Notifications
Clear all

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

Page 2 / 3

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Walterfive" wrote:
What ridiculous posturing! There is no such "Official Party Line." This, and the rest of your post is merely more thinly veiled Caliphate bashing…And I object to it.

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

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

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

""Walterfive" wrote:
Exsqueeze me? Are you *seriously* suggesting that Jim Graeb's personal and highly critical opinions of Hymaneus Beta be taken as "official party line?"

What is an "Exsqueeze"?
Perhaps Graeb's opinions should be taken as an analysis of the Party? Yes, I think so.

""Walterfive" wrote:
Don't try and bullshit us.

Heaven forbid! (And such language to boot!)

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

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

""Walterfive" wrote:
And the POINT IS that Natajara418's comments on "the Official Party Line" *are not* correct…

According to you. Thank you so much for being the Supreme Translator of Truth and Correctness. I believe you might be in line for an Ayatollahship. My God! I'm even beginning to think you're associated with that Mister Caliph.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

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

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

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

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

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

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


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"Nataraj418" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
What ridiculous posturing! There is no such "Official Party Line." This, and the rest of your post is merely more thinly veiled Caliphate bashing…And I object to it.

Actually, my phrase "Official Party Line" is simply one of those often-used clichés that should be interpreted as "The Usual Train of Thought," or "The Common Conception," and was not meant to apply to any particular party (least of all the "Communist Party" from which it is possibly derived).
I am not aware of what the term "posturing" means here. Does it mean striking a particular "pose" or taking a particular position? If so, I guess I'm Guilty of "posturing." The "ridiculous" part is your own invention and your own rather aggressive manner.

...and more posturing. *yawn*

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

Oooh. "Terror from the skies." How melodramatic. 🙄

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

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

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

"h2h" wrote:
[Nataraj418’s comments on the “Official Party Line” are, more or less, correct: http://www.rahoorkhuit.net/ota/jgraeb/caliph_or_khalifa.html
"Nataraj418" wrote:
Now this, it turns out, is an absolutely precious piece of work. I heartily encourage everyone to read it carefully. I especially liked the part where it is explained how a IX has full authority to initiate without formal charter. This is the way that many of us always looked upon the matter. After all, a IX is the "personal representative" of the X, much like a samurai was the representative of the shogun, able to perform as judge, jury, and executioner. Let's see - How did Crowley phrase part of one definition of the IX?: "… they must be prepared to act as direct representatives of the Supreme and Most Holy King, radiating his light upon the whole world."

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

A: It doesn't.

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

The remainder I cut for brevity's sake.

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


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ianrons" wrote:
The pre-1923 rule in the USA only applies to works published in the USA before that time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93 Nataraj418,

"Nataraj418" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
There is a very curious minority of those professing "Thelema"* who are determined to cling to the ego at all costs, despite the fact that this ultimately contradicts the message of Thelema and Liber AL. This would be a serious impediment to true magical attainment…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

93 93/93
Camlion


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Walterfive" wrote:
Ah, I think I see your point. You're suggesting that it's fictionalized, much like some claim his account of the recieving of the Book of the Law is fictionalized?

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

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


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"Nataraj418" wrote:
All my experiences in these matters, and the experiences of other individuals that I know about, are based on direct threats from a breezy person.

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

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


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

Nataraj418,

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

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"h2h" wrote:
I would be interested to know whether the date of AC’s alleged discussion with Reuss preceded or came after AC took over the order and put his stamp on it.

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

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

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

Steve


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93 Walter,

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

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

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

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

93 93/93
Camlion


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Nataraj418" wrote:
I don't believe NEMO is mentioned in the BOL, but I think he shows up in the 30 aethyrs. Anyway, that's him (or her), and he/she can operate all those lesser secrets, while those below just ramble and rave.

