and certainly none to compare with AC’s by the time he claimed 8=3?

Avoided a point?

Anyway to answer (again?); The Grade of Master of the Temple is described in Liber 418 as above indicated. There are full accounts in the Magical Diaries of the Beast 666, who was cast forth into the Heaven of Jupiter, and of Omnia in Uno, Unus in Omnibus, who was cast forth into the sphere of the Elements.

The Magister Templi is pre-eminently the Master of Mysticism, that is, His Understanding is entirely free from internal contradiction or external obscurity; His word is to comprehend the existing Universe in accordance with His own Mind. He is the Master of the Law of Sorrow (Dukkha).

Ally this to the introduction to AHA! and see if you can find the requirements that you speak of.

What did Dogen accomplish or Mohammed or the 1000s of other similar?

In short you never got an answer because I don't know what you're talking about.

Dogen: Not knowing much about Zen, i had to google your man Dogen. Apparently he wrote more than 10 books of spiritual instruction (he is not among the 62 illiterate Zen masters, apparently), as well as poetry, founded a monastic order, revolutionized Buddhist practice, and built two temples, one of which survives today. These sound like accomplishments.

Muhammad? Well, i think founding one of the three Abrahamic religions counts as an eentsy weentsy bit more of an accomplishment than having a blog? There is also the matter of composing or receiving the Koran. There is little evidence for the "religionist" Muslim belief that he was illiterate (thus proving his Hotline To Allah, because how else could an illiterate come up with the Koran?). He was in any case a Magus, but you might say "Well, that means he had to be an 8=3 first". Maybe so.

So, to recap, re techniques of argumentation: 1) analogies- not your friend (backfire potential); 2) examples- not your friend (backfire potential).

“It’s my understanding that the number is 62. Perhaps you’re overlooking Hu Flung Dung (1361-1448), who it is said spent 25 years sitting on the left bank of the Yellow River – meditating, so legend has it, on Shöa, the Evil Woman amidst the poppy-fields of Honân.”

That wasn’t the only thing he did for 25 years I heard that that master also traded crops with the working educated .

That wasn’t the only thing he did for 25 years I heard that that master also traded crops with the working educated.

There weren't many working educated or educated working around back then... the knowledgeable proletariat were at an all-time low, in fact.  Not many schools around for a start. 

Trading crops must have occurred during breaks in Samadhi.  Meal breaks, comfort breaks, time off in lieu...

Did not the Electric Light Orchestra write a song about Shoa in the seventies? (♬ 'How you done me wrong... you made a fool out of me...' [etc] ♬)

Yours instructively
И ∫ºλ

Good points about Dogen and Mohammed, fair enough.

Google illiterate Zen masters if you will. Also I assumed that Crowley when he said myriad or whatever of initiates was generally referring to a big sample who have been lost to history. Wouldn't you say so? In other words masters come and go throughout the centuries and they never necessarily left any kind of massive cultural impact. Makes sense if you consider the massive spiritual heritage of the Indian sub continent and it's myriad of gurus etc so you're accusation goes nowhere basically.

Back to Los. The blog essays and his impact on this forum as Erwin's emissary. You think it's trivial of no lasting endurance as does Arthur Emerson....that's where we are.

Your words, not mine, david: "Erwin’s emissary".

Not a Master who speaks with his/her own authority, but a disciple who quotes another person's (mis-)interpretation of a long-dead Englishman. On a blog, and some forums.

Thin gruel indeed as compared to Dogen, or Crowley by the time he claimed 8=3.

Your words, not mine, david: “Erwin’s emissary”.

Thin gruel indeed as compared to Dogen, or Crowley by the time he claimed 8=3.

Ok let's talk about Erwin. He was using the 8-3 moniker years ago,

Let's not; Erwin's 8=3 claim was discussed endlessly a few years ago. You had your say (extensively) on this topic then; so did i, and others participating here. That particular dead horse has been thoroughly whipped.

So you do agree: no Erwin, no Los. No loss, geddit?

S.'. H.'. Fra. Los is at best a parrot or ventriloquist's dummy. What is it Marx said about history repeating itself twice? Oh yeah: "the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce".

Yeah if you want to hit the Deathstar then you have to tear Erwin apart. I never took part in that Erwin discussion no, don't know what you're talking about actually.

To refresh your recollection, david, here you are; you of course are "williams" although the internal quotes reveal "williams" = david, now know as dom. I think you were also the "Anonymous" who started the thread as well:

https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/how-would-anyone-recognize-a-magister-templi/

oh ok so Erwin was discussed in that some time ago. Thanks I'll check it out when I get time.

Just a note that A.C. did claim that there will somehow be "more 8=3's" in this Aeon. No, I cannot provide a reference. It's probably to be found somewhere in his writings close to where he stated that the Old Aeon systems did not go across the Abyss fully.

It seems to me that this is part of the underpinning of Crowley's Work - to make the entire path more accessible to everyone, and thereby helping to facilitate the growth of more people from a larger variety of lifestyles, instead of just restricting it to monks or even Thelemites. I note that Buddhism addressed a similar problem with the designation between Hinayana and Mahayana.

Personally, I think it has something to do with averages and case reports. Case reports as in, more people are looking for it and trying to report it, therefore more reports of it may exist. With averages, I think that as there are way more people (7.5 billion+) on this planet than there were in times past, that the opportunity for say, an 8=3, is greater, even though the overall percentage of 8=3's in the world population may remain the same.

The question, "How many 8=3's are there in the world" is met with the answer, "As many as the world needs".

Ah yes Los wrote in that thread #88401

"What need would there ever be to determine somebody else’s “grade”? It seems to me that the people who tend to be interested in this sort of thing are the “order types” who seriously believe in magical “currents” and the idea that somebody else can “transmit” attainment and the like.

It’s nonsense. All initiation is self-initiation. Since the work of initiation is the work of learning about your self and paying attention to your self, nobody can even help you do it in any direct way. The best that somebody else can do is kind of point you in the right direction for you to go off and do it yourself. The work is entirely individual.

Trying to figure out somebody else’s “grade” is mostly a waste of time and usually a total distraction. Even if you could confirm that somebody was an 8=3, what would that do for you? It could tell you something about where the person is coming from, and I guess it might mean that the person could be worth listening to on some matters, but even then, what he says would still stand or fall on its own merits.
"

People who are incapable of Transmitting always claim that argument .

And yes the guru is you .

Los is just another Charlatan that claims the grade without being tested .