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


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 
"Camlion" wrote:
As for the old papers themselves, which are, after all, relevant to the topic of this thread, and the now clearly defined legal issues aside, I tend to like to see Crowley's intent for his writings being honored, at least officially, as Crowley was the author. Crowley's intent was that they remain officially restricted to qualified and designated OTO members. (This dispite the fact that he personally dispersed them at will.) I like seeing an author's intent for his work being honored, in general.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 486
 
"SteveCranmer" wrote:
Was the infamous confrontation the first meeting between Crowley and Reuss?

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

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

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


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

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

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

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


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"ianrons" wrote:
Are we really talking about the same thing that Randolph was talking about? I don't think so at all, and that is perhaps why Randolph isn't properly credited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued...


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 486
 
"Walterfive" wrote:
Oh, I think we are. Or at least we're talking about the roots of the same thing. Crowley's mention of "Euliss" and the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light (the self-claimed predecessors of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor who taught Randolph's sex magick techniques/mysteries) in Liber Agape would certainly seem to point in that direction.

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

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

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

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

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

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


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

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


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 486
 
"ianrons" wrote:
Very interesting stuff. Just to be clear, I was making a distinction between the technicalities of the Randolph and Liber Agape practices and not disputing a historical link.

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

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

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

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


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

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


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 486
 
"ianrons" wrote:
I'm curious about this connection with the Panarion, especially since it was apparently only available in Latin and Russian. Crowley's Latin was very basic, and as he says himself he couldn't face Russian. I suppose somebody could have read it to him. I would suggest doing a textual analysis here, but I have a feeling that won't be possible 😉

I think the russian connection might be plausible since Crowley's first active usage of the materials happens in Liber XXIV in 1914 e.v., where he explicitely connects it to the Gnostic Church, which also mentions certain "secret practices" of the russian "christians" as well. Perhaps he got talking with someone who had read Panarion in russian?

Since it is not a quote or even a paraphrase but instead an account of what happened, it is doubtful a tectual analysis would reveal much. But it is striking that the "legend" recounted has much more in common with Panarion's view of the Gnostics than say L'Euchariste.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

That sounds quite plausible to me, given the nature of the story to which you allude and the fact that AC clearly distinguished between the Jewish blood libel going around Russia at the time and the earlier blood libel against the Gnostics. He is, however, vague enough to let it be argued that he wasn't necessarily aware of the Panarion by name; which leads credibility to the idea that he heard about it via the report of a Russian.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93 Ian,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mine are also just random thoughts. I take it that you are an OTO member. I am not, and have never been. At the time when I might have been, I could find nothing in operation that I recognized as such. By the time that Grady's "Aleister Crowley's OTO" became available, I no longer had an immediate use for it, along with a sense that it might eventually be an impediment to my Will. Nevertheless, over the years, I've had many very good friends and lesser acquaintances who are or were members, at almost all degree levels, and I feel that I've had a fairly good opportunity to observe the subject, as an outsider, of course. I wouldn't call my opinions 'qualified.'

Whether by genuine justification or by convenient rationalization, I think that Crowley felt comfortable in publishing the GD material, as per AL:I:49. It did successfully expose the old foundation upon which to erect the new A.'.A.'., and in doing so retained an initiatory continuity in which he recognized value.

There is no doubt that Crowley employed the OTO 'central secret' as a marketing device to attract membership to the Order, teasing his readers generously with very revealing glimpses. However, I do not believe that, once it was well established, he would have shared similar liberal license with future heads of the OTO. I definitely get the sense that he felt that the secrets, both large and small, are protocol essential to the internal structural integrity of the organization. This, despite the fact that this protocol is essentially derivative and artificial. I also do not believe that, were Crowley alive and heading the 'Caliphate' OTO today, it would be as well established as it is. He would have been as self-defeating to his own redesign of it as he was in other instances during his lifetime. His own 'Abbey of Thelema,' much romanticized today, is another messy example of this. He lacked the discipline required to manage circumstances involving groups of people.

I consider OTO to be a highly experimental attempt to enrich and organize Thelemites, as well as to manage that organization (!), establish Thelema as a religion protected as such by vulgar law, create and sustain an instrument for the promulgation of the Law of Thelema and Crowley publication related and unrelated thereto, and provide a system of Initiation, sexual and otherwise, toward personal enlightenment and self-fulfillment; along with a few interesting lesser goals. A daunting challenge, overall, with mixed results so far, IMO. (Personally, I would like to see more promulgation of the Law of Thelema. I don't think that Masses for the masses are an adequate public interface, for example.)

I don't really think that the Obscene Publications Act in England and Wales was that much of a significant factor, nor do I think that Crowley's oath to a predecessor's previously 'unThelemized' OTO was ultimately a factor, certainly not in his later years. I think that, lacking a viable alternative, he put all of his eggs, including Thelema, in the OTO basket. OTO is intended to be a hierarchal meritocracy, it seems, where the cream tends to float to the top over time as it simultaneously becomes inclined toward service to the general principals of the Order, to the Order itself and toward comprehension of the 'central secret.' This was not a perfect basket to which to entrust all of his eggs, perhaps, but this was clearly Crowley's inclination at the end of his life. This despite the fact that the Order hardly existed at the time and was more or less hypothetical.

Today we have the rub. The rub is that the sexual component of Liber AL and Thelema, being of enormous and indispensable significance, is of primary concern to most Thelemites, and most Thelemites today are not 'Caliphate' OTO members, nor any sort of OTO member at all. The sexual component of Liber AL and Thelema has implications far greater than those within the confines of the 'central secret' of the 'Caliphate' OTO, in the opinion of many. Naturally, most Thelemites feel entitled to access to the writings of 'the Prophet' on this subject, so as to make appeal thereto in navigating their own personal paths. This access is officially denied them without 'Caliphate' OTO membership, although it is certainly available unofficially, one way or another.

Did Crowley anticipate this dilemma in any way? Certainly not, IMO. It seems that, in his worst personal moments of doubt, at least, he felt that the last best chance for the survival and eventual flourishing of Thelema (and the rest of his lesser eggs and legacy) rested in the hands of his version of the OTO, along with its 'central secret.' He may very well have been right, as a certain degree of debt to the 'Caliphate' OTO is owed by all Thelemites for the preservation and perpetuation efforts of that organization.

As for the 'central secret' itself, its much discussed and debated actual origins, and its subsequent development within and without the 'Caliphate' OTO through the subsequent years, I tend to confine my concerns to my own personal experience with the matter. I believe that it remains today much less than perfectly understood.

End of my rambling random thoughts on the subject, thank goodness! 🙂

93 93/93
Camlion


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93!

I found this on the Net

Chevalier Le Clément de Saint-Marcq: "L'Eucharistie"
In 1906, the 38-page brochure of Chevalier de Saint-Marcq appears,
in which Reuss sees the very highest O.T.O. secrets laid bare: L'Eucharistie. [87] In 1914 Reuss points to the sins of sexual loneliness (= masturbation) in his "Parsifal" and he mentions Saint-Marcq as a quasi-remedy. Reuss called this pamphlet a revealing of the central secret of the OTO: only sperm contains the Logos: no women needed. Reuss wrote to Le Clément the following meaningful lines (we carefully reproduce his jargon): "I enclose two numbers of the "Oriflamme" which will show you that the Order of the Oriental Templars is in possesion of that same knowledge contained in your "L'Eucharistie"". In effect, we find in the "Oriflamme", published in 1912, this, which clears the matter: "Our Order is in possesion of the key which opens all the masonic and hermetic secrets: it is the doctrine of sexual magicc, and this doctrine explains, leaving nothing in the dark, all masonic symbolism, every religious system". The quote is in chapter X (La question du satanisme) of René Guénon's "L'Erreur Spirite", originally published in 1923.
[88] The fact that Reuss printed and published his Parsifal-manuscript in 1920, indicates that, despite his comrades in arms being Kurtzahn, Peithmann, Krumm-Heller, etc., he retains a penchant for the libertine interpretation of sex-magic. The adherents of the two orientations generally disapprove of each other. [89]

Who is this Saint-Marcq? In 1804 the Parisian Doctor Bérnard-Raymond Fabre-Palaprat (1773-1838) believes to have discovered the papers of the "original" Templars and establishes his Templar order one year later. He consecrates the radical socialist and former catholic Ferdinand-François Châtel (1795-1857) as a bishop and since this time history seethes with the offspring of this Order and its church. [90] One example is the poet Joséphin Péladan (1858-1918), who annealed his order ("Ordre de la Rose-Croix du Temple et du Graal," that bears the early O.T.O.-Lamen since 1895) [91] with that of Gérard Encausse/Papus'.
The succession of the Order of Fabre-Palaprat lives on in Papus' "Independent Group of Esoteric Studies" and its Belgian branch KVMRIS. One of the "secretaries" of the KVMRIS is the Chevalier de Saint-Marcq. [92]
Since Aleister Crowley was surely mindful of Saint-Marcq in his chapter on "The Eucharist" in "Magick in Theory and Practice" (Paris 1929), [93] several (translated) excepts follow.

Saint-Marcq: "The host is not an image, nor symbol of divinity: according to catholic faith it is divinity itself, at the same time materially and spiritually present in the person of Jesus Christ, whose conscience and sensibility are entirely present and alive in the smallest particle of a consecrated host." Here the teaching, "that Christ entrusted into the ears of his disciples:" [Follows John VI, 47-55, from that: "He who eats of my flesh, and drinks of my blood, has eternal life."] [94]
"How does a man give of his flesh to eat and of his blood to drink
without cutting himself or rending his limbs, without injuring himself, without damaging the integrity of his body? We have no choice. We are obliged to take that which science furnished us with: the procreative semen is a comestible material, semi-solid, semi-liquid, which therefore can be eaten or drunk; it is at once flesh and blood [...] it is always the same act repeated with the same words, and the same effects, which still brings to life among us, in thousands of different places, the figure of the founder of Christianity." Saint-Marcq now brings in texts from the Bhagavad-Gità, finding for example. "VII.8. I am, so speaketh God, the masculine force in the Man" or "IX.18. I am the immortal Seed" and draws in Egyptian and Greek examples. "This universal belief in the possibility of establishing a bond between man and God is therefor anything but a local superstition." Of course there is never any need for "congress with the opposite sex", for that would bring us to the XI°. [95]
Saint-Marcq calls this "agape, du grec agapo." Long before Crowley.

From The Correct Gnosticism

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I still don`t think we have arrived at a `solid` (nor liquid) conclusion yet. Though this thread has been one of the best for a long time.

As there are different ways to read the Bible (literal, allegorical, metaphorical, archetypal.......etc) wouldn`t this perhaps also apply to the central mystery?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

No, there is no solid conclusion. And that's a good thing. Some questions to ask:

1. How is it possible that AC would be appointed by Reuss as X degree over Great Britain, North American and Ireland in 1912 and yet be unaware of the supreme secret of the OTO per his conversation with Reuss that same year?
2. The status quo interpretation of the secret cannot explain why AC refers to the relevant chapter in Book of Lies as a “despised” chapter.

Someone mentioned Patrick King and the 11th degree earlier. I recommend reading the online version of his magickal record Liber Qadosh (Rites of Mitylene) because it’s a hilarious read and may place the status quo interpretation into perspective. Try to grasp the poetic sensibilities in play.

The following is dedicated to Patrick King:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C5XuylNFLo


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

93 Camlion,

I don't think there's anything in what you say that I would take issue with, except that I don't agree with the general statement about cream tending to rise to the top, unless it includes the understanding that chief amongst the qualities that are rewarded in a meritocratic system is political ruthlessness!

93 93/93

Ian


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"h2h" wrote:
2. The status quo interpretation of the secret cannot explain why AC refers to the relevant chapter in Book of Lies as a “despised” chapter.

He could have been taking Reuss' point of view - Reuss despised the chapter because of what it revealed...if the story is true.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Re-read AC’s account of his conversation with Reuss. Several chapters in Book of Lies qualify for the status quo interpretation of the secret, but AC refers to a particular “despised” chapter that reveals the secret in the “plainest language”.

On “despised”:
Maybe AC didn’t want to be obligated with the responsibilities of the 9th degree and despised the chapter for this reason (note the motif of being “forced against his will”); however a more plausible interpretation is he deemed the chapter worthless or negligible until informed otherwise by Reuss.

The question is whether AC discovered the supreme secret of the OTO the lineage of which goes back to the HBL, or whether this standard interpretation is something Thelemites have ascribed significance to after the fact – by which I mean AC’s reworking of initiations and introduction of Thelema into the OTO starting around 1914.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93 Ian,

"ianrons" wrote:
I don't think there's anything in what you say that I would take issue with, except that I don't agree with the general statement about cream tending to rise to the top, unless it includes the understanding that chief amongst the qualities that are rewarded in a meritocratic system is political ruthlessness!

Well, not to wander too far off topic, but this why I inserted the "(!)" in reference to the management of such an Order. In most instances, the sort of people with a real talent for making such a system work would literally perish under the strain of the other elements of the operation. Hence, one gets management lacking in the ability to insure true success, but rather adept at the typical bureaucracy with all of its negative implications.

93 93/93
Camlion


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93 Cronos et al,

To go back to your original question Cronos - I think the magickal formulae in "The Book of Lies" is fairly obvious at this time: so Chps 36, 69 & 87 are some. (Though it was amusing to see someone posit "Gold Bricks" as some sort of "answer".) But there are also mystical formulas: namely Chps 11, 31, 72, 76 & 78. The latter relate to the Higher Trances & Crowley gives a foreshadowing of it in "Liber Abysmi vel Daath."

The main thing to note is that any who say there is "one answer" to this are evidently not connected to reality. How many formulas are there in these matters? Who will determine the nature of their neighbour's Star? Should they be foolish enough to do so. As for any who mention "copyright" on these matters - I need not comment. It is quite possible to stumble into the Sanctuary by accident - people aren't told that. ("Sanctuary" is not necessarily a "degree" or an Order.) If you "hate Christianity" blindly you might not see the "Christos".

But some mentioned P.B. Randolph: there is no question that he was an enormous influence upon the founders of O.T.O. His organisation, and derivatives, are mentioned in the "O.T.O. History" on the Albion O.T.O.'s website; http://albion.oto.org.uk/about_albion_oto/albion_oto_early_history.shtml

I quote two short entries from that;

"Pascal Beverly Randolph.
P.B. Randolph (1825-1875 e.v.) is an important figure re. the originating influences of the O.T.O. due to his founding of the "Brotherhood of Eulis", and his involvement in "The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light", of which the first Grand Master of the O.T.O., Carl Kellner, was an initiate. The H.B.L. was descended from the "Fratres Lucis", and was connected to the "Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor"; the latter was established in 1870 e.v. and became public in England in 1884 e.v. under the leadership of its Grand Master, Max Theon (1850-1927 e.v.) The H.B. of Luxor included in its curriculum the teachings of P.B. Randolph, and counted amongst its members the founder of the Theosophical Society, Madam Helena Petrova Blavatsky (1831-1891 e.v. and 8=3 A.'. A.'.) The H.B. of Light was also connected to the "Brotherhood of Luxor" which was involved in founding the Theosophical Society and the Fratres Lucis. Randolph is curiously overlooked in many histories."

"Clymer reprinted many of Randolph's books from his Headquarters in Quakertown, Pennsylvania. Humorously, he attacked the German O.T.O. at this time for their sexual magick practices, while praising P.B.R. for his "pure teachings". Randolph can certainly be seen as one of the major influences upon the development of the "Western Hermetic Tradition" and his influence is felt in many Schools e.g. compare his "Volantia" chapter in "Sexual Magic" with the "flashing colours" exercise of the Golden Dawn. He can also be placed as amongst the foremost of modern influences upon the O.T.O. in its many forms today."

I have always thought it odd that he is overlooked in previous histories, as apparently others like Greenfield have mentioned. Those familiar with his books will know they are very "hands-on" - with diagrams of sexual position during the ceremonies & so on.

I have also thought it odd that in these discussions Chps 173 - 176 of Liber Aleph are never mentioned. Remember A.C. said (in "Confessions I think) that he had put these matters in plain language "somewhere in his writings". This is evidently not the prerogative of Liber 333.

93 93/93.

Fraternally,

Rob.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93 Zardoz, all,

"zardoz" wrote:
"h2h" wrote:
2. The status quo interpretation of the secret cannot explain why AC refers to the relevant chapter in Book of Lies as a “despised” chapter.

He could have been taking Reuss' point of view - Reuss despised the chapter because of what it revealed...if the story is true.

It seems clear that there is a thread of 'despised' chapters, as the BOL is composed of such threads on given subjects, all woven together so nicely. Perhaps Reuss identified one particular such chapter, but it would only typify one of several that allude to the 'secret' from various perspectives. I doubt that we will know for sure if this really happened exactly as the story tells it, or exactly which of the chapters in question Reuss might have pointed to, but the overall message of the story seems a clear pointer to the BOL for insight into the Matter.

Or am I spoiling the fun of the hunt? 😉

93 93/93
Camlion


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

My practical experience and understanding of these sexual practices is as follows:

At climax a sigil or 'magickal child' is reified by one or both partners (preferably both). The co-mingled sexual fluids are subsequently used to annoint the material basis. Such an emblem needs to be kept secret by for example an OTO lodge lest other practitioners 'hijack' it for their own usage. In a group context the reification and loading can be done by many participants, in small groups or all at once. Diety assumption (preferably FULL diety assumption) greatly enhances the practice but then climax occurs after assumption. The emblem in proximity during theurgy and still annointed afterwards by the now human celebrants.

Never been in the OTO. This stuff has been known for years and and is well published. If the OTO has some further sexual secrets, well... frankly I have my hands full with the kind of material given above.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"RobCurley" wrote:
93 Cronos et al,

To go back to your original question Cronos - I think the magickal formulae in "The Book of Lies" is fairly obvious at this time: so Chps 36, 69 & 87 are some. (Though it was amusing to see someone posit "Gold Bricks" as some sort of "answer".) But there are also mystical formulas: namely Chps 11, 31, 72, 76 & 78. The latter relate to the Higher Trances & Crowley gives a foreshadowing of it in "Liber Abysmi vel Daath."

Ch. 35 presents an interesting tableaux of a less obvious magical/mystical formula when read with chapters 1, 3, 4, 8, 15, 16, 18, 24, 28,and 29 as suggested in the Commentary.

Overall I perceive the Book of Lies as expressing a coherent unified vision of alchemical workings with the different chapters serving as methods, strategies, pointers, pitfalls, etc. for realizing that vision. In other words, it works best, in my opinion, to take the book as a whole instead of focusing on some chapters at the expense of ignoring others. That vision gets expressed well in the last two chapters, Starlight and The Heikle.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"h2h" wrote:
The status quo interpretation of the secret cannot explain why AC refers to the relevant chapter in Book of Lies as a “despised” chapter.

I thought this was just because Crowley said (in the introduction to the Book of Lies) that he was never happy with how the prose/poetry of that chapter turned out. The chapter number "vexed" him, or whatnot, and he just threw something down on paper quickly, with which he was never all that pleased.

It's not too far a jump from "displeased" to "despised," is it? 🙂

Steve


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

AC in Emblems and Mode of Useclearly indicates but one Chapter from Liber 333- and but one Chapter from Little Essaysis recommended. Sampson's Riddle, if one would read Judges, resolves this issue...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Samson’s Riddle sounds right. I would compare the secret to the elusive prima materia of the alchemists - despised, found on dung heaps, deemed negligible and worthless, but without its proper identification, the Great Work cannot commence, much less be completed.

Try Chapter 82, Liber Aleph


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 

"Supreme Secret" seems in my opinion a misnomer; I doubt that it's supreme, and it's certainly not secret.

Thanks to Patriarch156 above for demonstrating a connection with Randolph. He refers to further development by Crowley, but I'm not sure that Crowley did develop it very much; if he did, the redevelopment does not seem to have been any more fruitful than his early experiments. Many of his operations were for money in order to get his work published. Gerald Yorke observed somewhere or other (I think it was in an essay recently republished by Headland Press) that whilst Crowley's sex-magical operations did not bring forth the wealth he was looking for, friends of Crowley did note that small amounts of money did turn up when Crowley most needed them; just enough to keep the wolf from the door, whilst still keeping his nose to the grindstone. There was a great deal of hit and miss to the method, as evidenced by the paucity of attributable results from Crowley's experiments. Presumably this paucity of result continues, otherwise Ninth Degree initiates would be harnessing their unassailable powers.

As for "secret", there have long been traditions both East and West focussing on what might be termed a sexual gnosis, stretching beyond Randolph. I've been reading a fascinating book recently - Why Mrs Blake Cried: William Blake and the Sexual Basis of Spiritual Vision by Maria Keith Schuchard (Century, London, 2006) - exploring the Moravian, Swedenborgian and other currents upon which Blake drew. Nor did Zinzendorf (the leader of the Moravians) nor Swedenborg conjure this current out of thin air; on the contrary, they would have been drawing on existing traditions, tempered on the basis of practical work by themselves and their peers.

There is a tradition of sexual mysticism and magic, but I'm not sure that it's amenable to what might be termed results magic.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 686
 

Thanks for the info on the Blake book - always looking for more on him..

Though a quick trawl shows it's Marsha Keith Schuchard not Maria - (easy confusion - though you can always claim that a yod for shin substitution has great secret significance 😉 )


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93 Mick,

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
He refers to further development by Crowley, but I'm not sure that Crowley did develop it very much; if he did, the redevelopment does not seem to have been any more fruitful than his early experiments. Many of his operations were for money in order to get his work published. Gerald Yorke observed somewhere or other (I think it was in an essay recently republished by Headland Press) that whilst Crowley's sex-magical operations did not bring forth the wealth he was looking for, friends of Crowley did note that small amounts of money did turn up when Crowley most needed them; just enough to keep the wolf from the door, whilst still keeping his nose to the grindstone. There was a great deal of hit and miss to the method, as evidenced by the paucity of attributable results from Crowley's experiments. Presumably this paucity of result continues, otherwise Ninth Degree initiates would be harnessing their unassailable powers.

Interesting. When it comes to material sustenance whilst doing one's Will, I wonder if 'enough is enough' isn't a good general rule? Certainly too little is a distraction, but so is too much, for many people. I think it might have been for Crowley, given his personal tendancies toward excess. While occasional distraction is beneficial to overall effort, as with reCreation, too much distraction is surely the enemy of accomplishment. 😉

As for the efficacy of the IX* OTO 'secret,' Crowley noted with some consternation as to the likelihood of the results actually being the polar opposite of those intended, or of graduating degrees on a scale between success and failure, in De Arte Magica: VII - Of certain unknown Inhibitions, and their Effects. It was made quite clear that there was much research and development yet to be done.

(It is in this same little book that the much sought after identity of the relevant chapter in BoL is indicated as being chapter 36. It still remains fairly obvious that this is but one of several relevant chapters, although this may has been the one that caught Reuss' eye, supposedly.)

93 93/93
Camlion


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I am of the opinion that Freemasonry (and pseudo-masonry) was the worst thing to happen to magic.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 375
 

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

There! Imagine this was posted right after Michael's post that starts off "Supreme Secret.......".

The Secret, is not the problem! Its the application of the Secret that is crucial to the matter at hand.
I can go to a thrift store and find a CD of a computer program, -- but if it does not come with the registration Key, it's no good for anything other than a coaster!
All that I need is on the CD, and yep--I just found it for 2 dollars---but without the key--how can I make use of the wealth that key unlocks?
So the key to using the Secret is the knowledge of the mode of it's application, and the understanding of all conditions pertinent thereunto.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I've been reading a fascinating book recently - Why Mrs Blake Cried: William Blake and the Sexual Basis of Spiritual Vision by Maria Keith Schuchard (Century, London, 2006) - exploring the Moravian, Swedenborgian and other currents upon which Blake drew.

This book was preceded by a shorter essay version, which is still available here from the online journal Esoterica. The essay indeed "begged" to be expanded into a longer book, since it was so densely packed with facts and footnotes. (I haven't read the book, though -- does anyone who has read both think it's worth buying if one is already familiar with the contents of the original essay?)

I've also heard that Schuchard's Ph.D. dissertation, from 1975 I think, is worth a look as well. It's title is "Freemasonry, Secret Societies, and the Continuity of the Occult Traditions in English Literature."

"Poelzig" wrote:
I am of the opinion that Freemasonry (and pseudo-masonry) was the worst thing to happen to magic.

I'm sure that most masons would probably assert that magic was the worst thing to happen to masonry! 😆

Steve


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I think if you asked MOST masons about "Magick" in masonry they would not know what the hell you are talking about.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 
"SteveCranmer" wrote:
This book was preceded by a shorter essay version, which is still available here from the online journal Esoterica. The essay indeed "begged" to be expanded into a longer book, since it was so densely packed with facts and footnotes. (I haven't read the book, though -- does anyone who has read both think it's worth buying if one is already familiar with the contents of the original essay?)

Many thanks indeed for that link, Steve; I was extremely interested in reading the author's earlier article.

To answer your question, yes it is worth buying the book. There is considerably more material in the book. I believe that after writing the earlier article, the author gained more access to archives of the Moravian Church. Blake's mother Catherine had been a member of the congregation at the Moravian church in Fetter Lane, London EC1 which was destroyed in the Blitz in the early 1940s (it was the same night's bombing which, I believe, destroyed Spare's home and studio). This was during her first marriage, to a man called Armitage who subsequently died, after which she married James Blake. The Moravians, led by Count Zinzendorf who had connections with Swedenborg, had some radical ideas about the sacramental nature of sex in general, and some strange ideas of the sexualisation of the spear-wound in Christ's side in particular. An inspiring read in my opinion, and I'll be posting a review on Lashtal in the near future.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Cronus
(@cronus)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 24
Topic starter  

I started this thread years ago. Today I thought I'd check back on it after recently hearing about the release of Damien Echol's, but I digress..

After looking back over the replies I got from this post, it makes me wonder if you self proclaimed Thelemites even know the "supreme secret of the O.T.O"or if you all just play aloof thinking you're special.

Who really wants a personalized roadmap to their life or should I say "true will" anyways?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"Cronus" wrote:
... it makes me wonder if you self proclaimed Thelemites even know the "supreme secret of the O.T.O"or if you all just play aloof thinking you're special.

Oh hell, everybody here knows it. It's written in the plainest possible language in a very simple document that is easily found on the wild world web. Any threads relating to OTO are going to be variable, with strange comments. Anyone asking outright for the "super supreme secret" is likely to draw true responses, blinds, enraged rants and jokes. No, I will not be naming the title of the document or its location. All Thelemites are "self-proclaimed." There is no agency that issues "Thelemite" status or credentials, although some agencies use the term. All OTO initiates are sworn to secrecy, so you'll get no answer there. Other posters are subject to grains of salt and a cautious aproach.

"Cronus" wrote:
Who really wants a personalized roadmap to their life or should I say "true will" anyways?

Do we detect the odor of sour grapes.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1906
 
"Shiva" wrote:
Do we detect the odor of sour grapes.

Yes, we do!

It's a shame that the answers are read 3 years later...

I play aloof without thinking I'm special. In what category do I fall?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 686
 

You are over generous 🙂 the original question is 5 years old, and this is Cronus' first return to the thread.
5 days with really poor Google skills would have provided links to several 'Supreme Secrets' and he could have taken his pick of whichever matched his expectations/prejudices best.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I play aloof without thinking I'm special. In what category do I fall?

"Secret Chief."


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

Sshhh!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: