OTO Minerval Ritual
tar...@carson.u.washington.edu
magickal groups in an open forum such as this, especially in such
a COWARDLY way as to use the anon. service to do it. While I
agree that "to preserve the secrets of the Craft, one must reveal them
constantly", it undermines the point of ritual secrecy in initiatory
systems to reveal them in such fashion. What benefit does it have but
to attempt to subvert the Order? Is that your aim? Coward.
Shawn Clayton Knight
disclaimer: I am not any sort of official member or affiliate member of
OTO, any "Golden Dawn" group, the Masons, or any other fraternal
brotherhood with the sole exception of Alpha Phi Omega.
Now then:
1) Define "crass" and "unethical", then demonstrate to me why everyone
else should subscribe to whatever definitions you use.
2) Regarding undermining ritual secrecy: From what I've noticed about
human psychology, the sole purpose of ritual secrets (that I can find)
is to impress them more firmly upon the mind of the Candidate. In other
words, for example, a Master Mason is aided in retaining his myriad
passwords, signs, and grips, because he remembers that they must never
be disclosed to the profane. Also, this makes them a useful key in
switching from "normal" consciousness to the peculiar state of mind
demanded by ritual.
Given all that hypothesis, in my mind, our Minerval-revealing
colleague has done nothing to anyone save perhaps hirself. All other
initiates of OTO who see this (well, most :) will be saying to
themselves "Oh dear, *I* could never reveal the Order secrets like
that!" This will make the secrets seem more precious to them, in that
the *letter* of the Minerval has been exposed to the profane, now they
must cherish even more highly the *spirit* of the ceremony. In my
opinion (which no doubt many of my esteemed friends in OTO will disagree
with), this person has done nothing more than given OTO the favor of a
"kick in the complacency."
3) Regarding subverting the order: (a) See above. Maybe OTO needed
something like this to occur. (b) If subverting the OTO *is* his
intent, does that make him a coward? Or is it merely his means
(anonymous posting)? And given the fact that the Minerval contains so
much violence of thought ("as a spy to destroy your comrades", "fight
... at the behest of the Supreme and Holy King ..."), I'm not sure I
consider the poster's anonymity to be "cowardice" so much as I consider
it "prudence".
4) And as a final thought, what if it were conclusively proven that the
person who posted this (or at least caused it to be posted) were
Hymenaeus Beta X' Rex Summus Sanctissimus U.S.A. Caliph and whatever
titles the Frater Superior is currently going by ...?
-shawn
Shawn C. Knight/knigh...@cmu.edu | CEO and Owner, Knightster Enterprises
Box 2112, 1060 Morewood Avenue | Special Studies in Things Esoteric
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 862-3015 | and Otherwise Unusual
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
taraka... writes:
|I think it is crass and unethical to publish the rituals of existing
|magickal groups in an open forum such as this, especially in such
|a COWARDLY way as to use the anon. service to do it.
It strikes me as somewhat insensitive and silly.
Doesn't matter to me if it is anonymous or not.
|While I
|agree that "to preserve the secrets of the Craft, one must reveal them
|constantly",
With this I agree in a very metaphorical way. I.e. I think that the
secrets of the Craft are such that they cannot be disclosed except
in particular expression of a general truth. In this way, when we
'constantly reveal' them we do so through application and example.
|it undermines the point of ritual secrecy in initiatory
|systems to reveal them in such fashion.
The point of ritual secrecy is to conceal ignorance or laziness.
In the case of OTO it is definitely laziness. I don't know if
there is ignorance, not having met much of the hierarchy.
|What benefit does it have but
|to attempt to subvert the Order?
It could give the Order a kick in the ass. If the OTO has sufficient
experience/artistry within its ranks then it is capable of devising
rotating or continuously changing rites which would confer the same
initiatory experience. That it does not do this only speaks for the
laziness of its members (or, as I say, its ignorance). The reliance
upon one set of intiation rituals (which I think were penned by its
Prophet, Mr. Crowley) is to set up an achilles heal which will
eventually be stricken, as has been evidenced by Francis King and
others who publish their secret rites.
|Is that your aim? Coward.
I'd have done the same thing myself if I'd had the rite prior
to my dedication to the org. ;>
Spewing epithets is very unbecoming.
Tyagi Nagasiva
Ty...@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com
cra...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
tar...@carson.u.washington.edu () responds to the anonymous posting
of the O.T.O. Minerval ritual...
> I think it is crass and unethical to publish the rituals of existing
> magickal groups in an open forum such as this, especially in such
> a COWARDLY way as to use the anon. service to do it. While I
> agree that "to preserve the secrets of the Craft, one must reveal them
> constantly", it undermines the point of ritual secrecy in initiatory
> systems to reveal them in such fashion.
You can always choose not to read the posted or published material, if
you fear that the power of the ritual will be taken away by this fore-
knowledge.
> What benefit does it have but
> to attempt to subvert the Order? Is that your aim? Coward.
Well, I can think of one benefit. It gives people, like me, who have
neither the time nor inclination to join the O.T.O., access to their
ceremonial rites and symbolism.
The fact that today I know some of the Minerval symbolism, and yesterday
I did not, doesn't "subvert" anyone. In fact, in adding to the number
of people who are aware of this symbolism (and thus possibly the number
of people who can make positive magical use out of it), our anonymous
friend did a great deal of good, in my book.
BTW, Mr. Anonymous, please keep the posts coming, if you have any more
that may be of interest!
-- Steve Cranmer
PS - Didn't Francis King already publish these rituals, anyway? The
book may be hard to find, but it's still out there.
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Shawn Knight wrote:
|1) Define "crass" and "unethical", then demonstrate to me why everyone
|else should subscribe to whatever definitions you use.
Such is ridiculous and can be secured from a standard dictionary.
|2) Regarding undermining ritual secrecy: From what I've noticed about
|human psychology, the sole purpose of ritual secrets (that I can find)
|is to impress them more firmly upon the mind of the Candidate. In other
|words, for example, a Master Mason is aided in retaining his myriad
|passwords, signs, and grips, because he remembers that they must never
|be disclosed to the profane.
There is no profane. There is no secret worth keeping absolutely.
|Also, this makes them a useful key in
|switching from "normal" consciousness to the peculiar state of mind
|demanded by ritual.
Those are ritual triggers. They are different than the grips and signs,
which are (possibly) symbolic elements that seal an initiation rite.
Don't forget also that the secrecy of the signs and grips allows those
who are travelling to secure lodging in Profess Houses and Lodges which
offer this service to members. That is the age-old tradition.
|Given all that hypothesis, in my mind, our Minerval-revealing
|colleague has done nothing to anyone save perhaps hirself.
Not true, she has exposed others to what may be dangerous psychic material.
She has also made it possible for the unwary to blunder into prescience of
the rite, potentially spoiling/shorting out its power for hir.
|All other
|initiates of OTO who see this (well, most :) will be saying to
|themselves "Oh dear, *I* could never reveal the Order secrets like
|that!"
This is not true. OTO initiates are not required to keep secrets.
|This will make the secrets seem more precious to them, in that
|the *letter* of the Minerval has been exposed to the profane, now they
|must cherish even more highly the *spirit* of the ceremony.
This is a social theory which I think may bear out only for those who
think along similar lines (i.e. that they are somehow, with a *Thelemic*
organization, required to keep secrets - silly but their prerogative).
|In my
|opinion (which no doubt many of my esteemed friends in OTO will disagree
|with), this person has done nothing more than given OTO the favor of a
|"kick in the complacency."
With this, as I said in a previous post, I would agree in that they do not
offer revision of their rites. I think it does do more harm than good,
however, and I will not continue to participate in this thread for very
long as we perpetuate its longlastingness.
|3) Regarding subverting the order: (a) See above. Maybe OTO needed
|something like this to occur. (b) If subverting the OTO *is* his
|intent, does that make him a coward? Or is it merely his means
|(anonymous posting)?
Apparently it did. Francis King did it and it only increased the popularity
of the Order even while the OTO pressed (?) for restriction of the publication
of his tome.
|And given the fact that the Minerval contains so
|much violence of thought ("as a spy to destroy your comrades", "fight
|... at the behest of the Supreme and Holy King ..."), I'm not sure I
|consider the poster's anonymity to be "cowardice" so much as I consider
|it "prudence".
No doubt. It would depend on the situation of the poster.
|4) And as a final thought, what if it were conclusively proven that the
|person who posted this (or at least caused it to be posted) were
|Hymenaeus Beta X' Rex Summus Sanctissimus U.S.A. Caliph and whatever
|titles the Frater Superior is currently going by ...?
It would not matter if it were Frater Superior or a Minerval of the Order
except in the particular minds of the members. In this way there may be
action taken against them, or they may be considered a hero. It would all
depend on the quality of the OTO membership. I would hope that they would
welcome such exposure, yet I also understand their concern. Perhaps this
will bring the issue into the open more readily. I know I will likely be
the focus of some controversy if I decide to publish the 7-9 'secrets' from
King's book in Email Without Tears. ;>
I also saw this file posted on AOL, so it seems to be making the rounds.
|-shawn
|Shawn C. Knight
|knigh...@cmu.edu
Tyagi Nagasiva
Ty...@HouseofkAoS.Abyss.com
Gregory Altman
: tar...@carson.u.washington.edu () responds to the anonymous posting
: of the O.T.O. Minerval ritual...
: > I think it is crass and unethical to publish the rituals of existing
: You can always choose not to read the posted or published material, if
: you fear that the power of the ritual will be taken away by this fore-
: knowledge.
Both of you are missing the point: the person took an oath to keep the
information he/she was entrusted with secret. He broke the promise and
the trust. If the person is not a member of the Order, then someone
else was either careless or unethical enough to reneg on her promise.
: > What benefit does it have but
: > to attempt to subvert the Order? Is that your aim? Coward.
: Well, I can think of one benefit. It gives people, like me, who have
: neither the time nor inclination to join the O.T.O., access to their
: ceremonial rites and symbolism.
: The fact that today I know some of the Minerval symbolism, and yesterday
: I did not, doesn't "subvert" anyone. In fact, in adding to the number
: of people who are aware of this symbolism (and thus possibly the number
: of people who can make positive magical use out of it), our anonymous
: friend did a great deal of good, in my book.
There are a number of benefits: the ritual may show that the Order
does really have some knowledge in its posession, or that there is
nothing there but a glittering theater. On the other hand, an unwary
amateur may attempt to repeat a ritual that will get out of hand and
cause harm to himself and others. Judging by Tyagi's response, he
has a notion that knowing one ritual (since he states that he knew
nothing of this before he read the ritual) gives him enough knowledge
to "make positive magical use of it".
: BTW, Mr. Anonymous, please keep the posts coming, if you have any more
: that may be of interest!
Too much candy... etc... etc... :-)
--
Greg Altman - gal...@ingres.com (My opinions are almost ALWAYS my own)
Shawn Clayton Knight
user Tyagi M. Naga...@cup.po writes:
>|1) Define "crass" and "unethical", then demonstrate to me why everyone
>|else should subscribe to whatever definitions you use.
>
>Such is ridiculous and can be secured from a standard dictionary.
Um, unethical according to whose standards of ethics?
On 27-Sep-93 in Disclosing Rites of Secret ..
user Tyagi M. Naga...@cup.po writes:
>|2) Regarding undermining ritual secrecy: From what I've noticed about
>|human psychology, the sole purpose of ritual secrets (that I can find)
>|is to impress them more firmly upon the mind of the Candidate. In other
>|words, for example, a Master Mason is aided in retaining his myriad
>|passwords, signs, and grips, because he remembers that they must never
>|be disclosed to the profane.
>
>There is no profane. There is no secret worth keeping absolutely.
I tend to concure that there is no "profane", but many groups have some
conception of one.
On 27-Sep-93 in Disclosing Rites of Secret ..
user Tyagi M. Naga...@cup.po writes:
>|All other
>|initiates of OTO who see this (well, most :) will be saying to
>|themselves "Oh dear, *I* could never reveal the Order secrets like
>|that!"
>
>This is not true. OTO initiates are not required to keep secrets.
If so, then why should anyone make a big deal about the ritual being posted?
On 27-Sep-93 in Disclosing Rites of Secret ..
user Tyagi M. Naga...@cup.po writes:
>will bring the issue into the open more readily. I know I will likely be
>the focus of some controversy if I decide to publish the 7-9 'secrets' from
>King's book in Email Without Tears. ;>
I'd like nothing better. I'd be ready there to archive it. (Not like I
don't already archive EWT on ptero or anything. :)
tar...@carson.u.washington.edu
>Spewing epithets is very unbecoming.
Yes, I know. As ever, I am once again projecting my own fears outward.
Why I seem fated to learn this lesson over and over again is beyond me.
In any event, I will stick to more seemly discourse in the future.
Hassan i-Sabbah
cra...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>tar...@carson.u.washington.edu () responds to the anonymous posting
>of the O.T.O. Minerval ritual...
>> What benefit does it have but
>> to attempt to subvert the Order? Is that your aim? Coward.
>
>Well, I can think of one benefit. It gives people, like me, who have
>neither the time nor inclination to join the O.T.O., access to their
>ceremonial rites and symbolism.
exactly the facts.
>The fact that today I know some of the Minerval symbolism, and yesterday
>I did not, doesn't "subvert" anyone. In fact, in adding to the number
>of people who are aware of this symbolism (and thus possibly the number
>of people who can make positive magical use out of it), our anonymous
>friend did a great deal of good, in my book.
and i will continue to do so. watch this space and all that jazz.
>BTW, Mr. Anonymous, please keep the posts coming, if you have any more
>that may be of interest!
don't worry, more will be forthcoming in weeks ahead.
>PS - Didn't Francis King already publish these rituals, anyway? The
> book may be hard to find, but it's still out there.
yes, he did. the book is available through the library system in a number
of places.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
Darrin A. Hyrup
>I think it is crass and unethical to publish the rituals of existing
>magickal groups in an open forum such as this, especially in such
>a COWARDLY way as to use the anon. service to do it.
Beyond being possibly crass and unethical, it is also illegal to post
copyrighted material on this or any system without express permission of
the author(s). Which I doubt has occured.
>While I
>agree that "to preserve the secrets of the Craft, one must reveal them
>constantly", it undermines the point of ritual secrecy in initiatory
>systems to reveal them in such fashion. What benefit does it have but
>to attempt to subvert the Order? Is that your aim? Coward.
Well, obviously the person in question gleamed the posted material from
Francis King's book, because it contains the same major differences from the
true initatory material as to be obvious, and as such a copyright violation.
Best,
Darrin
--
Darrin Hyrup Computer Game Designer/Software Engineer Fido 1:349/7
GEnie: shades A.U.S.I. / Shades of Reality, Inc. BIX: shades
sha...@speedway.net sha...@sorinc.cutler.com sha...@netcom.com
Darrin A. Hyrup
>|All other
>|initiates of OTO who see this (well, most :) will be saying to
>|themselves "Oh dear, *I* could never reveal the Order secrets like
>|that!"
>This is not true. OTO initiates are not required to keep secrets.
Where do you get that idea? Even within the imperfect minerval ritual as
posted here, the initiate is asked, nay, required upon penalty of death to
"hold sacred and secret" the mysteries as delivered to them via the
initiation. The initiate is again sworn to secrecy upon the penalty of
destruction of their ability to procreate ("may I be mutilated and be no
more a man [or woman]".)
>This is a social theory which I think may bear out only for those who
>think along similar lines (i.e. that they are somehow, with a *Thelemic*
>organization, required to keep secrets - silly but their prerogative).
Again, as stated in the posted ritual, the candidate is acquainted with the
"first paradox of philosophy", in that one must necessarily submit to
discipline and organization in order to obtain the freedom to do their will.
The point of fact being that oaths are a basis from which the structure of
your will may be built. Breaking of oaths is going to do nothing more than
make it harder for you to find and/or fufill your will.
Of course, the ritual recognizes some who may wish to "enter this army as a
spy and to destroy your comrades", but such action would still be in violation
of their oaths and would incur their magickal penalties.
However, this discussion is moot, since it is likely that the poster was
not even an initiate of the O.T.O., but rather someone who had gotten a copy
of King's book, and thought they would post something from it.
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Gregory Altman writes:
|Both of you are missing the point: the person took an oath to keep the
|information he/she was entrusted with secret.
Please explain how you know this. Is it within the text of the ritual
in question? If so, please quote from that text to show us where this
oath was taken. Thanks.
|He broke the promise and
|the trust. If the person is not a member of the Order, then someone
|else was either careless or unethical enough to reneg on her promise.
Speculation.
|There are a number of benefits: the ritual may show that the Order
|does really have some knowledge in its posession, or that there is
|nothing there but a glittering theater.
What sorts of things do you think displays 'knowledge'?
|On the other hand, an unwary
|amateur may attempt to repeat a ritual that will get out of hand and
|cause harm to himself and others.
Then they get what they deserve.
|Judging by Tyagi's response, he
|has a notion that knowing one ritual (since he states that he knew
|nothing of this before he read the ritual) gives him enough knowledge
|to "make positive magical use of it".
Please quote me. I think you may be hallucinating.
|Greg Altman
|gal...@ingres.com
Tyagi the merciless
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Shawn Knight quotes me and writes:
|>|1) Define "crass" and "unethical", then demonstrate to me why everyone
|>|else should subscribe to whatever definitions you use.
|>
|>Such is ridiculous and can be secured from a standard dictionary.
|
|Um, unethical according to whose standards of ethics?
Either the 'correct' one (for moralists) or, more likely, that of the Order.
|>|All other
|>|initiates of OTO who see this (well, most :) will be saying to
|>|themselves "Oh dear, *I* could never reveal the Order secrets like
|>|that!"
|>
|>This is not true. OTO initiates are not required to keep secrets.
|
|If so, then why should anyone make a big deal about the ritual being posted?
Because it could be dangerous or it could ruin the experience for many
who would otherwise benefit tremendously from it.
|-shawn
|Shawn C. Knight
|knigh...@cmu.edu
Tyagi Nagasiva
Ty...@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
I don't advise that you procure this if you are ever going to be interested
in undertaking initiation in OTO. Also, some feel that the rites themselves
are powerful enough to cause harm if perused. I leave the decision of
whether to seek and absorb this danger to each individual.
_The Secret Rituals of the O.T.O._, Edited and Introduced by Francis King,
Published by The C.W. Daniel Company, 60 Muswell Road, London, N.10, 1973,
ISBN 85207-111-6.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Tyagi
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Darrin Hyrip quotes me and writes:
|>|[actually Shawn Knight]
|>|All other
|>|initiates of OTO who see this (well, most :) will be saying to
|>|themselves "Oh dear, *I* could never reveal the Order secrets like
|>|that!"
|
|>This is not true. OTO initiates are not required to keep secrets.
|
|Where do you get that idea? Even within the imperfect minerval ritual as
|posted here, the initiate is asked, nay, required upon penalty of death to
|"hold sacred and secret" the mysteries as delivered to them via the
|initiation.
I suggest you quote the text of the rite. 'The Mysteries' do not necessarily
include the signs, words, grips, etc. OR the text of the ritual.
|The initiate is again sworn to secrecy upon the penalty of
|destruction of their ability to procreate ("may I be mutilated and be no
|more a man [or woman]".)
If the Mysteries are revealed, yes. Damned unlikely, though I hope everyone
attempts to reveal them.
|>This is a social theory which I think may bear out only for those who
|>think along similar lines (i.e. that they are somehow, with a *Thelemic*
|>organization, required to keep secrets - silly but their prerogative).
|
|Again, as stated in the posted ritual, the candidate is acquainted with the
|"first paradox of philosophy", in that one must necessarily submit to
|discipline and organization in order to obtain the freedom to do their will.
Again, I'd love to see you quote the text so we can discuss it more directly.
My impression is that discipline and organization are required for structure,
but they are not necessarily supportive of secrecy.
The whole concept of 'doing one's will' is very complex and I'd suggest that
there are no 'obvious' or 'agreed' meanings for these terms. Issues arise
all the time with respect to this, such as 'What is one's will?' 'How can
one tell if one is or is not doing it?' 'How can one tell if another is
doing their will?' and 'What if one's will conflicts with the structure
of society?'
The initiation does not in any way restrict the free will of an individual,
and as the initiate sees fit to accept restriction for the inspiration of
hir true will, so will this be in hir best interests.
|The point of fact being that oaths are a basis from which the structure of
|your will may be built. Breaking of oaths is going to do nothing more than
|make it harder for you to find and/or fufill your will.
How may an oath be broken? Of which oaths do you speak?
What does 'find and/or fulfill my will' mean?
|Of course, the ritual recognizes some who may wish to "enter this army as a
|spy and to destroy your comrades", but such action would still be in violation
|of their oaths and would incur their magickal penalties.
Would it? Why and how do you think it would be a violation?
|However, this discussion is moot, since it is likely that the poster was
|not even an initiate of the O.T.O., but rather someone who had gotten a copy
|of King's book, and thought they would post something from it.
The issue is far from irrelevant, and the points you bring up are not at
all moot in regards the careful analysis of all orders including OTO.
|Darrin
Haramullah rasulu 'Llah. Alaikum assalam, my kin.
Love is the law, love under will.
Haramullah
Mark Kampe
> |The initiate is again sworn to secrecy upon the penalty of
> |destruction of their ability to procreate ("may I be mutilated and be no
> |more a man [or woman]".)
>
> If the Mysteries are revealed, yes. Damned unlikely, though I hope everyone
> attempts to reveal them.
Let us go back to the literal text:
% I demand your hospitality, and participation in your
% MYSTERIES, which I swear to study and to hold sacred and secret, and if
% I break this oath
%
% (Saladin puts bread and salt in his mouth)
%
% and betray the bread and salt, may the dogs devour my carcass; may I be
% mutilated and no more a man!
%
% (Black Guard applies sword in penal sign.)
the consequences of the trespass are for the apirant to have the dogs devour
hir carcass and be mutilated and no more a (wo)man. Note that very similar
consequences apply to a transgression in part II of the rite:
% 'Thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that and no other shall say
% "nay".' We unreservedly place power in your hands. If it be your will to
% enter this army as a spy to destroy your comrades, so be it!
%
% Yet remember that you have made solemn affirmation to us in these words,
% which you will again repeat after me. 'If I break this oath and betray
% the bread and salt, may I be mutilated and be no more a man.'
Note that the consequences for failing to find and pursue your will are
essentially the same as the consequences for failing to hold sacred and
secret the imparted mysteries.
Consider last month's thread on oaths, when they are appropriate, how they
are administered, the purposes they serve, and the means whereby they operate.
I think, that in order to analyze these oaths, we must ask three questions:
What is the Oath?
to 'study, and to hold sacred and secret' the MYSTERIES
of the order
to naught else but your own will
What would constitute violation of the Oath?
to fail to study the mysteries
to fail to hold sacred the mysteries
to fail to hold secret the mysteries
to fail to pursue your own will
to 'Betray the bread and the salt'
What would the consequences of such violation be?
to have dogs devour your carcass
to be mutilated and no more a (wo)man
To paraphrase all of this as "if you blab this rite we'll cut your balls off"
is probably to perform exactly the sort of superficial desecration that the
oath was intended to prevent. If you are going to analyze the Oath, ANALYZE
THE WHOLE OATH. There are at least two major things wrong with this thread
so far:
it has focused only on one small part of the oath, to the exclusion
of all others - and therefore ignores obvious meanings
it focuses on a superficial interpretation of an oath that has meanings
on many levels - and therefore ignores the true meanings
I suggest that the oath to study, to hold sacred, and to pursue enlightenment
is very standard fare. The oath to hold secret the mysteries is also standard
fare, and as likely to be meant to keep you from 'becomming a pestilance' and
to prevent narrow-minded interpretations such as the one above as anything else.
Nowhere does it say 'destroy their ability to procreate' ... although literal
mutilation of the genetailia might reasonably be inferred, I think this is a
very simple reading of an initiation that is meant to operate on may levels.
Note also that the same penalty applies to the person who fails to pursue his
will as applies to the one to fails to hold secret the mysteries. Does this
suggest something to you about the nature of the penalty and means of enforcement?
To fail to pursue your own true will is to renounce your life, and metaphorically
to offer your worthless carcasss to the dogs. To lose your self, and to fail
to achieve what you were created to achieve is a loss not unlike the loss of
your genative power, and the recognition of that failure not unlike (in both
pain and ego) the mutilation of your genetalia. I suggest that the threat of
mutilation is intended to be evocative of the conseqences, rather than a literal
expression of them.
The consequences part of the oath is not a warning of what the big guy with
the sword will do to you if you blab. It is an attempt to impress upon you
the importance of the pursuit, and the dire consequences of failure to
diligently pursue it. The big guy with the sword is a prop, intended to
help you 'get the picture'.
All things considered, I don't know what all the fuss is about. As rituals go,
this is amazingly mild stuff (which should not be taken as a negative comment
on the value or efficacy of the ritual). Compare this with the 'Guardian of
the Gate' or Bunny's Wahlpurgisnacht ... both of which were more potent
personal rituals, and neither of which generated as much heat ...
Now that I have mouthed off, I should confess that there was one part of the
ritual that went right over my head. Of what are the 'salt' and 'bread'
symbolic, and how might they be betrayed? I was only able to read them as
hospitality ... but I suspect I am missing a great deal.
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
In a very beautiful post, Mark Kampe quotes and writes:
|% I demand your hospitality, and participation in your
|% MYSTERIES, which I swear to study and to hold sacred and secret, and if
|% I break this oath
|%
|% (Saladin puts bread and salt in his mouth)
|%
|% and betray the bread and salt, may the dogs devour my carcass; may I be
|% mutilated and no more a man!
|%
|% (Black Guard applies sword in penal sign.)
[some omitted]
|% 'Thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that and no other shall say
|% "nay".' We unreservedly place power in your hands. If it be your will to
|% enter this army as a spy to destroy your comrades, so be it!
|%
|% Yet remember that you have made solemn affirmation to us in these words,
|% which you will again repeat after me. 'If I break this oath and betray
|% the bread and salt, may I be mutilated and be no more a man.'
[lots omitted]
| to 'Betray the bread and the salt'
[lots more omitted]
|...Of what are the 'salt' and 'bread'
|symbolic, and how might they be betrayed? I was only able to read them as
|hospitality ... but I suspect I am missing a great deal.
I did a research project of some symbols subsequent to one or two of
my OTO initiations. Reviewing this I came up with the following information:
________________________________________
11. Bread
"Bread - Life; the food of the body and the soul; the visible and manifest
life. It is also a symbol of union as having many grains in one substance..."
_An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Traditional Symbols_, by J.C. Cooper,
Thames and Hudson, 1978; page 24.
========================================
12. Salt
"Salt - Life; immortality; incorruptibility; permanence; fidelity; friendship;
wisdom and knowledge (sal sapientiae); the soul. Later it also signified
worth, piquancy and wit. ALCHEMIC: Rectification; clarification; the fixed;
the cubic stone; earthly nature; the body uniting the active and passive,
spirit and soul....It is the principle of uninflammability and fixity and,
mystically, the body of man."
Ibid, page 144.
----------------------------------
"III. The Empress
"...In this card, she is shown in her most general manifestation. She
combines the highest spiritual with the lowest material qualities. For
this reason she is fitted to represent one of the three alchemical forms
of energy, Salt. lt is the inactive principle of Nature; Salt is matter
which must be energized by Sulphur to maintain the whirling equilibrium
of the Universe."
_The Book of Thoth_, by Aleister Crowley, Samuel Weiser, 1981; page 75.
====================================
13. [dogs]
"The jackal, able to see by day and night, is the symbol of the Egyptian
Anubis, 'the Pathfinder', the 'Opener of the Way', a psychopomp guiding
souls from this world to the next; also associated with the cemetary.
Anubis is depicted as a black jackal or as jackal-headed....Hindu:
Jackals and ravens as scavengers follow Kali as the destroyer."
_An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Traditional Symbols_, page 88.
----------------------------
"XVIII. The Moon
"...To what god shall we appeal for aid? It is Anubis, the watcher in the
twilight, the god that stands upon the threshold, the jackal god of Khem
[Egypt], who stands in double form between the Ways. At his feet, on watch,
wait the jackals themselves, to devour the carcasses of those who have
not seen Him, or who have not known His Name."
_The Book of Thoth_, page 112.
_______________________________________________________ END OF RESEARCH TXT
You can give your own interpretations based on these tidbits. :>
B.A. Davis-Howe
>| to 'Betray the bread and the salt'
>[lots more omitted]
>|...Of what are the 'salt' and 'bread'
>|symbolic, and how might they be betrayed? I was only able to read them as
>|hospitality ... but I suspect I am missing a great deal.
The key thing here is an Islamic custom that one could not do harm to a
person one had shared bread and salt with. I believe in at least some
contexts, however, the rule only applied till the next sunrise.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Enjoy the journey!
--Br'anArthur
Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
*****************************************************************************
Intolerant minds don't want to know. --JJObermark
Darrin A. Hyrup
>I don't advise that you procure this if you are ever going to be interested
>in undertaking initiation in OTO. Also, some feel that the rites themselves
>are powerful enough to cause harm if perused. I leave the decision of
>whether to seek and absorb this danger to each individual.
>_The Secret Rituals of the O.T.O._, Edited and Introduced by Francis King,
> Published by The C.W. Daniel Company, 60 Muswell Road, London, N.10, 1973,
> ISBN 85207-111-6.
However, those are not the true initatory rites within the OTO. They are based
on notes from the initatory formulas from years past, and have been succeeded
by more modern renditions since the copies that book is based on were made.
However, while goodly amounts of the material has indeed remained within the
corpus of the total initiatory material, the later degrees have changed to
an even greater degree. Not enough to not be recognizable, but enough.
And besides, just because there is a book that reveals some of the secrets
of the order, that does not allow oneself to break oaths and reveal secrets
just because someone else did.
93,
Darrin A. Hyrup
>In article 91...@cup.portal.com, Ty...@cup.portal.com (Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva) writes:
>
>> |The initiate is again sworn to secrecy upon the penalty of
>> |destruction of their ability to procreate ("may I be mutilated and be no
>> |more a man [or woman]".)
>>
>> If the Mysteries are revealed, yes. Damned unlikely, though I hope everyone
>> attempts to reveal them.
>Let us go back to the literal text:
Before you do that. There is much within the ritual that is not suggested by
the text. Having participated in this rite, and performed it on occasion, I
may have offered a few tidbits of my own insight upon it that may not be
readily seen.
>Nowhere does it say 'destroy their ability to procreate' ... although literal
>mutilation of the genetailia might reasonably be inferred, I think this is a
>very simple reading of an initiation that is meant to operate on may levels.
>Note also that the same penalty applies to the person who fails to pursue his
>will as applies to the one to fails to hold secret the mysteries. Does this
>suggest something to you about the nature of the penalty and means of
>enforcement?
The symbolic representation of the 'be made no more a man' is to have your
ability to procreate destroyed. A part and parcel of the Thelemic current is
sex magick, as most everyone knows. There is more to it, but that's all I
can comment upon it.
>Now that I have mouthed off, I should confess that there was one part of the
>ritual that went right over my head. Of what are the 'salt' and 'bread'
>symbolic, and how might they be betrayed? I was only able to read them as
>hospitality ... but I suspect I am missing a great deal.
A perfect example of why this material shouldn't be distributed. Especially
without full context of the ritual, and lacking the true (unabridged) text.
Darrin A. Hyrup
>|Where do you get that idea? Even within the imperfect minerval ritual as
>|posted here, the initiate is asked, nay, required upon penalty of death to
>|"hold sacred and secret" the mysteries as delivered to them via the
>|initiation.
>I suggest you quote the text of the rite. 'The Mysteries' do not necessarily
>include the signs, words, grips, etc. OR the text of the ritual.
In the context of the ritual, "The Mysteries" include everything that you are
being introduced to in the way of initiatory symbolism. It does not include
what you find for yourself outside of the temple, but provides for the elements
of secrecy that are required for "a serious and secret" organization like the
O.T.O.
So, yes, they do necessarily include the signs, words, grips, etc. and the
actual text of the ritual, if it is recieved from the O.T.O.
The poster of the material is free to do what they will with the text,
however, posting of copyrighted materials is against the law, and the law has
ruled in may cases that systems who knowingly allow such material on their
systems can be held liable.
>|The initiate is again sworn to secrecy upon the penalty of
>|destruction of their ability to procreate ("may I be mutilated and be no
>|more a man [or woman]".)
>If the Mysteries are revealed, yes. Damned unlikely, though I hope everyone
>attempts to reveal them.
"The Mysteries" means many things. The mysteries in a general magickal sense
is something that cannot be revealed, it is something that must be experienced
by living them. The initiation is meant to stimulate that through acting out
your role in the initiation process. However, the context of the initiatory
materials includes the mysteries that are the initiatory secrets of the O.T.O.
>|>This is a social theory which I think may bear out only for those who
>|>think along similar lines (i.e. that they are somehow, with a *Thelemic*
>|>organization, required to keep secrets - silly but their prerogative).
>|
>|Again, as stated in the posted ritual, the candidate is acquainted with the
>|"first paradox of philosophy", in that one must necessarily submit to
>|discipline and organization in order to obtain the freedom to do their will.
>Again, I'd love to see you quote the text so we can discuss it more directly.
>My impression is that discipline and organization are required for structure,
>but they are not necessarily supportive of secrecy.
There is no reason for me to quote the text. It was posted, and has been
quoted by others in this section already.
Secrecy is part of the discipline one undertakes willingly in order to make
the oaths that allow one to recieve the initiation.
>The whole concept of 'doing one's will' is very complex and I'd suggest that
>there are no 'obvious' or 'agreed' meanings for these terms. Issues arise
>all the time with respect to this, such as 'What is one's will?' 'How can
>one tell if one is or is not doing it?' 'How can one tell if another is
>doing their will?' and 'What if one's will conflicts with the structure
>of society?'
There is no way that I can comment on that, since nobody can tell you your
own will.
>The initiation does not in any way restrict the free will of an individual,
>and as the initiate sees fit to accept restriction for the inspiration of
>hir true will, so will this be in hir best interests.
Exactly. That is what the oaths are. On one level at least. Of course, it
is not the only restriction that one must place upon themselves, but it is
the first that the Order requires.
>|The point of fact being that oaths are a basis from which the structure of
>|your will may be built. Breaking of oaths is going to do nothing more than
>|make it harder for you to find and/or fufill your will.
>How may an oath be broken? Of which oaths do you speak?
By breaking them. :) An oath is a promise to do (or not do) a thing that you
state to be your will.
>What does 'find and/or fulfill my will' mean?
What indeed? To some people it doesn't mean anything. To others, a life-long
goal. Everyone must find that definition for themself.
>|Of course, the ritual recognizes some who may wish to "enter this army as a
>|spy and to destroy your comrades", but such action would still be in violation
>|of their oaths and would incur their magickal penalties.
>Would it? Why and how do you think it would be a violation?
It states as such as part of the initiation text. Re-read it.
>|However, this discussion is moot, since it is likely that the poster was
>|not even an initiate of the O.T.O., but rather someone who had gotten a copy
>|of King's book, and thought they would post something from it.
>The issue is far from irrelevant, and the points you bring up are not at
>all moot in regards the careful analysis of all orders including OTO.
Perhaps in that context they are useful. But the point is moot in that the
discussion is only of academic interest, since the poster is not likely a
member of the order, or if they are, they probably could care less about
breaking oaths. They obviously care nothing about breaking laws.
Brett Slocum
>>| to 'Betray the bread and the salt'
>>[lots more omitted]
>
>>|...Of what are the 'salt' and 'bread'
>>|symbolic, and how might they be betrayed? I was only able to read them as
>>|hospitality ... but I suspect I am missing a great deal.
>
>The key thing here is an Islamic custom that one could not do harm to a
>person one had shared bread and salt with. I believe in at least some
>contexts, however, the rule only applied till the next sunrise.
It lasts for the duration of the hospitality. Islamic rules of hospitality
stated that one could stay for up to three days. Read one of the traditional
translations of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. The Thief Chief trys to
kill Ali Baba through decption by disguising himself as an oil merchant.
He has 20 mules with two oil jars strapped on, but instead of oil they have
a thief in each one. He goes to stay with Ali Baba for the night. He
very carefully avoids taking any salt or bread, since he planned mayhem that
night.
Nice illustration of the custom.
iBTW, as a recent initiate of a Wiccan tradition, my tack on this argument
is that revealing an initiatory ritual of this type is a disservice to
those who later want to get initiated. I very carefully avoided reading any
initiation rituals, since I knew that I planned to get one. Much of the
impact would have been lost if I had not done so.
--
Brett Slocum You can thank Gwydion for getting us bacon. (Read the Mabinogi)
slo...@io.com Illuminati Online
Mark Kampe
>
> "...To what god shall we appeal for aid? It is Anubis, the watcher in the
> twilight, the god that stands upon the threshold, the jackal god of Khem
> [Egypt], who stands in double form between the Ways. At his feet, on watch,
> wait the jackals themselves, to devour the carcasses of those who have
> not seen Him, or who have not known His Name."
>
> _The Book of Thoth_, page 112.
Some people's associative memory mechanisms are very impressive.
It is certainly not absurd to suspect that the common thread of having one's
carcass devoured by dogs is not coincidental. Is the phrase in the Minerval
ritual indeed a reference to the Book of Thoth? What new meanings can we then
infer to having one's carcass devoured by dogs (should we fail in our oaths)?
Two new meanings come to my mind:
I could not find the citation, but I believe that Socrates said
something to the general effect of "wisdom begins with the recognition
of our own mortality." Therefore, one who is not aware of hir own
death is less likely to recognize the importance of finding meaning
for hir life, and thus more likely to 'waste' it. To have seen Anubis
or to know his name, would then be to have seen your own death/mortality.
The moon represents the subconscious, and the jackals at the base of
the towers (which I always viewed as guarding a gateway) are the
predators that await the traveler who chooses to cross that plain.
The pilgrim who sets out on that path can rest assured that he will
be attacked (dealing with those monsters is, after all, what that path
is all about). One who does not know the jackals' master (one who
has not been properly trained and prepared for the experiences) is
likely to be brought down and devoured by the jackals ... and therefore
unlikely to complete the journey.
Both would seem to follow as rather direct consequences of failing to
'study the mysteries'.
Do other people have ideas about what this metaphor might mean?
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Darrin Hyrup quotes me and writes:
|In the context of the ritual, "The Mysteries" include everything that you are
|being introduced to in the way of initiatory symbolism. It does not include
|what you find for yourself outside of the temple, but provides for the
|elements
|of secrecy that are required for "a serious and secret" organization like
|the O.T.O.
Where are 'The Mysteries' defined authoritatively?
|So, yes, they do necessarily include the signs, words, grips, etc. and the
|actual text of the ritual, if it is recieved from the O.T.O.
Is this official OTO policy? If so, how come I wasn't informed regarding
doctrinal requirements prior to, during or after my initiations?
|The poster of the material is free to do what they will with the text,
|however, posting of copyrighted materials is against the law, and the law has
|ruled in may cases that systems who knowingly allow such material on their
|systems can be held liable.
Yes, well this is also far from clear. You seem to know quite a bit. I've
heard different opinion from reliable sources but am in no position to gainsay
you. Certainly it is not illegal to quote excerpts. Whether the text of a
particular portion of a book (a rite) is illegal to quote would seem unclear.
|>If the Mysteries are revealed, yes. Damned unlikely, though I hope everyone
|>attempts to reveal them.
|
|"The Mysteries" means many things. The mysteries in a general magickal sense
|is something that cannot be revealed, it is something that must be experienced
|by living them.
This is my own interpretation.
|The initiation is meant to stimulate that through acting out
|your role in the initiation process. However, the context of the initiatory
|materials includes the mysteries that are the initiatory secrets of the O.T.O.
Again, is this official policy? With what authority do you speak on this
matter?
|Secrecy is part of the discipline one undertakes willingly in order to make
|the oaths that allow one to recieve the initiation.
I disagree. Secrecy is part of the discipline which SOME undertake. I have
and will not, yet I have been initiated quite freely. I'll note that I also
have some reservations about revealing ritual materials, but certainly not
because the *Order* would suffer. Most often I am concerned for the person
who wishes to know the information. I have yet to pass on such information,
yet I have continually maintained that OTO *does not require secrecy* and if
you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to examine it or at least
be made aware of it. It may affect my future with the Order. Thanks.
|>The whole concept of 'doing one's will' is very complex and I'd suggest that
|>there are no 'obvious' or 'agreed' meanings for these terms. Issues arise
|>all the time with respect to this, such as 'What is one's will?' 'How can
|>one tell if one is or is not doing it?' 'How can one tell if another is
|>doing their will?' and 'What if one's will conflicts with the structure
|>of society?'
|
|There is no way that I can comment on that, since nobody can tell you your
|own will.
This is a non-answer. If you haven't even defined your terms, then you can
hardly expect people to understand you completely if you say things like
'tell you your own will'. I have my own understandings, but your expressions
seem rather different than these, so I'd love to hear you simply define your
terms a little.
My point, however, was that these things are not defined in any concrete way
by the OTO. OTO is social and initiatory, NOT DOCTRINAL.
|>The initiation does not in any way restrict the free will of an individual,
|>and as the initiate sees fit to accept restriction for the inspiration of
|>hir true will, so will this be in hir best interests.
|
|Exactly. That is what the oaths are. On one level at least. Of course, it
|is not the only restriction that one must place upon themselves, but it is
|the first that the Order requires.
I will continue to ask this question until I hear a definitive answer, which
I shall surely research if it seems necessary:
Who told you that the Order requires any sort of restriction?
Don't you think that this is rather contrary to the Law of Thelema?
|>How may an oath be broken? Of which oaths do you speak?
|
|By breaking them. :) An oath is a promise to do (or not do) a thing that you
|state to be your will.
I suggest you take a peek into _Book Four_.
|>What does 'find and/or fulfill my will' mean?
|
|What indeed? To some people it doesn't mean anything. To others, a life-long
|goal. Everyone must find that definition for themself.
Again, I'm not asking you to tell me what my will is, but to define the terms
of your speech. Please do so.
|>|Of course, the ritual recognizes some who may wish to "enter this army as
|>|a spy and to destroy your comrades", but such action would still be in
|>|violation of their oaths and would incur their magickal penalties.
|
|>Would it? Why and how do you think it would be a violation?
|
|It states as such as part of the initiation text. Re-read it.
I did, I don't agree. Now what? See, if you don't quote the text, then
we really can't get into the subtleties. I'll assume you aren't very
serious about this until you begin a careful analysis. I note that the
text itself does not (and neither did my rites of initiation) come with
a handbook which delineated the precise and correct interpretations of
the rites themselves. I have no doubt that your interpretations are
very logical and reasonable. I do NOT, however, know them to be the
'official' and 'required' ones or the only possible ones. This is the
extent of my argument with you and I hope you will address this point.
|>The issue is far from irrelevant, and the points you bring up are not at
|>all moot in regards the careful analysis of all orders including OTO.
|
|Perhaps in that context they are useful. But the point is moot in that the
|discussion is only of academic interest, since the poster is not likely a
|member of the order, or if they are, they probably could care less about
|breaking oaths. They obviously care nothing about breaking laws.
Well, I'm RE-posting excerpts from them. I'm an initiate. Does this now
make the point relevant?
|Darrin Hyrup
|Fido 1:349/7
|sha...@speedway.net
|sha...@sorinc.cutler.com
|sha...@netcom.com
Haramullah rasulu 'Llah. Alaikum assalam, my kin.
Love is the law, love under will.
Haramullah
Ty...@HouseofkAOS.Abyss.com
Darrin A. Hyrup
>|In the context of the ritual, "The Mysteries" include everything that you are
>|being introduced to in the way of initiatory symbolism. It does not include
>|what you find for yourself outside of the temple, but provides for the
>|elements of secrecy that are required for "a serious and secret"
>|organization like the O.T.O.
>Where are 'The Mysteries' defined authoritatively?
Well, ordinarily your initiator is responsible for educating you on exactly
what the Oaths represent, and what you are getting in for. That's what the
degree symbolism classes are for.
>|So, yes, they do necessarily include the signs, words, grips, etc. and the
>|actual text of the ritual, if it is recieved from the O.T.O.
>Is this official OTO policy? If so, how come I wasn't informed regarding
>doctrinal requirements prior to, during or after my initiations?
It is, as far as I have been instructed. And I've been involved with the OTO
for a great many years. As far as why you weren't informed, that's a good
question, and something I'm definately going to find out.
>|The poster of the material is free to do what they will with the text,
>|however, posting of copyrighted materials is against the law, and the law has
>|ruled in may cases that systems who knowingly allow such material on their
>|systems can be held liable.
>Yes, well this is also far from clear. You seem to know quite a bit. I've
>heard different opinion from reliable sources but am in no position to gainsay
>you. Certainly it is not illegal to quote excerpts. Whether the text of a
>particular portion of a book (a rite) is illegal to quote would seem unclear.
Well, according to my company's legal council, it is illegal to quote from any
copyrighted source, except for educational purposes and fair use, and then only
if the copyright holder offers that (usually stated in the first few pages of
the book), or with written permission from the copyright holder. And then,
all excerpts are to be accompanied by a statement of something along the lines
of "Excerpts from (name of source) This material is copyright (year) by ..."
We deal a lot in the areas of intellectual property and copyrights, and I'd
be more likely to say that the sites involved would rather not have to make
that choice. Policy here is quite clear on the subject.
>|>If the Mysteries are revealed, yes. Damned unlikely, though I hope everyone
>|>attempts to reveal them.
>|
>|"The Mysteries" means many things. The mysteries in a general magickal sense
>|is something that cannot be revealed, it is something that must be experienced
>|by living them.
>This is my own interpretation.
At least we agree on 1 thing. :)
>|The initiation is meant to stimulate that through acting out
>|your role in the initiation process. However, the context of the initiatory
>|materials includes the mysteries that are the initiatory secrets of the O.T.O.
>Again, is this official policy? With what authority do you speak on this
>matter?
As a long time member of the organization, and a participant in a great many
initiations. I've also spoken to some of the 'people in the know' of the
Order, and in fact, may have some of them offer comments in this area
themselves.
>|Secrecy is part of the discipline one undertakes willingly in order to make
>|the oaths that allow one to recieve the initiation.
>I disagree. Secrecy is part of the discipline which SOME undertake. I have
>and will not, yet I have been initiated quite freely. I'll note that I also
>have some reservations about revealing ritual materials, but certainly not
>because the *Order* would suffer. Most often I am concerned for the person
>who wishes to know the information. I have yet to pass on such information,
>yet I have continually maintained that OTO *does not require secrecy* and if
>you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to examine it or at least
>be made aware of it. It may affect my future with the Order. Thanks.
There is nothing that requires you to keep secrets of things you find on your
own. But the Order requires Oaths that you will not reveal the nature or
symbolism of the initiations of the Order. Otherwise, why don't they just
tell everyone, "Hey, this is the grip, step, word, and sign of the 9th
degree. Why not show your friends?" These things are kept secret so that
you can prove to others that you are a member of the Order, and a part of
the OTO/Thelema current. Obviously there must be some secrets, or everyone
would know everything. Try asking your initiator for the Mysteries of the
IIIo for example, and see if they tell you.
>|>The whole concept of 'doing one's will' is very complex and I'd suggest that
>|>there are no 'obvious' or 'agreed' meanings for these terms. Issues arise
>|>all the time with respect to this, such as 'What is one's will?' 'How can
>|>one tell if one is or is not doing it?' 'How can one tell if another is
>|>doing their will?' and 'What if one's will conflicts with the structure
>|>of society?'
>|
>|There is no way that I can comment on that, since nobody can tell you your
>|own will.
>This is a non-answer. If you haven't even defined your terms, then you can
>hardly expect people to understand you completely if you say things like
>'tell you your own will'. I have my own understandings, but your expressions
>seem rather different than these, so I'd love to hear you simply define your
>terms a little.
You can't define them. Will is something that is uniquely different for
each person, but it alludes to such terms as "purpose", "destiny", "karma",
"inspiration", "Godhead", "Holy Guardian Angel", etc. It is that which
seperates us from lesser spirits. While I cannot tell you what your Will is,
you make Oaths that it is your will (or within the scope of your Will if you
prefer), that you are prepared to take initiation and to hold sacred and
secret its mysteries.
>My point, however, was that these things are not defined in any concrete way
>by the OTO. OTO is social and initiatory, NOT DOCTRINAL.
There are certain doctrines that any 'society' requires in order to be
organized. The OTO is a heirarchy, and has rules and regulations that each
member of its organization are subject to. Therefore it is doctrinal in
some sense, but not overly so. A certain amount of doctrine is required,
particularily in the initatory arena, otherwise there would be anarchy.
Everyone would do their own initiations, acting as the OTO, deciding to
use whatever symbolism they wanted, extorting whatever they wanted in return.
I doubt many people would want to remain in such an Order.
>|>The initiation does not in any way restrict the free will of an individual,
>|>and as the initiate sees fit to accept restriction for the inspiration of
>|>hir true will, so will this be in hir best interests.
>|
>|Exactly. That is what the oaths are. On one level at least. Of course, it
>|is not the only restriction that one must place upon themselves, but it is
>|the first that the Order requires.
>I will continue to ask this question until I hear a definitive answer, which
>I shall surely research if it seems necessary:
>Who told you that the Order requires any sort of restriction?
The initiations themselves ask you to "submit voluntarily to discipline and
organization" "in order to obtain freedom to do your Will." The Oaths are
part of that discipline and organization which you willfully undertake.
>Don't you think that this is rather contrary to the Law of Thelema?
No. The Law of Thelema states "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the
Law" and "Love is the law, love under will." You state clearly that it is
your Will to undergo the initiation and take part in the OTO Mysteries,
taking an Oath to that effect. There is no restriction. It is YOUR Will to
do it.
>|>How may an oath be broken? Of which oaths do you speak?
>|
>|By breaking them. :) An oath is a promise to do (or not do) a thing that you
>|state to be your will.
>I suggest you take a peek into _Book Four_.
I've read just about every book Crowley has put forth, including _Book 4_. I
don't see what you are referring to. Nowhere within that book does it say
that Oaths should not be kept.
>|>What does 'find and/or fulfill my will' mean?
>|
>|What indeed? To some people it doesn't mean anything. To others, a life-long
>|goal. Everyone must find that definition for themself.
>Again, I'm not asking you to tell me what my will is, but to define the terms
>of your speech. Please do so.
I did so above. It is very difficult to explain intangible things. They are
beyond communication, and need be experienced. One can only offer places to
look or things to do to help illuminate the truth to you.
>|>|Of course, the ritual recognizes some who may wish to "enter this army as
>|>|a spy and to destroy your comrades", but such action would still be in
>|>|violation of their oaths and would incur their magickal penalties.
>|
>|>Would it? Why and how do you think it would be a violation?
>|
>|It states as such as part of the initiation text. Re-read it.
>I did, I don't agree. Now what? See, if you don't quote the text, then
>we really can't get into the subtleties. I'll assume you aren't very
>serious about this until you begin a careful analysis. I note that the
>text itself does not (and neither did my rites of initiation) come with
>a handbook which delineated the precise and correct interpretations of
>the rites themselves. I have no doubt that your interpretations are
>very logical and reasonable. I do NOT, however, know them to be the
>'official' and 'required' ones or the only possible ones. This is the
>extent of my argument with you and I hope you will address this point.
The only problem with that is that while I would like to carefully analyze
the Minerval ritual for you, and offer the advantage of the wisdom gathered
from advanced initiation within the Order, I cannot do so without breaking my
own Oaths. Unfortunately for you and the others, I take my Oaths seriously.
Anything I say beyond a certain point would be considered in direct violation
of some of the Oaths I have taken. So, don't assume that I am not serious
about this. In fact, the OTO is something I am VERY serious about, and that
is why I cannot comment.
>|>The issue is far from irrelevant, and the points you bring up are not at
>|>all moot in regards the careful analysis of all orders including OTO.
>|
>|Perhaps in that context they are useful. But the point is moot in that the
>|discussion is only of academic interest, since the poster is not likely a
>|member of the order, or if they are, they probably could care less about
>|breaking oaths. They obviously care nothing about breaking laws.
>Well, I'm RE-posting excerpts from them. I'm an initiate. Does this now
>make the point relevant?
No. From the majority of the conversations we've had on this subject, it
seems more like the point is that you are looking for a justification to
not be bound to your Oaths. Or rather, you are trying to understand why I
believe that the Oaths (and Mysteries of the initiation) are meant to be
held as sacred and secret.
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
wrote:
> You can always choose not to read the posted or published material, if
> you fear that the power of the ritual will be taken away by this fore-
> knowledge.
> Well, I can think of one benefit. It gives people, like me, who have
> neither the time nor inclination to join the O.T.O., access to their
> ceremonial rites and symbolism.
If you have neither time nor inclination for the OTO, then you certainly
have no right to help yourself to the study of its Mysteries.
> of people who are aware of this symbolism (and thus possibly the
> number
> of people who can make positive magical use out of it), our anonymous
> friend did a great deal of good, in my book.
I guess you have no time or inclination to prreoccupy yourself with those
individuals who might cause themselves harm by it as well.
Yes. Francis King has already published those rituals. Inaccurately to
the point that they are of little use, and therefore it is of no
concequence to the OTO whether they appear here or not. The point is a
matter of honor and respect... not of revealing bogus rituals.
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
-- Via DLG Pro v0.995
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
TMN> There is no profane. There is no secret worth keeping absolutely.
Don't you mean to say that secrets of the Truth are incommunicable? And
that ritual/initiation is used to cause certain psychological phenomenah to
take place within the psyche of the initiated so as to reveal to him/her
the Truth?
TMN> |Given all that hypothesis, in my mind, our Minerval-revealing
TMN> |colleague has done nothing to anyone save perhaps hirself.
Only if he is under Oath not reveal anything.
TMN> Not true, she has exposed others to what may be dangerous psychic
TMN> material. She has also made it possible for the unwary to blunder
into
TMN> prescience of the rite, potentially spoiling/shorting out its power
for
TMN> hir.
"She" has undoubtedly thought about what "She" was doing, and probably
agrees with the statement above. It is for this reason that "She" has gone
to the trouble of using and anonymous posting service to attempt to escape
any critiscism from "Her" actions. Coward is a good word to describe the
action.
TMN> |All other initiates of OTO who see this (well, most :) will be
saying
TMN> |to themselves "Oh dear, *I* could never reveal the Order secrets
like
TMN> |that!"
TMN> This is not true. OTO initiates are not required to keep secrets.
You know: I've been in the OTO for many years. I would like to know where
you were during the oaths? I am sure this will require some communication,
and I am not as eager to break my oaths as you are. A different medium
will have to do. Any suggestions?
TMN> |This will make the secrets seem more precious to them, in that
TMN> |the *letter* of the Minerval has been exposed to the profane, now
they
TMN> |must cherish even more highly the *spirit* of the ceremony.
Hogwash. You are being very optimistic... or sarcastic. The *letter* of
the ritual has not been revealed by King's publication. If anything, the
OTO initiators will probably be a little more careful about who they
initiate and who they Charter to initiate. The initiator and the people
who sponsor a candidate are ultimately responsible for the initiation. It
might also serve to say that the Man of Earth triad (0 through III degrees)
are not the OTO proper. The OTO starts with V degree. Most "spies",
"enemies", and other dishonorable types (such as oath breakers) will never
be admitted to those degrees.
TMN> This is a social theory which I think may bear out only for those who
TMN> think along similar lines (i.e. that they are somehow, with a
*Thelemic*
TMN> organization, required to keep secrets - silly but their
prerogative).
What is even sillier are that there are initiates within the OTO who think
the Order is "UnThelemic" by expecting candidates to keep their word.
Such oaths serve several purposes, one being a guage to determine the
strength of their integrety. Because of the way that the oaths are
written, the individual can only harm his/her SELF by breaking them. And,
since they are willing to gamble with their own SELF by harming,
compremising or prophaning the god within by the act of treason, the act
signifies the ultimate disrespect.
TMN> |In my opinion (which no doubt many of my esteemed friends in OTO
will
TMN> |disagree with), this person has done nothing more than given OTO the
TMN> |favor of a "kick in the complacency."
Please define "complacency" in your own terms.
TMN> With this, as I said in a previous post, I would agree in that they
TMN> do not offer revision of their rites. I think it does do more harm
TMN> than good,
The rituals are constantly evolving as better methods are devised to
communicate this "Truth" to candidates. Perhaps your statement is made
because you have no access to the original rites, or because they are not
moving fast enough for you.
TMN> |3) Regarding subverting the order: (a) See above. Maybe OTO needed
TMN> |something like this to occur. (b) If subverting the OTO *is* his
TMN> |intent, does that make him a coward? Or is it merely his means
TMN> |(anonymous posting)?
TMN> Apparently it did. Francis King did it and it only increased the
TMN> popularity of the Order even while the OTO pressed (?) for
restriction
TMN> of the publication of his tome.
Please post your sources for this conclusion. In my knowledge the OTO
persued no legal action against King for the publication of the book...
mainly because of its innaccurateness.
TMN> |And given the fact that the Minerval contains so much violence of
TMN> |thought ("as a spy to destroy your comrades", "fight... at the
behest
TMN> |of the Supreme and Holy King ..."), I'm not sure I consider the
poster's
TMN> |poster's anonymity to be "cowardice" so much as I consider it
TMN> |"prudence".
Again, the poster was trying to avoid the consequences of posting what she
thought was a guarded mystery. I consider it cowardice of the worst kind.
TMN> |4) And as a final thought, what if it were conclusively proven that
TMN> |the person who posted this (or at least caused it to be posted) were
TMN> |Hymenaeus Beta X' Rex Summus Sanctissimus U.S.A. Caliph and
TMN> |whatever titles the Frater Superior is currently going by ...?
It wasn't.
TMN> It would not matter if it were Frater Superior or a Minerval of the
TMN> Order except in the particular minds of the members. In this way
there
TMN> may be action taken against them, or they may be considered a hero.
It
TMN> would all depend on the quality of the OTO membership. I would hope
TMN> that they would welcome such exposure, yet I also understand their
TMN> concern. Perhaps this will bring the issue into the open more
readily.
TMN> I know I will likely be the focus of some controversy if I decide to
TMN> publish the 7-9 'secrets' from King's book in Email Without Tears.;>
What makes you think the OTO membership would perseive one who's word
cannot be trusted a hero? whether it was HB or not?
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
TMN> I don't advise that you procure this if you are ever going to be
TMN> interested in undertaking initiation in OTO. Also, some feel that
the
TMN> rites themselves are powerful enough to cause harm if perused.
It would be like going to a carpenter for brain surgery.
TMN> I leave the decision of whether to seek and absorb this danger to
each
TMN> individual.
TMN> The Secret Rituals of the O.T.O._, Edited and Introduced by Francis
TMN> King, Published by The C.W. Daniel Company, 60 Muswell Road, London,
TMN> N.10, 1973, ISBN 85207-111-6.
Hard to find, however. Perhaps King will publish the rituals for his own
order, (I hope he takes more care in the accurasy than he did in the book
mentioned above) however, I have heard that it no longer exists.
Abu Musa Ibn Hayyan
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
TMN>|This is not true. OTO initiates are not required to keep secrets.
TMN>|Where do you get that idea? Even within the imperfect minerval
ritual
TMN>|as posted here, the initiate is asked, nay, required upon penalty of
TMN>|death to "hold sacred and secret" the mysteries as delivered to them
via
TMN>|the initiation.
TMN> I suggest you quote the text of the rite. 'The Mysteries' do not
TMN> necessarily include the signs, words, grips, etc. OR the text of the
TMN> ritual.
You are asking people to break oaths. Why don't YOU quote them. You are
familiar with the rite in question, no?
TMN> |The initiate is again sworn to secrecy upon the penalty of
TMN> |destruction of their ability to procreate ("may I be mutilated and
TMN> |be no more a man [or woman]".)
TMN> If the Mysteries are revealed, yes. Damned unlikely, though I hope
TMN> everyone attempts to reveal them.
Pearls before swine. It seems highly unlikely that one would "reveal" any
mystery unless one was taken through the initiation by a qualified
initiator, wouldn't you agree? And if that mystery was revealed under the
condition that you do not reveal it to others wouldn't that hamper your
ability to reveal others?
|>This is a social theory which I think may bear out only for those who
|>think along similar lines (i.e. that they are somehow, with a *Thelemic*
|>organization, required to keep secrets - silly but their prerogative).
TMN> |Again, as stated in the posted ritual, the candidate is acquainted
TMN> |with the "first paradox of philosophy", in that one must necessarily
TMN> |submit to discipline and organization in order to obtain the freedom
to
TMN> |do their will.
TMN> Again, I'd love to see you quote the text so we can discuss it more
TMN> directly. My impression is that discipline and organization are
TMN> required for structure, but they are not necessarily supportive of
TMN> secrecy.
This is a redundant argument. You don't like secrecy, yet you are a member
of an organization that requires members to be secret under penalties of
opbligations; ie. they require you to be responsible and honorable with
regards to secrecy. If you are against secrecy why don't you spill your
guts? If you see the value (magical or otherwise) in secrecy, then either
defend it or shut-up. You argue for the sake of argument... already
knowing the answers you pursue the argument. Masturbation.
TMN> The initiation does not in any way restrict the free will of an
TMN> individual, and as the initiate sees fit to accept restriction for
the
TMN> inspiration of hir true will, so will this be in hir best interests.
A convenient interpretation.
TMN> How may an oath be broken? Of which oaths do you speak?
Again, you are beating around the bush. An oath is a promise, you attach
your honor and integrety to it in ceremony. To break the oath is to go
against the promise you have made before you and your god.
TMN> |Of course, the ritual recognizes some who may wish to "enter this
army
TMN> |as a spy and to destroy your comrades", but such action would still
be
TMN> in violation of their oaths and would incur their magickal penalties.
TMN> Would it? Why and how do you think it would be a violation?
Read the ritual as it is written, don't try to turn what you read in there
to pander to your prejudices.
TMN> |However, this discussion is moot, since it is likely that the poster
was
TMN> |not even an initiate of the O.T.O., but rather someone who had
gotten a
TMN> |copy of King's book, and thought they would post something from it.
TMN> The issue is far from irrelevant, and the points you bring up are
TMN> not at all moot in regards the careful analysis of all orders
including
TMN> OTO.
Any moron, even amongst the most uneducated know what oaths are.
Irronically, the uneducated seem to show more self-respect than those
intellectual geniuses who, like attorneys, attempt to find loop holes in
contracts so as not to honor them. The point is irrelevant, although I am
sure you will not stop until you have at least convinced a few of us that
an oath is nothing to be taken seriously, and that a man or woman's word is
insignificant.
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
TMN> Again, is this official policy? With what authority do you speak on
TMN> this matter?
Official policy?!?!? Have you ever heard of "bad report"? Breaking Oaths
will certainly keep you from taking you next degree... anywhere.
TMN> |Secrecy is part of the discipline one undertakes willingly in order
TMN> |to make the oaths that allow one to recieve the initiation.
TMN> I disagree. Secrecy is part of the discipline which SOME undertake.
You have joined an order which requires the utmost secrecy from its adepts.
You knew that when you joined, or like many people, you joined being
uninformed (although I don't think this is the case with you... knowing
your initiator). If you don't want to keep secrets, quit. If you break
your oaths you will be placed on bad report... perhaps permanently.
TMN> My point, however, was that these things are not defined in any
TMN> concrete way by the OTO. OTO is social and initiatory, NOT
DOCTRINAL.
You are mistaken.
|>The initiation does not in any way restrict the free will of an
individual,
|>and as the initiate sees fit to accept restriction for the inspiration of
|>hir true will, so will this be in hir best interests.
With the exception of secrecy, as stated in the oath.
TMN> Who told you that the Order requires any sort of restriction?
TMN> Don't you think that this is rather contrary to the Law of Thelema?
As I state earlier: The Law of Thelema requires responsibility. You are
mistaken by assuming it is unThelemic to assume that and organization
subscrbing to the Laws of Thelema is running agaisnt the grain by
expectiong you to be honorable and keep your oaths.
TMN> I suggest you take a peek into _Book Four_.
NOWHERE in Book Four does it say one should feel free to break their oaths.
TMN> I did, I don't agree. Now what?
If you don't agree, perhaps other organizations are more lax pertaining to
secrecy. Perhaps the Masons?
TMN> Well, I'm RE-posting excerpts from them. I'm an initiate. Does
TMN> this now make the point relevant?
No, it makes you dishonorable, a squelcher. A makes you a person not to be
trusted because your word does not mean anything.
Thomas E. Conlon IV
but you know ... OR YOU DON'T!! ha
93!
-tom
con...@crl.com
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Abu MJI Hayyan quotes Steve Cranmer and writes:
| > You can always choose not to read the posted or published material, if
| > you fear that the power of the ritual will be taken away by this fore-
| > knowledge.
|
| > Well, I can think of one benefit. It gives people, like me, who have
| > neither the time nor inclination to join the O.T.O., access to their
| > ceremonial rites and symbolism.
|
|If you have neither time nor inclination for the OTO, then you certainly
|have no right to help yourself to the study of its Mysteries.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Man has the right to think, speak, write and build what he will.
| > of people who are aware of this symbolism (and thus possibly the
| > number
| > of people who can make positive magical use out of it), our anonymous
| > friend did a great deal of good, in my book.
|
|I guess you have no time or inclination to prreoccupy yourself with those
|individuals who might cause themselves harm by it as well.
It is not our job to protect others from harming themselves.
|Yes. Francis King has already published those rituals. Inaccurately to
|the point that they are of little use, and therefore it is of no
|concequence to the OTO whether they appear here or not.
Then desist with your inanity.
|The point is a
|matter of honor and respect... not of revealing bogus rituals.
Then honor and respect his will to post what he will. You have not
shown that posting it is dishonorable or disrepectful.
|Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Tyagi Nagasiva
Ty...@HouseofKaos.Abyss.cm
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Abu Hayyan quotes me (quoting someone else in some cases) and writes:
| TMN> There is no profane. There is no secret worth keeping absolutely.
|
|Don't you mean to say that secrets of the Truth are incommunicable? And
|that ritual/initiation is used to cause certain psychological phenomenah to
|take place within the psyche of the initiated so as to reveal to him/her
|the Truth?
I meant what I said. I think that the Truth (or truth) is communicable.
The last by words within proper context, the first through inference or
implication.
I think that ritual is used for many purposes and that there are many times
when it is *supposed* to work in certain ways when it does nothing of the
sort. It is certainly feasible that a rite could initiate the unveiling
of greater truth for an individual, but this does not mean that it always
happens nor that it is an actual cause-effect relation.
| TMN> |Given all that hypothesis, in my mind, our Minerval-revealing
| TMN> |colleague has done nothing to anyone save perhaps hirself.
I did not write this. See the lines in front of the text? That means
that I'm quoting it. It is similar to your "TMN>" except that I save us
all some headspace by simply preceding the text with a verticle line (|).
Sometimes people use ">" or "<" also. The rest of the characters and
configurations are awkward or ugly, as far as I'm concerned, though I've
used an entirely different style to avoid this problem in the past.
When you quote me without also noting who I am quoting then it can get
confusing.
|Only if he is under Oath not reveal anything.
Is there a difference between an 'Oath' and an 'oath'? You seem to like
to capitalize your letters and I'm not sure what you mean to imply by
this capitalization scheme (if anything - another example: truth/Truth).
| TMN> Not true, she has exposed others to what may be dangerous psychic
| TMN> material. She has also made it possible for the unwary to blunder
|into
| TMN> prescience of the rite, potentially spoiling/shorting out its power
|for
| TMN> hir.
|
|"She" has undoubtedly thought about what "She" was doing, and probably
|agrees with the statement above. It is for this reason that "She" has gone
|to the trouble of using and anonymous posting service to attempt to escape
|any critiscism from "Her" actions. Coward is a good word to describe the
|action.
Judge not lest ye be judged. The word of Sin is Restriction.
| TMN> |All other initiates of OTO who see this (well, most :) will be
|saying
| TMN> |to themselves "Oh dear, *I* could never reveal the Order secrets
|like
| TMN> |that!"
|
| TMN> This is not true. OTO initiates are not required to keep secrets.
|
|You know: I've been in the OTO for many years. I would like to know where
|you were during the oaths?
I guess I was in different rites than you were. :> I remember very
distinctly and clearly that they did not restrict me to secrecy in any
way. Now *YOU* might have found them restrictive and perhaps many in
the Order consider this to be the case also. No doubt if this latter
is true I'll eventually be black-balled.
|I am sure this will require some communication,
|and I am not as eager to break my oaths as you are.
I am communicating. Your secrecy is your weakness.
|A different medium
|will have to do. Any suggestions?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
| TMN> |This will make the secrets seem more precious to them, in that
| TMN> |the *letter* of the Minerval has been exposed to the profane, now
|they
| TMN> |must cherish even more highly the *spirit* of the ceremony.
|
|Hogwash. You are being very optimistic... or sarcastic. The *letter* of
|the ritual has not been revealed by King's publication.
Don't you, by even saying this, reveal something? Are you not compromising
yourself even by this post? Take care.
|If anything, the
|OTO initiators will probably be a little more careful about who they
|initiate and who they Charter to initiate. The initiator and the people
|who sponsor a candidate are ultimately responsible for the initiation.
If they proceed by *your* criteria for their decisions then I think the
Order will suffer immeasurably. Secrecy is not the issue when it comes
to conferring Charters. Better would it be if it considered the
maturity and initiatic ability of the mage.
|It
|might also serve to say that the Man of Earth triad (0 through III degrees)
|are not the OTO proper. The OTO starts with V degree.
Very interesting. I've never heard this before. Please explain what the
0-III degrees ARE then, if they are given by OTO and maintained by OTO.
They appear within the Caliph's pyramidal scheme as it follows on the
Constitution, which includes these also. Please substantiate your source.
|Most "spies",
|"enemies", and other dishonorable types (such as oath breakers) will never
|be admitted to those degrees.
The word of Sin is Restriction.
| TMN> This is a social theory which I think may bear out only for those who
| TMN> think along similar lines (i.e. that they are somehow, with a
|*Thelemic*
| TMN> organization, required to keep secrets - silly but their
|prerogative).
|
|What is even sillier are that there are initiates within the OTO who think
|the Order is "UnThelemic" by expecting candidates to keep their word.
Of which word do you speak? You aren't very convincing to *this*
initiate, and I would venture to say that you are taking these matters
far too literally, far too absolutely, and far too restictedly. Just
have a gander at the other posts in the thread (Kampe's for example).
The assertion that any Order is 'UnThelemic' is a very important one,
for it brings into issue the very point which you have not addressed:
what does 'Thelemic' mean? How does an Order demonstrate its support
of the Law of Thelema? By claiming to be doing so? I doubt it.
|Such oaths serve several purposes, one being a guage to determine the
|strength of their integrety.
Only if doctrinal requirements are held to exist. As I asked your
cohort in sin, please explain why you think that there are 'correct'
understandings of the rites and why you think that yours (regarding
secrecy) is correct. On what authority do you spout this nonsense?
|Because of the way that the oaths are
|written, the individual can only harm his/her SELF by breaking them.
Then you have nothing to fear and nothing to criticize.
|And,
|since they are willing to gamble with their own SELF by harming,
|compremising or prophaning the god within by the act of treason, the act
|signifies the ultimate disrespect.
This is ludicrous. If they are only being disrespectful of themselves
then you have no business telling them that they are wrong to do so.
Your verbage is both rude and silly. It is no more 'treason' than were
the actions of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Mohandas K. Ghandi.
|The rituals are constantly evolving as better methods are devised to
|communicate this "Truth" to candidates. Perhaps your statement is made
|because you have no access to the original rites, or because they are not
|moving fast enough for you.
I only criticize them if they are rendered weak by becoming stagnant.
This would be exemplified by the ability to publish the rites and
thereby destroy some of their power.
| TMN> |3) Regarding subverting the order: (a) See above. Maybe OTO needed
| TMN> |something like this to occur. (b) If subverting the OTO *is* his
| TMN> |intent, does that make him a coward? Or is it merely his means
| TMN> |(anonymous posting)?
|
| TMN> Apparently it did. Francis King did it and it only increased the
| TMN> popularity of the Order even while the OTO pressed (?) for
|restriction
| TMN> of the publication of his tome.
|
|Please post your sources for this conclusion. In my knowledge the OTO
|persued no legal action against King for the publication of the book...
|mainly because of its innaccurateness.
Mainly hearsay. I have heard very many times that King's book is
considered rude and is recommended against as it may affect one's
initiatic experiences. With this last I would agree and think that the
reason it is likely to affect these experiences is that the rites
aren't changed often or fast enough to prevent this.
| TMN> |And given the fact that the Minerval contains so much violence of
| TMN> |thought ("as a spy to destroy your comrades", "fight... at the
|behest
| TMN> |of the Supreme and Holy King ..."), I'm not sure I consider the
|poster's
| TMN> |poster's anonymity to be "cowardice" so much as I consider it
| TMN> |"prudence".
|
|Again, the poster was trying to avoid the consequences of posting what she
|thought was a guarded mystery. I consider it cowardice of the worst kind.
The poster never stated what she thought. You are inferring where you
have no knowledge. Else, do you know hir?
| TMN> |4) And as a final thought, what if it were conclusively proven that
| TMN> |the person who posted this (or at least caused it to be posted) were
| TMN> |Hymenaeus Beta X' Rex Summus Sanctissimus U.S.A. Caliph and
| TMN> |whatever titles the Frater Superior is currently going by ...?
|
|It wasn't.
It seems you may know hir, then. Please state your sources for this.
| TMN> It would not matter if it were Frater Superior or a Minerval of the
| TMN> Order except in the particular minds of the members. In this way
|there
| TMN> may be action taken against them, or they may be considered a hero.
|It
| TMN> would all depend on the quality of the OTO membership. I would hope
| TMN> that they would welcome such exposure, yet I also understand their
| TMN> concern. Perhaps this will bring the issue into the open more
|readily.
| TMN> I know I will likely be the focus of some controversy if I decide to
| TMN> publish the 7-9 'secrets' from King's book in Email Without Tears.;>
|
|What makes you think the OTO membership would perseive one who's word
|cannot be trusted a hero? whether it was HB or not?
You are the one concluding that their word could not be trusted. For those
such as you the former charge is likely (i.e. you would be more likely to
take action against hir). I only know my own preference, which is toward
complete freedom of information regardless of consequences and the firm
support of the Law of Thelema wherever I see it exercised.
|Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Haramullah rasulu 'Llah. Alaikum assalam, my kin.
Love is the law, love under will.
Haramullah
Ty...@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Abu Hayyan quotes me (most of the time) and writes:
| TMN>|This is not true. OTO initiates are not required to keep secrets.
I wrote this.
| TMN>|Where do you get that idea? Even within the imperfect minerval
|ritual
| TMN>|as posted here, the initiate is asked, nay, required upon penalty of
| TMN>|death to "hold sacred and secret" the mysteries as delivered to them
|via
| TMN>|the initiation.
I did not write this. Please quote more clearly.
| TMN> I suggest you quote the text of the rite. 'The Mysteries' do not
| TMN> necessarily include the signs, words, grips, etc. OR the text of the
| TMN> ritual.
|
|You are asking people to break oaths. Why don't YOU quote them. You are
|familiar with the rite in question, no?
No, I'm asking people to quote the KING MINERVAL so we can discuss it
in lieu of the rite which I was given (of which I do not have the text,
but parts of which I was read again quite recently).
|...It seems highly unlikely that one would "reveal" any
|mystery unless one was taken through the initiation by a qualified
|initiator, wouldn't you agree?
While I might agree with this, neither do I think that one must be
within OTO, Chartered by any organization, or titled in order to be
qualified. Nor do I think that one must be human.
|And if that mystery was revealed under the
|condition that you do not reveal it to others wouldn't that hamper your
|ability to reveal others?
I agree and differ with your presumption regarding conditions. That
we disagree on this point is quite obvious. Do you think that King's
Minerval varies significantly enough to require that we can only
discuss the CURRENT version in regards the 'oath'? If I had the text
to the CURRENT Minerval I'd quote it to you ONLINE because of your
silliness. Then I'd see what happened. As it is I have yet to procure
a copy, though I remember considering carefully each of the supposed
'oaths' which were laid before me.
| TMN> |Again, as stated in the posted ritual, the candidate is acquainted
| TMN> |with the "first paradox of philosophy", in that one must necessarily
| TMN> |submit to discipline and organization in order to obtain the freedom
|to
| TMN> |do their will.
I did not write this, though I wrote the preceding and following.
| TMN> Again, I'd love to see you quote the text so we can discuss it more
| TMN> directly. My impression is that discipline and organization are
| TMN> required for structure, but they are not necessarily supportive of
| TMN> secrecy.
|
|This is a redundant argument. You don't like secrecy, yet you are a member
|of an organization that requires members to be secret under penalties of
|opbligations; ie. they require you to be responsible and honorable with
|regards to secrecy.
Please demonstrate this. Cite something. If you can't, even some authority
like the GTG or the Supreme Maximus Kingliness, saying that this organization
requires secrecy, then please desist from your silly claims.
|If you are against secrecy why don't you spill your
|guts?
Right. Now I throw down the glove. I am content to prove to you that
I am initiated to Minerval (and beyond) in OTO if you will consent, upon
receipt of such proof, to send me the text of the CURRENT Minerval with
which I may accept your challenge above. Ready? I'm ready to stand
behind my claims that OTO does not require secrecy. Are you willing
to push the point further?
I would rather not divulge initiatic rites publicly, for the reasons
I've given before, yet unless you can prove that your claims are true
regarding OTO requirements of secrecy (not only by quoting from the rite
itself, which I can interpret in myriad fashion, but by citing the source
of your authority for this interpretation), then I may feel obliged to
prove you wrong in your ignorant claims by spewing forth the very rites
I have withheld to date.
Will you desist in this, at least to save your very precious fantasy of
secrecy, or will you continue to characterize the Order in so UnThelemic
a manner?
|If you see the value (magical or otherwise) in secrecy, then either
|defend it or shut-up. You argue for the sake of argument... already
|knowing the answers you pursue the argument. Masturbation.
I offer my defense above. My argument is in defense of the character
of the Order, which I think you SLANDER by saying that it 'requires
secrecy'. I've offered you an option. I hope that you do not take
it and desist, or begin to cite your source for your claims.
I realize that YOU think that you were required to engage secrecy.
You may therefore claim that you were given a rite which you interpret
as requiring this. I claim that I was not AND I think there is quite
sufficient reason to presume that requirement of any kind is contrary
to Thelema (at least as I understand it).
My argument is not simply semantical (at least not this one :>).
I feel very strongly about this issue.
| TMN> The initiation does not in any way restrict the free will of an
| TMN> individual, and as the initiate sees fit to accept restriction for
|the
| TMN> inspiration of hir true will, so will this be in hir best interests.
|
|A convenient interpretation.
Then you acknowledge it as coherent, if convenient. Thank you.
That is all the support I need.
| TMN> How may an oath be broken? Of which oaths do you speak?
|
|Again, you are beating around the bush. An oath is a promise, you attach
|your honor and integrety to it in ceremony. To break the oath is to go
|against the promise you have made before you and your god.
You seem to be in need of brushing-up regarding oaths, magical and otherwise.
Please see _Book Four_.
| TMN> |Of course, the ritual recognizes some who may wish to "enter this
|army
| TMN> |as a spy and to destroy your comrades", but such action would still
|be
| TMN> in violation of their oaths and would incur their magickal penalties.
|
|
| TMN> Would it? Why and how do you think it would be a violation?
|
|Read the ritual as it is written, don't try to turn what you read in there
|to pander to your prejudices.
By the Law of Thelema I shall do what I will, I may interpret what I will,
and I will to interpret the rites as I see fit. Do you claim that there
are 'established', 'approved' and 'correct' interpretations? If so, then
cite your authority. If not, then desist and quit your arrogance.
|Any moron, even amongst the most uneducated know what oaths are.
Apparently you do not. Read up.
|Irronically, the uneducated seem to show more self-respect than those
|intellectual geniuses who, like attorneys, attempt to find loop holes in
|contracts so as not to honor them.
You stroke with one hand while you slap with the other.
One person's 'loop hole' is another's freedom.
|The point is irrelevant, although I am
|sure you will not stop until you have at least convinced a few of us that
|an oath is nothing to be taken seriously, and that a man or woman's word is
|insignificant.
I claim nothing of the sort. I just don't think that by your words you
display much knowledge of either.
|Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Darrin Hyrup quotes me and writes:
|>|[Darrin]
|>|In the context of the ritual, "The Mysteries" include everything that you
|>|are
|>|being introduced to in the way of initiatory symbolism. It does not include
|>|what you find for yourself outside of the temple, but provides for the
|>|elements of secrecy that are required for "a serious and secret"
|>|organization like the O.T.O.
|
|>Where are 'The Mysteries' defined authoritatively?
|
|Well, ordinarily your initiator is responsible for educating you on exactly
|what the Oaths represent, and what you are getting in for. That's what the
|degree symbolism classes are for.
I've never been told what they meant by anyone in OTO. I've never attended
one of these 'classes' and am not sure that I'd ever want to.
|>|So, yes, they do necessarily include the signs, words, grips, etc. and the
|>|actual text of the ritual, if it is recieved from the O.T.O.
|
|>Is this official OTO policy? If so, how come I wasn't informed regarding
|>doctrinal requirements prior to, during or after my initiations?
|
|It is, as far as I have been instructed. And I've been involved with the OTO
|for a great many years. As far as why you weren't informed, that's a good
|question, and something I'm definately going to find out.
Please do. My initiators told me that it was *my* job to discover for
myself what it was these mysteries were and what the rites meant. I asked
them about their own interpretations (not *the* interpretations) and they
would not discuss the matter. Either they were very ignorant (which I
doubt, as I choose my iniators carefully) or are of a different mind than
your own. I think that this speaks well for the Order and that it goes to
show that your claims are fallacious in their extremity.
|>|>If the Mysteries are revealed, yes. Damned unlikely, though I hope
|>|>everyone attempts to reveal them.
|>|
|>|"The Mysteries" means many things. The mysteries in a general magickal
|>|sense is something that cannot be revealed, it is something that must be
|>|be experienced by living them.
|
|>This is my own interpretation.
|
|At least we agree on 1 thing. :)
And it is a VERY important point of agreement. That we can agree on this
means that you consider my interpretation to be sound. Now if we can get
into this idea that there might be 'required' or 'approved' interpretations,
then I'll be more satisfied.
|>|The initiation is meant to stimulate that through acting out
|>|your role in the initiation process. However, the context of the initiatory
|>|materials includes the mysteries that are the initiatory secrets of the
|>|O.T.O.
|
|>Again, is this official policy? With what authority do you speak on this
|>matter?
|
|As a long time member of the organization, and a participant in a great many
|initiations. I've also spoken to some of the 'people in the know' of the
|Order, and in fact, may have some of them offer comments in this area
|themselves.
You continue to evade my questions. Is it official policy? Is OTO doctrinal
in requiring that certain interpretations be accepted as true? If you think
so, then I'll be obliged to ask you to state your source. To date I have had
dealings with very many of the Order's upper echelon and not ONCE have I
ever heard this stated.
Please have the 'people in the know' offer comment. Also, please identify
them so that we can be sure they speak *for the Order* and are not just
giving their opinions. Thanks.
|>|Secrecy is part of the discipline one undertakes willingly in order to make
|>|the oaths that allow one to recieve the initiation.
|
|>I disagree. Secrecy is part of the discipline which SOME undertake. I have
|>and will not, yet I have been initiated quite freely. I'll note that I also
|>have some reservations about revealing ritual materials, but certainly not
|>because the *Order* would suffer. Most often I am concerned for the person
|>who wishes to know the information. I have yet to pass on such information,
|>yet I have continually maintained that OTO *does not require secrecy* and if
|>you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to examine it or at least
|>be made aware of it. It may affect my future with the Order. Thanks.
|
|There is nothing that requires you to keep secrets of things you find on your
|own. But the Order requires Oaths that you will not reveal the nature or
|symbolism of the initiations of the Order.
Please substantiate this. I claim you are wrong and would like to hear it
from someone of substance. That you claim one thing and I claim another only
indicates that the Order is interfused with a great diversity, but if anything
it substantiates my claim until you can offer authoritative sources.
|Otherwise, why don't they just
|tell everyone, "Hey, this is the grip, step, word, and sign of the 9th
|degree. Why not show your friends?"
We've discussed this a great many times in this newsgroup and I'm not
going to go into it right now unless you press the point. There are very
many good reasons for secrecy, and very few for requiring it.
|These things are kept secret so that
|you can prove to others that you are a member of the Order, and a part of
|the OTO/Thelema current.
I think this is simplistic.
|Obviously there must be some secrets, or everyone
|would know everything.
More simplistic statements. I claim that there is NO need for a requirement
of secrecy. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
|Try asking your initiator for the Mysteries of the
|IIIo for example, and see if they tell you.
Which one? I've had more than one, you know. I would not ask this question
of them, nor would it be likely that they COULD reveal the Mysteries to me,
even if they wanted to, which they would likely not. That is THEIR CHOICE.
The authority rests in the individual. If you sublimate the individual to
the organization, then you have compromised the Law of Thelema as I know it.
|>...If you haven't even defined your terms, then you can
|>hardly expect people to understand you completely if you say things like
|>'tell you your own will'. I have my own understandings, but your expressions
|>seem rather different than these, so I'd love to hear you simply define your
|>terms a little.
|
|You can't define them. Will is something that is uniquely different for
|each person, but it alludes to such terms as "purpose", "destiny", "karma",
|"inspiration", "Godhead", "Holy Guardian Angel", etc. It is that which
|seperates us from lesser spirits.
There now, you've given me something to grasp upon when attempting to
comprehend your speech. Not much, but it's a start. Crowley and many
other mages have defined will rather nicely, I think, even if through
implication, example, allegory and use.
|While I cannot tell you what your Will is,
|you make Oaths that it is your will (or within the scope of your Will if you
|prefer), that you are prepared to take initiation and to hold sacred and
|secret its mysteries.
Well, I may do this, and I think I may well have done so, yet again,
I insist that I will interpret 'Mysteries' as something more than silly
elements of rite such as word, grip and step. Will you say that it is
not possible, that the *ORDER* will tell me that this is wrong??
Who will speak for the Order in this matter? I want to hear it loud
and clear that OTO is doctrinal and then I'll be left to decide whether
I shall associate with it or no. I cannot trust you, however. You
are the one with whom I grapple and I don't know your relationship to
the Order proper.
|>My point, however, was that these things are not defined in any concrete way
|>by the OTO. OTO is social and initiatory, NOT DOCTRINAL.
|
|There are certain doctrines that any 'society' requires in order to be
|organized. The OTO is a heirarchy, and has rules and regulations that each
|member of its organization are subject to.
My understanding is that, yes, OTO is a hierarchy. The requirements of
the Order as I understand it are in regards social obligations having
to do with DUES, acceptance of regulations for the privelege of powers
to initiate, and a firm commitment to find and fulfill one's true will.
There may be some other clause in regards the support of Baphomet or His
duly appointed representative, and several other very colorful metaphors
which may be taken in self-restrictive or self-liberative ways. Yet
this is all I know of the rites of the Order and its 'rules and regulations'
(all I can remember at present) and I wish it known that where variations
may occur based on interpretation, the interpretation ITSELF and the process
of initiation will depend on the initiator, the initiate and their
relationship. My understanding is that there are no regulations regarding
these and you have inferred them as universal when in fact they were
particular to your initiator. Please demonstrate that I am incorrect,
since mine would seem to be an exceptional experience to everything that
you are saying.
|Therefore it is doctrinal in
|some sense, but not overly so. A certain amount of doctrine is required,
|particularily in the initatory arena, otherwise there would be anarchy.
Logically false. My experience shows otherwise. Please substantiate or
desist in your false claims. Besides, anarchy in regards doctrine is
EXACTLY what there is, even while there is not anarchy of social status
within the Order.
|Everyone would do their own initiations, acting as the OTO, deciding to
|use whatever symbolism they wanted, extorting whatever they wanted in return.
|I doubt many people would want to remain in such an Order.
Not true. The METHOD of initiation is tightly controlled, and I don't know
whether or not this is wise. It would seem to yield some very weak points
of attack for the Order (as you are defending them valiantly), though I
might contend (and have) that this is only an indication that that process
needs changing. It *certainly* should be discussed.
What WOULD happen if the method were variable? I don't know that it would
matter except that it would more greatly come to resemble private educational
methods rather than those of public education (indoctrination).
|>|>The initiation does not in any way restrict the free will of an individual,
|>|>and as the initiate sees fit to accept restriction for the inspiration of
|>|>hir true will, so will this be in hir best interests.
|>|
|>|Exactly. That is what the oaths are. On one level at least. Of course, it
|>|is not the only restriction that one must place upon themselves, but it is
|>|the first that the Order requires.
|
|>I will continue to ask this question until I hear a definitive answer, which
|>I shall surely research if it seems necessary:
|
|>Who told you that the Order requires any sort of restriction?
|
|The initiations themselves ask you to "submit voluntarily to discipline and
|organization" "in order to obtain freedom to do your Will." The Oaths are
|part of that discipline and organization which you willfully undertake.
Initiations do not ask anything. Perhaps I was asked if I would voluntarily
submit to discipline and organization in order to obtain freedom to do my
will. If so, I have already engaged this discipline and feel that I am
currently doing my true will. In doing this will I radically oppose secrecy.
Now where do you go from here?
Sure, YOU define that 'the Oaths' mean the oath of secrecy. And YOU
define that discipline and organization is regarding withholding information.
Well, I don't, and I defy you to show me that I am going against the
doctrinal dictates of any Thelemic organization! Honestly, such is
preposterous idea.
|>Don't you think that this is rather contrary to the Law of Thelema?
|
|No. The Law of Thelema states "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the
|Law" and "Love is the law, love under will." You state clearly that it is
|your Will to undergo the initiation and take part in the OTO Mysteries,
|taking an Oath to that effect. There is no restriction. It is YOUR Will to
|do it.
With much if not all of this I'd agree. It is only our interpretations
which differ. I think I've made my point on this already, to which I
shall await a reply from you and Abu Hayyan. I doubt you will be able
to summon any sort of support for your claims, either of you. My own
experience is support enough for mine, and I'm willing to demonstrate
it by revealing the most deepest, nastiest secret ritual text to which
OTO has ever given me access. I could of course simply proceed from my
memory of my initiation rites, but I want to be sure I'm accurate.
|>|>How may an oath be broken? Of which oaths do you speak?
|>|
|>|By breaking them. :) An oath is a promise to do (or not do) a thing that yo
|>|you state to be your will.
|
|>I suggest you take a peek into _Book Four_.
|
|I've read just about every book Crowley has put forth, including _Book 4_. I
|don't see what you are referring to. Nowhere within that book does it say
|that Oaths should not be kept.
My reference was that there is a distinction between a magical oath and one
which is NOT magical. _Book Four_ contains writings to this effect. Since
you seem to be so well-informed, that should be sufficient reminder.
|>|>What does 'find and/or fulfill my will' mean?
|>|
|>|What indeed? To some people it doesn't mean anything. To others, a
|>|life-long goal. Everyone must find that definition for themself.
|
|>Again, I'm not asking you to tell me what my will is, but to define the terms
|>of your speech. Please do so.
|
|I did so above. It is very difficult to explain intangible things. They are
|beyond communication, and need be experienced. One can only offer places to
|look or things to do to help illuminate the truth to you.
You did nothing of the sort. You only implied some things with associated
terms. I'm talking about at LEAST providing some samples, analogies, examples
of the usage by the Master, etc. I figure you can come up with this if you
have been in OTO as long as you say.
|The only problem with that is that while I would like to carefully analyze
|the Minerval ritual for you, and offer the advantage of the wisdom gathered
|from advanced initiation within the Order, I cannot do so without breaking my
|own Oaths.
I spoke of King's Minerval.
|Unfortunately for you and the others, I take my Oaths seriously.
|Anything I say beyond a certain point would be considered in direct violation
|of some of the Oaths I have taken.
No doubt you take them seriously. Perhaps overly. YOU would consider
it in direct violation of your oaths/Oaths. Let me give you a hypothetical.
Presume for the moment that the OTO is NOT doctrinally-based in this
matter, and that you may interpret the ritual text in any manner you
choose. Presume secondly that you choose to interpret your oaths NOT
as restrictions regarding secrecy but as statements about the limitations
of language and communications. Given this, would it then be a 'direct
violation of your Oaths' to speak of the particulars of text or form?
Given that it isn't doctrinally-based, would you agree that, according
to the Law of Thelema, it would be SINFUL to attempt to restrict people
from interpreting the rites in a manner they see fit? If you go this
far, then would you not aid my cause in coming down HARD on people
who DO attempt to promote such misconceptions about the character of
our Order?
|So, don't assume that I am not serious
|about this. In fact, the OTO is something I am VERY serious about, and that
|is why I cannot comment.
I don't doubt this, though I think one of us has been misled and I'd like
to find out who.
|...From the majority of the conversations we've had on this subject, it
|seems more like the point is that you are looking for a justification to
|not be bound to your Oaths.
I don't need any 'justification'. The Order is not doctrinal. If you can
demonstrate that it is, I may renounce my ties with it completely and
oppose it to the end of my days as 'UNThelemic'. :> Have at it.
|Or rather, you are trying to understand why I
|believe that the Oaths (and Mysteries of the initiation) are meant to be
|held as sacred and secret.
Not 'meant to be' but 'REQUIRED TO BE'. Yes, this is more what I'm after,
and I hope you will rise to the challenge. I'm getting tired of all this
bluster over an issue which I've argued many times and never had any
substance come of it but my continued verity. I very dearly hope that
you and Abu are wrong, for I greatly love OTO, and to see it turned into
some kind of intellectual enslavement mechanism, supporting the extreme
of secrecy, would be a horrible blow for all of us and the future of our
society.
|Darrin Hyrup
|sha...@speedway.net
|sha...@sorinc.cutler.com
|sha...@netcom.com
Haramullah rasulu 'Llah. Alaikum assalam, my kin.
Love is the law, love under will.
Haramullah
MJAC...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu
>distinctly and clearly that they did not restrict me to secrecy in any
>way. Now *YOU* might have found them restrictive and perhaps many in
>the Order consider this to be the case also. No doubt if this latter
>is true I'll eventually be black-balled.
especially with the one above. Although my initiation into the OTO was over two
years ago, I very clearly remember paying attention to the words as well as
to what they implied, at least to me at that time. Any "secrecy", if I may use
that word, was only the understood idea not to tell non-initiates details of
the ritual so as to not spoil the fun for all involved. I mean, if I told
you that you would have to hang, upsidedown and blindfolded, over a pit of
hungry alligators while everyone else insults your mother's shoe size, then
that pre-knowledge might bias you and not cause the same effect on you that it
would have if you didn't know it beforehand. (No, my initiation was not that
much fun, but close! :>)
As I understand it, the basic set of laws that govern the OTO, "Do what thou
wilt ..." and "Love is the law ..." seem to be designed to eliminate any
injunction to do this thing or to not do that thing, including things said, or
done during the initiation ritual. As Tyagi and Aliester say, restriction is
the word for sin, and "Do what thou wilt ..." is as non-restrictive as we can
currently get, IMHO.
Now, if Tyagi goes and gets black-balled, then I think there will be lots of
others, both active participants here on alt.magick as well as the bazillions
of silent lurkers who will be on the same train out of town. And I, for one,
will be there with him.
Michael Wayne Jackson
--
proud of my Minerval and First Degree.
LOVE, it's the Law!
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. (I mean this.)
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin. (and this)
Aby Hayyan continues to shout extremities for which he offers no support:
| TMN> Again, is this official policy? With what authority do you speak on
| TMN> this matter?
|
|Official policy?!?!? Have you ever heard of "bad report"? Breaking Oaths
|will certainly keep you from taking you next degree... anywhere.
Yes, my understanding is that 'bad report' includes such things as the
failure to pay dues, the misrepresentation of the Order in a harmful manner,
the failure to meet regulations regarding initiatory PROCESSES, violence
among kindred, etc. I have never heard that this has anything to do with
secrecy (except in regard the personal information of other members).
Please cite your sources of stop making your claims. I'm a living example
of an exception to your claims and I have NEVER been informed (after some
conversations about this PRECISE matter with many people of high degree)
that I am restricted in the information which I may divulge.
I will continue to be a spokesperson for what I construe to be the
THELEMIC nature of OTO and will openly oppose those who claim that OTO
is in any way requiring secrecy. This is a misconception on your part,
and I hope you check with your superiors.
| TMN> |Secrecy is part of the discipline one undertakes willingly in order
| TMN> |to make the oaths that allow one to recieve the initiation.
|
| TMN> I disagree. Secrecy is part of the discipline which SOME undertake.
|
|You have joined an order which requires the utmost secrecy from its adepts.
Substantiate this. That's all I ask.
|You knew that when you joined,
I knew nothing of the sort.
|or like many people, you joined being
|uninformed (although I don't think this is the case with you... knowing
|your initiator).
Huh? I have understood from my communications with the GTG and many
other IX' initiates that what you are saying regarding OTO and secrecy
is NOT true. It isn't just that i have 'been uninformed'. The REASON
I joined OTO in the first place was that these assurances convinced me
that it was Thelemic in its nature.
If you can substantiate your claim I wish to know it. How is it that
you know of 'my initiator'? First off I don't have only one. Actually
I have three to date. Second, where would you come by such information?
I don't know who you are, but I'd like to be apprised as to where you
procured this information.
If you don't want to keep secrets, quit.
Too late. :> I'm committed to Thelema for LIFE. That means that if
OTO backs out of the Law I continue to fight for it even if they
'put me on bad report' or if they 'kick me out' (which I understand
is impossible in a very real sense). I don't need to quit. I suggest
that you simply fess up regarding how you think you can speak for the
Order in this matter or stop spreading false rumors.
|If you break
|your oaths you will be placed on bad report... perhaps permanently.
Here we go. Now you come to my real incentives and motives.
If I should be shown that OTO is doctrinally-based in this way; that
specific interpretations of Order initiations are not acceptable, and
that secrecy is REQUIRED within the Order, then I will IMMEDIATELY
consider it corrupt and begin violating with the utmost glee. I don't
think you know what this means to me.
ANY organization which purports to be Thelemic and requires secrecy of
its members is not one which I will support. Indeed, I SHALL ACTIVELY
OPPOSE THEM. If I hear from a reputable source that OTO fits this
descripton, then I shall place mySELF upon bad report and begin to
publicize everything I can get my hands on, King's rituals and BEYOND.
I hope I'm clear on this point, and I hope I'm demonstrating to you
how much I care about this and how far I'm willing to go to see that
my energies are not spent upon slavery.
| TMN> My point, however, was that these things are not defined in any
| TMN> concrete way by the OTO. OTO is social and initiatory, NOT
|DOCTRINAL.
|
|You are mistaken.
Prove it or refrain from your false claims.
||>The initiation does not in any way restrict the free will of an
|individual,
||>and as the initiate sees fit to accept restriction for the inspiration of
||>hir true will, so will this be in hir best interests.
|
|With the exception of secrecy, as stated in the oath.
Poppycock. Your interpretation is not that of the Order. My understanding
is that the ORDER associates with none. If it does, it will not survive
the Aeon in which it continues this practice.
| TMN> Who told you that the Order requires any sort of restriction?
| TMN> Don't you think that this is rather contrary to the Law of Thelema?
|
|As I state earlier: The Law of Thelema requires responsibility. You are
|mistaken by assuming it is unThelemic to assume that and organization
|subscrbing to the Laws of Thelema is running agaisnt the grain by
|expectiong you to be honorable and keep your oaths.
Well I know you say this, but who are you? Why should we take you
seriously? Do you speak for the Order? If not, go away.
| TMN> I suggest you take a peek into _Book Four_.
|
|NOWHERE in Book Four does it say one should feel free to break their oaths.
Sheesh, you and Darrin. I give up.
| TMN> I did, I don't agree. Now what?
|
|If you don't agree, perhaps other organizations are more lax pertaining to
|secrecy. Perhaps the Masons?
Are you kidding? They are more literalist than you are!
| TMN> Well, I'm RE-posting excerpts from them. I'm an initiate. Does
| TMN> this now make the point relevant?
|
|No, it makes you dishonorable, a squelcher. A makes you a person not to be
|trusted because your word does not mean anything.
I'm sorry you feel that way. So we fight as brothers.
|Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Hey, why don't you use thelemic greetings? I mean, isn't it suggested by
the Order's hierarchy?
Dr. J.P. Clewley
There is no mystery where I am.
Chalky White
B.A. Davis-Howe
>What makes you think the OTO membership would perseive one who's word
>cannot be trusted a hero? whether it was HB or not?
Well, from what I've heard, they at least respect Crowlwey--whether or not
they consider him a hero, I don't know. I *do* know that he violated his
Golden Dawn oaths with some of the material published in _Magick in Theroy
and Practice_ and other of his writings.
So, the rituals you are so concerned about keeping secret were written
(or at least majorly rewritten) by an oath-breaker. How solid is the
ground you are standing on here?
Darrin A. Hyrup
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva (Ty...@cup.portal.com) writes
to Abu Musa Jabir Ibm Hayyan:
>If I had the text
>to the CURRENT Minerval I'd quote it to you ONLINE because of your
>silliness. Then I'd see what happened. As it is I have yet to procure
>a copy, though I remember considering carefully each of the supposed
>'oaths' which were laid before me.
It is unlikely that you will procure a copy. Only chartered initiators
within the OTO are given copies of the initiatory material.
Tyagi, if you were to quote the text of the current Minerval, you would
most certainly be put on bad report, and quite possibly expelled.
>Right. Now I throw down the glove. I am content to prove to you that
>I am initiated to Minerval (and beyond) in OTO if you will consent, upon
>receipt of such proof, to send me the text of the CURRENT Minerval with
>which I may accept your challenge above. Ready? I'm ready to stand
>behind my claims that OTO does not require secrecy. Are you willing
>to push the point further?
It would be impossible for Abu, myself, or any other person to do this
until such time as you receive a charter to initiate.
Darrin A. Hyrup
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva (Ty...@cup.portal.com) writes:
>|Well, ordinarily your initiator is responsible for educating you on exactly
>|what the Oaths represent, and what you are getting in for. That's what the
>|degree symbolism classes are for.
>I've never been told what they meant by anyone in OTO. I've never attended
>one of these 'classes' and am not sure that I'd ever want to.
Well, that is your choice. It isn't my responsibility to tell you what you
should have found through resources you aren't using.
>|It is, as far as I have been instructed. And I've been involved with the OTO
>|for a great many years. As far as why you weren't informed, that's a good
>|question, and something I'm definately going to find out.
>Please do. My initiators told me that it was *my* job to discover for
>myself what it was these mysteries were and what the rites meant.
Of course, it is your duty to find and define for yourself the "the Mysteries"
in a mystical sense, it's part of finding your Will. Each person has their
own "path" and need find it themself.
I also agree that it is also your duty to find out what the rites mean to you.
However, that does not mean rewrite them within yourself.
>I asked
>them about their own interpretations (not *the* interpretations) and they
>would not discuss the matter. Either they were very ignorant (which I
>doubt, as I choose my iniators carefully) or are of a different mind than
>your own. I think that this speaks well for the Order and that it goes to
>show that your claims are fallacious in their extremity.
Well, not knowing of whom you speak, makes it fairly hard for me to deduce
what it is you are trying to say. I know many of the initiators in the
Thelema Lodge area, but I don't have the resources of someone like Abu, so
I can't look up that kind of thing myself.
>|At least we agree on 1 thing. :)
>And it is a VERY important point of agreement. That we can agree on this
>means that you consider my interpretation to be sound. Now if we can get
>into this idea that there might be 'required' or 'approved' interpretations,
>then I'll be more satisfied.
I consider that one interpretation of "The Mysteries" is the same as yours.
But I submit that it also has a mundane element, (that being the nature of
the ritual and the symbolism of the rites) which is what Crowley was trying
to say in his typical colorful manner. Look at the context of when and where
the Oaths are required, and the wording of the statements.
I'll quote a bit from King's minerval, and a bit of interpretation, even if
it isn't the same as yours, highlighting sections I think may be of specific
interest, to give you an idea of what it is I am saying:
When the candidate is first led into the camp, an Oath is required, of which
the applicable text is: "... Humbly, yet frankly, I demand your hospitality,
and participation in YOUR MYSTERIES, which I swear to study and hold sacred
and SECRET, and if I break this oath..." ["Your mysteries" would seem to me
to refer to the mysteries of the OTO, not "The Mysteries" in general. Since
the OTO cannot, by your own admission, teach you "The Mysteries", they must
be referring to the mysteries, as introduced to you in the way of OTO
symbolism and ritual.]
After which, the candidate is welcomed to the Camp, and instructed in the
grips, et al that are required for admission in the future. After which
the candidate is explained the merits of voluntary submission to discipline
and organization. It then goes to say; "The regulations of our Order are
strict..." and "Chafe not, therefore, at the apparent restriction which your
obligations place upon you. They are designed soley to enable you to do
your will." [This would imply that the order is (or at least was) a doctrinal
organization.]
The King ritual then goes on to say that the OTO doesn't know nor care what
your will is, and that "We unreservedly place power in your hands. If it be
your will to enter this army as a spy to destroy your comrades, so be it!"
"Yet remember, that you have made solemn affirmations to us in these words,
which you will again repeat after me..." [This would imply that the OTO
allows for people who wish to spy (retrieve secrets to be revealed to others
that should not know them), yet reminds them they have made Oaths to keep
dissuade them from such actions.]
That is my argument. At least the part that I can illuminate through the
King text. There are more specific Oaths I would like to point out that
come up in the later degrees, but I cannot do so, obviously.
>|As a long time member of the organization, and a participant in a great many
>|initiations. I've also spoken to some of the 'people in the know' of the
>|Order, and in fact, may have some of them offer comments in this area
>|themselves.
>You continue to evade my questions. Is it official policy? Is OTO doctrinal
>in requiring that certain interpretations be accepted as true? If you think
>so, then I'll be obliged to ask you to state your source. To date I have had
>dealings with very many of the Order's upper echelon and not ONCE have I
>ever heard this stated.
Then perhaps you aren't asking the right questions. There are only so many
people in the Order's "upper echelon", so it doesn't make sense that we
should get such diametrically opposed views. The people I talk to are in
the Grand Lodge, or E.C., (which means east coast or So. Cal. with the
exception of the GTG.) and unfortunately, the majority of them do not have an
electronic presence, so it isn't likely that we're going to get the kind of
answer that you want, online. I'll try to get you a USmail letter or phone
call.
>Please have the 'people in the know' offer comment. Also, please identify
>them so that we can be sure they speak *for the Order* and are not just
>giving their opinions. Thanks.
I've gotten Abu online. I'm trying to get others online too. Of course,
you probably won't be satisfied unless it is H.B. who tells you so, it doesn't
seem to matter if the people are high-ranking members of the Order (or at
least, higher degree than yourself,) or initiators, or that kind of thing.
>|There is nothing that requires you to keep secrets of things you find on your
>|own. But the Order requires Oaths that you will not reveal the nature or
>|symbolism of the initiations of the Order.
>Please substantiate this. I claim you are wrong and would like to hear it
>from someone of substance.
I take it you do not consider myself "someone of substance." No, I am not
H.B., or currently a member of Grand Lodge, but I am a substantially higher
degree initiate than yourself.
>That you claim one thing and I claim another only
>indicates that the Order is interfused with a great diversity, but if
>anything it substantiates my claim until you can offer authoritative
>sources.
I'm working on it.
>|Otherwise, why don't they just
>|tell everyone, "Hey, this is the grip, step, word, and sign of the 9th
>|degree. Why not show your friends?"
>We've discussed this a great many times in this newsgroup and I'm not
>going to go into it right now unless you press the point. There are very
>many good reasons for secrecy, and very few for requiring it.
Yes. But the few reasons are good ones.
>|Try asking your initiator for the Mysteries of the
>|IIIo for example, and see if they tell you.
>Which one? I've had more than one, you know.
Any of them will do. To me "your initiator" refers to the initiator of your
last degree. So, lets say, "your most recent initiator" then. :)
>I would not ask this question
>of them, nor would it be likely that they COULD reveal the Mysteries to me,
>even if they wanted to, which they would likely not. That is THEIR CHOICE.
They very probably would not, because they have taken Oaths to the effect of
not revealing those mysteries (aka secrets) to you.
>|You can't define them. Will is something that is uniquely different for
>|each person, but it alludes to such terms as "purpose", "destiny", "karma",
>|"inspiration", "Godhead", "Holy Guardian Angel", etc. It is that which
>|seperates us from lesser spirits.
>There now, you've given me something to grasp upon when attempting to
>comprehend your speech. Not much, but it's a start. Crowley and many
>other mages have defined will rather nicely, I think, even if through
>implication, example, allegory and use.
Well, I can't give you anything better than that because I don't believe that
it is right for anyone to tell another what Will means. (It is the same
thing, to me, as telling them what THEIR Will is.) Each person knows for
themself what that means, and if I even try to suggest what it is, I am
biasing their search.
>Who will speak for the Order in this matter? I want to hear it loud
>and clear that OTO is doctrinal and then I'll be left to decide whether
>I shall associate with it or no.
Again, I'm trying to get that proof for you.
>|Therefore it is doctrinal in
>|some sense, but not overly so. A certain amount of doctrine is required,
>|particularily in the initatory arena, otherwise there would be anarchy.
>Logically false. My experience shows otherwise. Please substantiate or
>desist in your false claims.
I have done so, if theere was no doctrine in the initiatory arena, there
would have been no Minerval ritual to begin with. A doctrine, as I know
it, is "a set of guidelines, used to teach a particular concept, like a
religion or a skill," perhaps even a set of symbols used to illuminate
certain inner order secrets of the OTO.
>Besides, anarchy in regards doctrine is
>EXACTLY what there is, even while there is not anarchy of social status
>within the Order.
Now, it is your turn to substantiate your arguments.
>Initiations do not ask anything. Perhaps I was asked if I would voluntarily
>submit to discipline and organization in order to obtain freedom to do my
>will. If so, I have already engaged this discipline and feel that I am
>currently doing my true will. In doing this will I radically oppose secrecy.
>Now where do you go from here?
Well, that's hard to say. I can only think that you may not be willing to
take further initiation in the Order, if that is truly your will. Which
means, yet again, I need to get an official letter or phone call to you
from someone who you feel is of sufficient authority to speak for OTO
policy.
>With much if not all of this I'd agree. It is only our interpretations
>which differ. I think I've made my point on this already, to which I
>shall await a reply from you and Abu Hayyan. I doubt you will be able
>to summon any sort of support for your claims, either of you. My own
>experience is support enough for mine, and I'm willing to demonstrate
>it by revealing the most deepest, nastiest secret ritual text to which
>OTO has ever given me access. I could of course simply proceed from my
>memory of my initiation rites, but I want to be sure I'm accurate.
While revealing your "deepest, nastiest secret ritual text" probably wont
break any oaths (since there aren't any that haven't already been revealed
somewhere), posting the "mysteries" of your initiation rites would likely
cause troubles. If that is what it takes, than that is what it will take,
but I'd caution you against it, Brother.
>My reference was that there is a distinction between a magical oath and one
>which is NOT magical. _Book Four_ contains writings to this effect. Since
>you seem to be so well-informed, that should be sufficient reminder.
You don't consider Oaths taken within initiations to be magickal Oaths? Yes,
I remember the discussion in _Book 4_ regarding taking Magickal Oaths, Vows,
and keeping them in proper perspective. I still don't see where you are going
with this. Are you saying that Oaths taken during initiations are not
binding? I agree that they can be superceeded by later Oaths, if you allow
for that, but they are still binding.
>|>|>What does 'find and/or fulfill my will' mean?
>|
>|>Again, I'm not asking you to tell me what my will is, but to define the terms
>|>of your speech. Please do so.
>|
>|I did so above. It is very difficult to explain intangible things. They are
>|beyond communication, and need be experienced. One can only offer places to
>|look or things to do to help illuminate the truth to you.
>You did nothing of the sort. You only implied some things with associated
>terms. I'm talking about at LEAST providing some samples, analogies, examples
>of the usage by the Master, etc. I figure you can come up with this if you
>have been in OTO as long as you say.
Beyond what I have stated, and what I will NOT state, due to my own beliefs
on the subject, is that Will is a tool with which you set out to find and
fufill your Great Work. The Will is an aspect of that Great Work, and is
empowered by the gnosis of union with the Divine (or HGA). I don't
particularily care to explain things in philosophical terms like that, but
you asked for more specific information, in at least how I understand Will.
>|The only problem with that is that while I would like to carefully analyze
>|the Minerval ritual for you, and offer the advantage of the wisdom gathered
>|from advanced initiation within the Order, I cannot do so without breaking my
>|own Oaths.
>I spoke of King's Minerval.
Still, having the benefit of initiation with the modern rituals, the King
ritual still contains some symbolism that, were I to analyze, particularily
with the benefit of later initiations, would cause me to reveal too much.
Besides, chances are that regardless of my analysis, you are going to have
your opinion, and I mine, and there is nothing to guarantee that we will ever
agree. I can always look at a coffee cup and say "mug" and you may say "cup"
and while we are talking about the same thing, we each see a slightly different
thing.
>No doubt you take them seriously. Perhaps overly. YOU would consider
>it in direct violation of your oaths/Oaths. Let me give you a hypothetical.
>Presume for the moment that the OTO is NOT doctrinally-based in this
>matter, and that you may interpret the ritual text in any manner you
>choose. Presume secondly that you choose to interpret your oaths NOT
>as restrictions regarding secrecy but as statements about the limitations
>of language and communications. Given this, would it then be a 'direct
>violation of your Oaths' to speak of the particulars of text or form?
If I were to presume that, then I would probably feel free to say or do
anything I like, regardless of what it was, since I obviously only see
what I want to see, and ignore what I don't want to see.
>Given that it isn't doctrinally-based, would you agree that, according
>to the Law of Thelema, it would be SINFUL to attempt to restrict people
>from interpreting the rites in a manner they see fit? If you go this
>far, then would you not aid my cause in coming down HARD on people
>who DO attempt to promote such misconceptions about the character of
>our Order?
Not necessarily, since I couldn't see anything as SIN. The dogma of such a
concept as SIN would be too restrictive for me to comprehend. Therefore,
I would probably not care much at all about what people do, or how they
do it. I wouldn't aid anyone in anything, nor come down hard on anyone.
>|So, don't assume that I am not serious
>|about this. In fact, the OTO is something I am VERY serious about, and that
>|is why I cannot comment.
>I don't doubt this, though I think one of us has been misled and I'd like
>to find out who.
Me too.
>|...From the majority of the conversations we've had on this subject, it
>|seems more like the point is that you are looking for a justification to
>|not be bound to your Oaths.
>I don't need any 'justification'. The Order is not doctrinal. If you can
>demonstrate that it is, I may renounce my ties with it completely and
>oppose it to the end of my days as 'UNThelemic'. :> Have at it.
You don't think it is doctrinal now... You should have seen it 10 years
ago!
>|Or rather, you are trying to understand why I
>|believe that the Oaths (and Mysteries of the initiation) are meant to be
>|held as sacred and secret.
>Not 'meant to be' but 'REQUIRED TO BE'. Yes, this is more what I'm after,
>and I hope you will rise to the challenge.
Obviously this is a joke, since you have already stated that you cannot
trust me as a reputable source of information. Nor can I speak for the OTO
in this matter, so why do you ask something you know that I cannot provide?
>I'm getting tired of all this
>bluster over an issue which I've argued many times and never had any
>substance come of it but my continued verity.
Me too. It doesn't do either of us any good, since obviously we each have
our own perspective on the issue, and neither seems to be willing to change.
>I very dearly hope that
>you and Abu are wrong, for I greatly love OTO, and to see it turned into
>some kind of intellectual enslavement mechanism, supporting the extreme
>of secrecy, would be a horrible blow for all of us and the future of our
>society.
That is a narrow-minded view of the concept of initatory-secrets. There is
no enslavement, there is caution. Even "The Master," Crowley called the
OTO a "serious and SECRET" organization. The King ritual asks the candidate
to WILLINGLY understake the Oaths involved with the Order, not to enslave,
but to liberate them.
93 93/93.
Darrin A. Hyrup
>Congratulations on a superb discourse. More, please.
Hehe, I'm glad you're having fun. :)
>There is no mystery where I am.
Nor I.
Darrin A. Hyrup
>Well, from what I've heard, they at least respect Crowlwey--whether or not
>they consider him a hero, I don't know. I *do* know that he violated his
>Golden Dawn oaths with some of the material published in _Magick in Theroy
>and Practice_ and other of his writings.
>
>So, the rituals you are so concerned about keeping secret were written
>(or at least majorly rewritten) by an oath-breaker. How solid is the
>ground you are standing on here?
Well, Crowley was self-admitted to be "the wickedest man in the world", and
again as "the first and worst thelemite". He entreated the followers of
his teachings to follow their own Will, not to follow in his footsteps.
Or as like one long-term OTO member, and good friend of mine says; He set
the example of what we should be sure NOT to do, rather than follow his
example. A very effective lesson, to be sure.
Besides, the rituals have nothing to do with the G:.D:. system. If
anything, they are more masonic in nature.
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
TMN> |If you have neither time nor inclination for the OTO, then you
TMN> |certainly have no right to help yourself to the study of its
Mysteries.
TMN> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
TMN> Man has the right to think, speak, write and build what he will.
Let me guess. I bet you think you are Crowley, right? If I wanted to go
to McDonald's with an Uzi and whippe out several families while they were
enjoying the Sunday morning with a Big Mac I should just assume it was my
will to do it correct? Not likely pal, I wish people like you would stop
bastardizing The Law to justify your inabilities to behave honorably.
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
TMN> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
TMN> La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
TMN> Abu Hayyan quotes me (quoting someone else in some cases) and
TMN> writes:
TMN> There is no profane. There is no secret worth keeping absolutely.
TMN> |Don't you mean to say that secrets of the Truth are incommunicable?
TMN> |And that ritual/initiation is used to cause certain psychological
TMN> |phenomenah to take place within the psyche of the initiated so as to
TMN> |reveal to him/her the Truth?
TMN> I meant what I said. I think that the Truth (or truth) is
communicable.
TMN> The last by words within proper context, the first through inference
TMN> or implication.
This is an opinion. Not necessarily correct. you may change your mind
someday.
TMN> I think that ritual is used for many purposes and that there are
TMN> many times when it is *supposed* to work in certain ways when it does
TMN> nothing of the sort. It is certainly feasible that a rite could
TMN> initiate the unveiling of greater truth for an individual, but this
does
TMN> not mean that it always happens nor that it is an actual cause-effect
TMN> relation.
That is irrelevant. There are no rituals which will yield the exact same
results. Much of its accuracy depends on its delivery, the element of
surprise, and the psyche of the candidate.
| TMN> |Given all that hypothesis, in my mind, our Minerval-revealing
| TMN> |colleague has done nothing to anyone save perhaps hirself.
TMN> I did not write this. See the lines in front of the text? That
TMN> means hat I'm quoting it. It is similar to your "TMN>" except that I
TMN> save us all some headspace by simply preceding the text with a
verticle
TMN> line (|). Sometimes people use ">" or "<" also. The rest of the
TMN> characters and configurations are awkward or ugly, as far as I'm
TMN> concerned, though I've used an entirely different style to avoid this
TMN> problem in the past.
My apologies. I don't usually participate in these conversations.
TMN> |Only if he is under Oath not reveal anything.
TMN> Is there a difference between an 'Oath' and an 'oath'? You seem to
TMN> like to capitalize your letters and I'm not sure what you mean to
imply
TMN> by this capitalization scheme (if anything - another example:
TMN> truth/Truth).
The emphasis is on "the greater truth" you mentioned above.
TMN> |any critiscism from "Her" actions. Coward is a good word to
TMN> describe the action.
TMN> Judge not lest ye be judged. The word of Sin is Restriction.
We are ALL judged according to our actions.
TMN> I guess I was in different rites than you were. :> I remember very
TMN> distinctly and clearly that they did not restrict me to secrecy in
TMN> any way. Now *YOU* might have found them restrictive and perhaps
many
TMN> in the Order consider this to be the case also. No doubt if this
TMN> latter is true I'll eventually be black-balled.
Why wait till you are black-balled? Most of the feedback here from OTO
members is that you are in danger of breaking oaths.
TMN> |I am sure this will require some communication,
TMN> |and I am not as eager to break my oaths as you are.
TMN> I am communicating. Your secrecy is your weakness.
My secrecy is my strength.
TMN> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Love is the law, love under will.
TMN> The *letter* of the ritual has not been revealed by King's
publication.
TMN> Don't you, by even saying this, reveal something? Are you not
TMN> compromising yourself even by this post? Take care.
No. If I commented on the differences I might be, however. I wont reveal
anything; whether it is published or not.
TMN> |If anything, the OTO initiators will probably be a little more
careful
TMN> |about who they initiate and who they Charter to initiate. The
TMN> |initiator and the people who sponsor a candidate are ultimately
TMN> |responsible for the initiation.
TMN> If they proceed by *your* criteria for their decisions then I think
TMN> the Order will suffer immeasurably.
Please explain.
TMN> Secrecy is not the issue when it comes to conferring Charters.
A person who cannot keep secrets will not be handed the rituals.
TMN> Better would it be if it considered the maturity and initiatic
ability
TMN> of the mage.
Maturity can be measured by an individuals ability to keep secrets, no?
TMN> |It might also serve to say that the Man of Earth triad (0 through
III
TMN> degrees) are not the OTO proper. The OTO starts with V degree.
TMN> Very interesting. I've never heard this before. Please explain
TMN> what the 0-III degrees ARE then, if they are given by OTO and
maintained
TMN> by OTO. They appear within the Caliph's pyramidal scheme as it
follows
TMN> on the Constitution, which includes these also. Please substantiate
TMN> your source.
They are "part" of the OTO. The OTO "proper" begins with the Lover's
Triad. That's all I can say. It is illuded to in Equinox III. 10
TMN> |Most "spies", "enemies", and other dishonorable types (such as oath
TMN> |breakers) will never be admitted to those degrees.
TMN> The word of Sin is Restriction.
Not in this case. The organization requires its members to keep secret its
rites; in joining such an organization you have declared your intention to
comform with its principles. It would be much easier (and respectful) to
start a different order which is more likely to deliver what you want, than
to insist on an organization to change its policies for you.
| TMN> This is a social theory which I think may bear out only for those
who
| TMN> think along similar lines (i.e. that they are somehow, with a
TMN> |*Thelemic* organization, required to keep secrets - silly but their
TMN> |prerogative).
TMN> |What is even sillier are that there are initiates within the OTO who
TMN> |think the Order is "UnThelemic" by expecting candidates to keep
their
TMN> |word.
TMN> Of which word do you speak? You aren't very convincing to *this*
TMN> initiate, and I would venture to say that you are taking these
TMN> matters far too literally, far too absolutely, and far too
restictedly.
TMN> Just have a gander at the other posts in the thread (Kampe's for
TMN> example).
The Oaths are not in need of interpretation. They are in black and white
and written in easy to understand language. What part of the oath didn't
you understand?
TMN> The assertion that any Order is 'UnThelemic' is a very important one,
TMN> for it brings into issue the very point which you have not addressed:
TMN> what does 'Thelemic' mean? How does an Order demonstrate its support
TMN> of the Law of Thelema? By claiming to be doing so? I doubt it.
An organization demonstrate its support by enabling individuals to find
their True Will... The OTO does that.
Thelema does not mean that every crack-pot can justify their actions by
claiming it is their right. Unfortunatly there are a number of such
crack-pot who can't wait to see how far they can push this freewill thing
until some one stops them. It is not my job to interpret Thelema to anyone
other than myself.
TMN> |Such oaths serve several purposes, one being a guage to determine
TMN> the strength of their integrety.
TMN> Only if doctrinal requirements are held to exist. As I asked your
TMN> cohort in sin, please explain why you think that there are
TMN> 'correct' understandings of the rites and why you think that yours
TMN> (regarding secrecy) is correct.
There is no room for interpretation in that oath. It is explicit. The
only "correct" interpretation is the way it is written.
On what authority do you spout this nonsense?
Why would it matter? Do numbers and tittles impress you?
TMN> |Because of the way that the oaths are
TMN> |written, the individual can only harm his/her SELF by breaking
TMN> them.
TMN> Then you have nothing to fear and nothing to criticize.
If I leave a gun to a friend, and he gives it to a child I have much to
fear and feel responsible for.
TMN> |And, since they are willing to gamble with their own SELF by
harming,
TMN> |compremising or prophaning the god within by the act of treason,
TMN> the act signifies the ultimate disrespect.
TMN> This is ludicrous. If they are only being disrespectful of
themselves
TMN> then you have no business telling them that they are wrong to do
TMN> so.
They have made it possible for others to bring harm on themselves.
TMN> Your verbage is both rude and silly. It is no more 'treason' than
TMN> were the actions of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Mohandas K. Ghandi.
That is really reaching.
TMN> |The rituals are constantly evolving as better methods are devised
TMN> to communicate this "Truth" to candidates. Perhaps your statement is
TMN> made because you have no access to the original rites, or because
they
TMN> are not moving fast enough for you.
TMN> I only criticize them if they are rendered weak by becoming
TMN> stagnant.
Do you perceive them as such? Why not write your own rituals?
| TMN> |3) Regarding subverting the order: (a) See above. Maybe OTO needed
| TMN> |something like this to occur. (b) If subverting the OTO *is* his
| TMN> |intent, does that make him a coward? Or is it merely his means
| TMN> |(anonymous posting)?
| TMN> Apparently it did. Francis King did it and it only increased the
| TMN> popularity of the Order even while the OTO pressed (?) for
TMN> |restriction of the publication of his tome.
TMN> |Please post your sources for this conclusion. In my knowledge the
OTO
TMN> |persued no legal action against King for the publication of the
book...
TMN> |mainly because of its innaccurateness.
TMN> Mainly hearsay. I have heard very many times that King's book is
TMN> considered rude and is recommended against as it may affect one's
TMN> initiatic experiences. With this last I would agree and think that
TMN> the reason it is likely to affect these experiences is that the
rites
TMN> aren't changed often or fast enough to prevent this.
The rites are effective. To change something that works would be foolish.
If people adhered to their oaths the need would not be there.
TMN> The poster never stated what she thought. You are inferring where
TMN> you have no knowledge. Else, do you know hir?
I don't know this person yet.
| TMN> |4) And as a final thought, what if it were conclusively proven that
| TMN> |the person who posted this (or at least caused it to be posted)
were
| TMN> |Hymenaeus Beta X' Rex Summus Sanctissimus U.S.A. Caliph and
| TMN> |whatever titles the Frater Superior is currently going by ...?
TMN> |It wasn't.
TMN> It seems you may know hir, then. Please state your sources for this.
Sources for what? For knowing hir? You gotta be kidding.
TMN> |What makes you think the OTO membership would perseive one who's
word
TMN> |cannot be trusted a hero? whether it was HB or not?
TMN> You are the one concluding that their word could not be trusted.
If I bind an individual's honor to an oath, and they break it; it is no
conclusion, it is a fact that their word could not be trusted. Again, we
are always judged by our actions.
TMN> For those such as you the former charge is likely (i.e. you would be
TMN> more likely to take action against hir). I only know my own
preference,
TMN> which is toward complete freedom of information regardless of
TMN> consequences and the firm support of the Law of Thelema wherever I
see
TMN> it exercised.
Have you always felt this way? Did you take your oaths knowing that you
would break them?
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Darrin Hyrup makes more unsubstantiated claims as he quotes me:
|>If I had the text
|>to the CURRENT Minerval I'd quote it to you ONLINE because of your
|>silliness. Then I'd see what happened. As it is I have yet to procure
|>a copy, though I remember considering carefully each of the supposed
|>'oaths' which were laid before me.
|
|It is unlikely that you will procure a copy. Only chartered initiators
|within the OTO are given copies of the initiatory material.
This is true from my experience, though information channels are, at
times, flexible. ;>
|Tyagi, if you were to quote the text of the current Minerval, you would
|most certainly be put on bad report, and quite possibly expelled.
Time to get down to brass tacks, Darrin.
Below is the specific section of the O.T.O. Bylaws which covers Suspension,
Expulsion, and 'Good Cause' for such. Please read it very carefully.
Section 2.18. Suspension and Expulsion.
A. Any member of the O.T.O. may be placed on ``bad report'', censured, fined,
suspended, subject to reasonable equitable sanction, or expelled from the
Order for ``good cause'', provided he or she is served with notice of the
proceedings against him and an opportunity to be heard in his or own defense.
The judicial and appellate bodies responsible for deciding such actions are
set forth in Articles III, V and VI.
B. Any suspension must be reported to the National Supreme Council. The
National Supreme Council's joint and several responsibilities and
procedures in the matter of suspension and expulsion are set forth in
Articles III, VI and VII.
C. In the case of emergency, in the unanimous opinion of the National Supreme
Council, any member may be suspended without prior notice provided written
notice is promptly served, pursuant to Article VI.
D. Any expulsion must be carried out by authority of the National Grand
Master General.
E. Notwithstanding any of the above, no member can be suspended or expelled
while he or she is serving as a Grand Officer on the National Supreme Council
and Director of the corporation.
[This much is evident. What appears below is the meat.]
Section 2.19. Good Cause.
``Good cause'' as used herein requires that the member:
A. Have failed and continues to fail to abide by the Articles of
Incorporation or Bylaws of the O.T.O. or with the Rules and Regulations of
the National Supreme Council or its duly authorized Governing Body or
agent; or
[To be noted: I will be posting the complete Bylaws and Articles of
Incorporation within Email Without Tears this evening. I've reviewed
the entirety of the Articles and a good portion of the Bylaws and have
NOT discovered ANY clauses about secrecy. Supposing I find nothing
there, this only leaves any Rules and Regulations of the National
Supreme Council regarding secrecy to be determined.]
B. have committed or is in the course of committing some act or acts
greatly prejudicial to the purposes of the O.T.O.; or
[Fraternal, not secret. See the Bylaws and Articles.]
C) have failed and continues to fail to pay any dues, fees, or other
assessments imposed by the National Supreme Council or its duly
authorized Governing Body or agent.
----------------- end of excerpt [My notes in brackets. - Haramullah]
Now, unless you or Abu can speak for the *National Supreme Council*
regarding their Rules and Regulations, then your comments are either
out of line or simply uninformed. Please cite your sources or go away.
|>Right. Now I throw down the glove. I am content to prove to you that
|>I am initiated to Minerval (and beyond) in OTO if you will consent, upon
|>receipt of such proof, to send me the text of the CURRENT Minerval with
|>which I may accept your challenge above. Ready? I'm ready to stand
|>behind my claims that OTO does not require secrecy. Are you willing
|>to push the point further?
|
|It would be impossible for Abu, myself, or any other person to do this
|until such time as you receive a charter to initiate.
It would not be physically impossible, though you may consider it beyond
your abilities within the confines of the interpretations of your oaths.
|Darrin Hyrup
|sha...@speedway.net
|sha...@sorinc.cutler.com
|sha...@netcom.com
Haramullah rasulu 'Llah. Alaikum assalam, my kin.
Love is the law, love under will.
Haramullah
Ty...@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
TMN> Abu Hayyan quotes me (most of the time) and writes:
TMN> |...It seems highly unlikely that one would "reveal" any
TMN> |mystery unless one was taken through the initiation by a qualified
TMN> |initiator, wouldn't you agree?
TMN> While I might agree with this, neither do I think that one must be
TMN> within OTO, Chartered by any organization, or titled in order to be
TMN> qualified. Nor do I think that one must be human.
I agree. However, why would you think that a person who has neither the
knowledge or the experience with the OTO rituals can deliver the initiation
successfully?
TMN> |And if that mystery was revealed under the
TMN> |condition that you do not reveal it to others wouldn't that hamper
TMN> your ability to reveal others?
TMN> I agree and differ with your presumption regarding conditions.
TMN> That we disagree on this point is quite obvious. Do you think that
TMN> King's Minerval varies significantly enough to require that we can
only
TMN> discuss the CURRENT version in regards the 'oath'? If I had the
TMN> text to the CURRENT Minerval I'd quote it to you ONLINE because of
your
TMN> silliness. Then I'd see what happened. As it is I have yet to
TMN> procure a copy, though I remember considering carefully each of the
TMN> supposed 'oaths' which were laid before me.
To discuss where they are similar, and where they varied would constitute a
violation of the oath.
| TMN> |Again, as stated in the posted ritual, the candidate is acquainted
| TMN> |with the "first paradox of philosophy", in that one must
necessarily
| TMN> |submit to discipline and organization in order to obtain the
freedom
TMN> |to do their will.
TMN> I did not write this, though I wrote the preceding and following.
| TMN> Again, I'd love to see you quote the text so we can discuss it more
| TMN> directly. My impression is that discipline and organization are
| TMN> required for structure, but they are not necessarily supportive of
| TMN> secrecy.
TMN> |This is a redundant argument. You don't like secrecy, yet you are
TMN> a member of an organization that requires members to be secret under
TMN> penalties of obligations; ie. they require you to be responsible and
TMN> | honorable with regards to secrecy.
TMN> Please demonstrate this. Cite something. If you can't, even some
TMN> authority like the GTG or the Supreme Maximus Kingliness, saying that
TMN> this organization requires secrecy, then please desist from your
silly
TMN> claims.
Let's assume that they are not aware of your posts: what makes you think
that they would answer in a public medium? A violation of an oath is an
order concern, and as such need not be disscused in an open forum.
TMN> |If you are against secrecy why don't you spill your guts?
TMN> Right. Now I throw down the glove. I am content to prove to you
TMN> that I am initiated to Minerval (and beyond) in OTO if you will
consent,
TMN> upon receipt of such proof, to send me the text of the CURRENT
Minerval
TMN> with which I may accept your challenge above. Ready? I'm ready to
TMN> stand behind my claims that OTO does not require secrecy. Are you
TMN> willing to push the point further?
I know who you are and what degree you hold, there is no need to convince
me of your rank. The CURRENT rituals are not given to NAYONE who is not
chartered to initiate. I find it amusing that you think I would hand you a
copy of ANY ritual knowing that you can't wait reveal them to
nom-initiates.
TMN> reasons I've given before, yet unless you can prove that your claims
are
TMN> true regarding OTO requirements of secrecy (not only by quoting from
the
TMN> rite itself, which I can interpret in myriad fashion, but by citing
the
TMN> source of your authority for this interpretation), then I may feel
TMN> obliged to prove you wrong in your ignorant claims by spewing forth
the
TMN> very rites I have withheld to date.
I understand your dilemma. All I can say is that you should speak to your
initiator regarding the oaths. You are in company of many members, many of
which know the GTG personally; perhaps they will put you in touch with hir.
TMN> Will you desist in this, at least to save your very precious fantasy
TMN> of secrecy, or will you continue to characterize the Order in so
TMN> UnThelemic a manner?
UnThelemic? What is so UnThelemic about keeping ones word of honor?
A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a
beggar cannot hide his poverty.
TMN> |If you see the value (magical or otherwise) in secrecy, then either
TMN> |defend it or shut-up. You argue for the sake of argument...
TMN> already knowing the answers you pursue the argument. Masturbation.
TMN> I offer my defense above. My argument is in defense of the character
TMN> of the Order, which I think you SLANDER by saying that it 'requires
TMN> secrecy'. I've offered you an option. I hope that you do not take
TMN> it and desist, or begin to cite your source for your claims.
Slander? No. Your "option" is not an option.
TMN> I realize that YOU think that you were required to engage secrecy.
TMN> You may therefore claim that you were given a rite which you
interpret
TMN> as requiring this. I claim that I was not AND I think there is
TMN> quite sufficient reason to presume that requirement of any kind is
TMN> contrary to Thelema (at least as I understand it).
The oath is not open for interpretation. It is stated quite clearly.
TMN> My argument is not simply semantical (at least not this one :>).
TMN> I feel very strongly about this issue.
It shows :) DO seek the advise of others on this issue. I cannot
continue this argument without violating my own oaths.
| TMN> The initiation does not in any way restrict the free will of an
| TMN> individual, and as the initiate sees fit to accept restriction for
TMN> |the inspiration of hir true will, so will this be in hir best
TMN> interests.
TMN> |A convenient interpretation.
TMN> Then you acknowledge it as coherent, if convenient. Thank you.
TMN> That is all the support I need.
Your interpretation may have a few flaws in it, however.
| TMN> How may an oath be broken? Of which oaths do you speak?
TMN> |Again, you are beating around the bush. An oath is a promise, you
TMN> attach your honor and integrety to it in ceremony. To break the oath
is
TMN> to go against the promise you have made before you and your god.
TMN> You seem to be in need of brushing-up regarding oaths, magical and
TMN> otherwise. Please see _Book Four_.
Show me where Book 4 states that it is OK to break oaths.
| TMN> |Of course, the ritual recognizes some who may wish to "enter this
TMN> |army as a spy and to destroy your comrades", but such action would
TMN> | still be in violation of their oaths and would incur their magickal
TMN> |penalties.
| TMN> Would it? Why and how do you think it would be a violation?
TMN> |Read the ritual as it is written, don't try to turn what you read
TMN> in there to pander to your prejudices.
TMN> By the Law of Thelema I shall do what I will, I may interpret what I
TMN> will,
even if its incorrect? Even if your "interpretation" is at odds with the
well-being of others?
TMN> and I will to interpret the rites as I see fit. Do you claim that
TMN> there are 'established', 'approved' and 'correct' interpretations?
If
TMN> so, then cite your authority. If not, then desist and quit your
TMN> arrogance.
Believe me, you have not seen arrogance.
TMN> |Any moron, even amongst the most uneducated know what oaths are.
TMN> Apparently you do not. Read up.
Due to the difference in our ages, I will venture to say that I am more
intimate with the written material than you are. Perhaps YOU should read
up.
TMN> |Irronically, the uneducated seem to show more self-respect than
TMN> those intellectual geniuses who, like attorneys, attempt to find loop
TMN> holes in contracts so as not to honor them.
TMN> You stroke with one hand while you slap with the other.
TMN> One person's 'loop hole' is another's freedom.
As has been proven in our courts systems, when a sleazeball is released
because a sleazeball attorney uses the system to free the guilty.
TMN> |The point is irrelevant, although I am sure you will not stop until
you
TMN> |have at least convinced a few of us that an oath is nothing to be
taken
TMN> |seriously, and that a man or woman's word is insignificant.
TMN> I claim nothing of the sort. I just don't think that by your words
TMN> you display much knowledge of either.
Interesting.
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
|>Where are 'The Mysteries' defined authoritatively?
TMN> |Well, ordinarily your initiator is responsible for educating you on
TMN> exactly what the Oaths represent, and what you are getting in for.
TMN>|That's what the degree symbolism classes are for.
TMN> I've never been told what they meant by anyone in OTO. I've never
TMN> attended one of these 'classes' and am not sure that I'd ever want
to.
Why wouldn't you attend them? The symbolism of the ritual is best known by
the individuals who perform the. You miss much during the actual rite, and
being aware of what was done, and for what reason makes it easier for the
candidate to make use of that symbology.
|>|So, yes, they do necessarily include the signs, words, grips, etc. and
the
|>|actual text of the ritual, if it is recieved from the O.T.O.
|>Is this official OTO policy? If so, how come I wasn't informed regarding
|>doctrinal requirements prior to, during or after my initiations?
IT IS IN YOUR OATH.
TMN> |It is, as far as I have been instructed. And I've been involved
TMN> with the OTO for a great many years. As far as why you weren't
TMN>|informed, that's a good question, and something I'm definately going
to
TMN>|find out.
TMN> Please do. My initiators told me that it was *my* job to discover
for
TMN> myself what it was these mysteries were and what the rites meant. I
TMN> asked them about their own interpretations (not *the*
interpretations)
TMN> and they would not discuss the matter. Either they were very
ignorant
TMN> (which I doubt, as I choose my iniators carefully) or are of a
different
TMN> mind than your own. I think that this speaks well for the Order and
TMN> that it goes to show that your claims are fallacious in their
extremity.
Wasn't it you who spoke previously of arrogance? You initiator's job is to
make sure you are aware of the symbolism which was all around you in your
initiation. NOT to tell you what to make out of it.
|>|>If the Mysteries are revealed, yes. Damned unlikely, though I hope
|>|>everyone attempts to reveal them.
|>|"The Mysteries" means many things. The mysteries in a general magickal
|>|sense is something that cannot be revealed, it is something that must be
|>|be experienced by living them.
|>This is my own interpretation.
TMN> |At least we agree on 1 thing. :)
TMN> And it is a VERY important point of agreement. That we can agree on
TMN> this means that you consider my interpretation to be sound. Now if
we
TMN> can get into this idea that there might be 'required' or 'approved'
TMN> interpretations, then I'll be more satisfied.
I thought we were arguing the oaths? The oaths are explicit. There is NO
room for interpretation. "What part of 'no' didn't you understand".
|>|The initiation is meant to stimulate that through acting out our role in
|>|the initiation process. However, the context of the initiatory
materials
|>|includes the mysteries that are the initiatory secrets of the O.T.O.
|>Again, is this official policy? With what authority do you speak on this
|>matter?
The policy that you are refering to is in the initiator's handbook. I have
a copy... no I won't post it.
TMN> |As a long time member of the organization, and a participant in a
TMN> great many initiations. I've also spoken to some of the 'people in
the
TMN>| know' of the Order, and in fact, may have some of them offer
comments
TMN>|in this area themselves.
TMN> You continue to evade my questions. Is it official policy? Is OTO
TMN> doctrinal in requiring that certain interpretations be accepted as
true?
There is no doctrine about it. There are certain elements in the ritual.
That is a fact, not doctrine.
TMN> If you think so, then I'll be obliged to ask you to state your
source.
TMN> To date I have had dealings with very many of the Order's upper
echelon
TMN> and not ONCE have I ever heard this stated.
If this is true, then you should be discussing this with them. Have you
ever asked?
TMN> Please have the 'people in the know' offer comment. Also, please
TMN> identify them so that we can be sure they speak *for the Order* and
are
TMN> not just giving their opinions. Thanks.
Nothing short of having HB in your face is going to convince you, is it?
|>|Secrecy is part of the discipline one undertakes willingly in order to
make
|>|the oaths that allow one to recieve the initiation.
|>I disagree. Secrecy is part of the discipline which SOME undertake. I
have
|>and will not, yet I have been initiated quite freely. I'll note that I
also
|>have some reservations about revealing ritual materials, but certainly
not
|>because the *Order* would suffer. Most often I am concerned for the
person
|>who wishes to know the information. I have yet to pass on such
information,
|>yet I have continually maintained that OTO *does not require secrecy* and
if
|>you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to examine it or at least
|>be made aware of it. It may affect my future with the Order. Thanks.
TMN> |There is nothing that requires you to keep secrets of things you
TMN> find on your own. But the Order requires Oaths that you will not
reveal
TMN> |the nature or symbolism of the initiations of the Order.
TMN> Please substantiate this. I claim you are wrong and would like to
TMN> hear it from someone of substance. That you claim one thing and I
claim
TMN> another only indicates that the Order is interfused with a great
TMN> diversity, but if anything it substantiates my claim until you can
offer
TMN> authoritative sources.
It is hard for me to believe that you have spoke to your initiator
regarding this matter and that he may agree with you. I will ask him
myself.
TMN> |Otherwise, why don't they just tell everyone, "Hey, this is the
grip,
TMN> |step, word, and sign of the 9th degree. Why not show your friends?"
TMN> We've discussed this a great many times in this newsgroup and I'm not
TMN> going to go into it right now unless you press the point. There are
TMN> very many good reasons for secrecy, and very few for requiring it.
TMN> |These things are kept secret so that you can prove to others that
you
TMN> |are a member of the Order, and a part of the OTO/Thelema current.
TMN> I think this is simplistic.
The OTO is a tribe like any other. Every tribe has ways of recognizing
their own.
TMN> More simplistic statements. I claim that there is NO need for a
TMN> requirement of secrecy. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the
TMN> Law.
Who are you to claim what is good and what is not for the Order? If you
want to tell secrets, tell your own. You have no right to prophane the
teachings of the order; especially since you WILLINGLY took an oath to keep
its teachings secret.
TMN> |Try asking your initiator for the Mysteries of the
TMN> |IIIo for example, and see if they tell you.
TMN> Who will speak for the Order in this matter? I want to hear it loud
TMN> and clear that OTO is doctrinal and then I'll be left to decide
whether
TMN> I shall associate with it or no.
Has it ever occured to you that by presisting you may not have that choice?
TMN> I cannot trust you, however. You are the one with whom I grapple and
I
TMN> don't know your relationship to the Order proper.
It seems to me like he's trying to help you.
|>My point, however, was that these things are not defined in any concrete
way
|>by the OTO. OTO is social and initiatory, NOT DOCTRINAL.
If you truly believe that its function is initiatory you should seize
trying to undermine it by hampering its effectiveness.
TMN> My understanding is that, yes, OTO is a hierarchy. The requirements
TMN> of the Order as I understand it are in regards social obligations
TMN> having to do with DUES, acceptance of regulations for the privelege
of
TMN> powers to initiate, and a firm commitment to find and fulfill one's
true
TMN> will.
TMN> There may be some other clause in regards the support of Baphomet or
TMN> His duly appointed representative, and several other very colorful
TMN> metaphors which may be taken in self-restrictive or self-liberative
TMN> ways.
When were you told that you were free to interpret the oath as you see fit?
TMN> experience is support enough for mine, and I'm willing to demonstrate
TMN> it by revealing the most deepest, nastiest secret ritual text to
TMN> which OTO has ever given me access.
This would be cause for emmediate expulsion.
Shawn Clayton Knight
user Darrin A. Hyrup@sorinc.c writes:
>Tyagi, if you were to quote the text of the current Minerval, you would
>most certainly be put on bad report, and quite possibly expelled.
while I recognize that this is only an educated guess and need not
represent the facts, it says something about a so-called "Thelemic"
order, doesn't it?
whatever happened to Will?
-shawn
Shawn C. Knight/knigh...@cmu.edu | CEO and Owner, Knightster Enterprises
Box 2112, 1060 Morewood Avenue | Special Studies in Things Esoteric
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 862-3015 | and Otherwise Unusual
Shawn Clayton Knight
user Abu M. J. I. Hayyan@sorb writes:
[first, quoting Haramullah]
> TMN> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
> TMN> Man has the right to think, speak, write and build what he will.
>
>Let me guess. I bet you think you are Crowley, right? If I wanted to go
>to McDonald's with an Uzi and whippe out several families while they were
>enjoying the Sunday morning with a Big Mac I should just assume it was my
>will to do it correct? Not likely pal, I wish people like you would stop
>bastardizing The Law to justify your inabilities to behave honorably.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.
I now quote from Liber OZ.
----------
THERE IS NO GOD BUT MAN.
1. Man has the right to live by his own law -
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the Earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:
"take Your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." Liber AL 1.51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
-----------
Now let me comment. The Law of Thelema is NOT a Law for cowards, and it
is a very difficult Law for humanity in its present societal conditions
to implement and hold true to.
Furthermore, I highly doubt that it would be in Tyagi's True Will to
wipe out several families at a McDonald's, BUT it is conceivable, if the
people in question had the Will to die, then they would be fools to
stand in his way. (I do hope that this would not come to pass, and it
should be noted that with the freedom of Thelema comes responsibility.
However, I have little doubt that Haramullah, being II' OTO and based on
our private conversations, would be very careful in implementing the
Law.)
Now, of course you have the *right* to say that Tyagi is "bastardizing"
the Law to "justify his inability to behave honorably." But at the same
time as you have the right, it doesn't sound all that Thelemic, or
intelligent. Comprende?
-shawn "If I'm an 8=3, why does my life suck so hard?? :)" knight
closet thelemite
B.A. Davis-Howe
>I agree. However, why would you think that a person who has neither the
>knowledge or the experience with the OTO rituals can deliver the initiation
>successfully?
Of course, Aleister Crowley, toward the end of his life, granted people the
9th degree by virtue of them paying him money and him handing them the rituals
to read. You are demanding more structure than Crowley seemed to feel was
necessary. If Crowley thought "that a person who has neither the knowledge or
the experience with the OTO rituals can deliver the initiation successfully"
why don't you?
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Abu Hayyan quotes me and writes:
|>|[Abu]
|>|If you have neither time nor inclination for the OTO, then you
|>|certainly have no right to help yourself to the study of its
|>|Mysteries.
|
|>Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
|>Man has the right to think, speak, write and build what he will.
|
|Let me guess. I bet you think you are Crowley, right?
I've associated with 666 before. You decide.
|If I wanted to go
|to McDonald's with an Uzi and whippe out several families while they were
|enjoying the Sunday morning with a Big Mac I should just assume it was my
|will to do it correct?
I won't tell you what your will is. Figure it out yourself, lunkhead.
|Not likely pal, I wish people like you would stop
|bastardizing The Law to justify your inabilities to behave honorably.
It is the your conviction regarding there being absolute standards of
'honorable behavior' which convinces me of your slavery.
By the way, are you just going to mouth off, or do you have some substance
to offer us in this thread?
|Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Tyagi Nagasiva
Ty...@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Darrin Hyrup continues, (admirably!) maintaining an even keel, as he quotes
me and writes:
|...It isn't my responsibility to tell you what you
|should have found through resources you aren't using.
Indeed. I feel it would be horrible of you to tell me what I should do
at all, and this is the central issue I'm putting forward. That OTO would
stoop to telling its members HOW TO INTERPRET ITS RITES strikes me as very
evil (or at least contrary to everything for which it supposedly stands).
|>...My initiators told me that it was *my* job to discover for
|>myself what it was these mysteries were and what the rites meant.
|
|Of course, it is your duty to find and define for yourself the "the Mysteries"
|in a mystical sense, it's part of finding your Will. Each person has their
|own "path" and need find it themself.
I don't understand why you make such a divide between the 'mystical' and
the 'mundane' senses. If we have authority in one, why not the other?
|I also agree that it is also your duty to find out what the rites mean to you.
|However, that does not mean rewrite them within yourself.
This is hardly my argument. I am not saying that we ought rewrite them
(though this might be a very good thing for us all), but that we ought to
be left to interpret them as we will.
|>...That we can agree on this
|>means that you consider my interpretation to be sound. Now if we can get
|>into this idea that there might be 'required' or 'approved' interpretations,
|>then I'll be more satisfied.
|
|I consider that one interpretation of "The Mysteries" is the same as yours.
|But I submit that it also has a mundane element, (that being the nature of
|the ritual and the symbolism of the rites) which is what Crowley was trying
|to say in his typical colorful manner.
It is easy to interpret the rites in this way, yes.
|Look at the context of when and where
|the Oaths are required, and the wording of the statements.
I have. Our ideas are different, and I don't see this as a travesty. I see
that your interpretation is a very reasonable and tenable one. I only know
that for *me* to interpret the way you do, for myself (I won't try to do it
for anyone else), would be to make the very greatest error.
|When the candidate is first led into the camp, an Oath is required, of which
|the applicable text is: "... Humbly, yet frankly, I demand your hospitality,
|and participation in YOUR MYSTERIES, which I swear to study and hold sacred
|and SECRET, and if I break this oath..." ["Your mysteries" would seem to me
|to refer to the mysteries of the OTO, not "The Mysteries" in general. Since
|the OTO cannot, by your own admission, teach you "The Mysteries", they must
|be referring to the mysteries, as introduced to you in the way of OTO
|symbolism and ritual.]
Well, you are paraphrasing me in a way which I feel is in error. I did not
say that the OTO cannot teach me the Mysteries. I said that my initiators
could not TELL me them, nor would they. I might learn the Mysteries from
them and from the OTO.
I think, as I've continually maintained, that any interpretation which is
coherent (as yours certainly is) is valid for the person who makes it.
I only dispute the value (and the Order's support of) making such decisions
for others. I'll say this to you in myriad ways because I like your style,
but I'm not saying anything new here.
|After which, the candidate is welcomed to the Camp, and instructed in the
|grips, et al that are required for admission in the future.
I've never been required to give the grips, et al, when approaching these
bodies again. They knew I'd been initiated. Perhaps they didn't bother.
Of course if I went to New Jersey and expected a member to provide me with
a place to stay in their Lodge for a night or two and they asked me to
demonstrate my membership, I might not be able to. Why? Because I have
continually rejected these items as symbolically important though on the
whole only supportive of secrecy. When my initiators implied at any time
that they considered any information 'secret', I either destroyed it or
gave it back to them or both, and I make no effort to remember them.
It was their prerogative to consider them secrets, but as long as they do
not require that *I* do so, then I will continue to spew forth lovely
information from the depths of my mind without restraint (excepting in the
case of ruining the experience for another, about which their insistence
would release me from concern).
|After which
|the candidate is explained the merits of voluntary submission to discipline
|and organization. It then goes to say; "The regulations of our Order are
|strict..."
Indeed. Now, let us determine exactly to which Order this applies and what
the rules and regulations of the OTO *really* are, beyond our apparent
mis/conceptions.
|and "Chafe not, therefore, at the apparent restriction which your
|obligations place upon you. They are designed soley to enable you to do
|your will." [This would imply that the order is (or at least was) a doctrinal
|organization.]
Well, as I've said before, your interpretations are quite valuable, but not
necessary.
|The King ritual then goes on to say that the OTO doesn't know nor care what
|your will is, and that "We unreservedly place power in your hands. If it be
|your will to enter this army as a spy to destroy your comrades, so be it!"
|"Yet remember, that you have made solemn affirmations to us in these words,
|which you will again repeat after me..." [This would imply that the OTO
|allows for people who wish to spy (retrieve secrets to be revealed to others
|that should not know them), yet reminds them they have made Oaths to keep
|dissuade them from such actions.]
I don't think so. There are many other possibilities here. Again, I think
you are very reasonable, and I have understood the POSSIBILITY Of accepting
such an interpretation. I only wish to know why it is NECESSARY to do so.
Either it is necessary because it is a rule of the Order (thus proving the
doctrine-requirement of OTO), or it is necessary because it is the ONLY
POSSIBLE interpretation, which it is obviously not.
Something else I might mention is that they might say that there is NO
doctrinal requirement, but that they have decided to make a rule within
the Order that this information is not to be disclosed to non-initiates.
This might be a different matter, though one I'm not sure I'd like to
support either.
We each find our chains, locks and keys. The only question beyond this is
how long it takes us to liberate ourselves from slavery. I don't think
that OTO enslaves through required secrecy and I hope that I am correct.
|That is my argument. At least the part that I can illuminate through the
|King text. There are more specific Oaths I would like to point out that
|come up in the later degrees, but I cannot do so, obviously.
We may be able to do so soon, if our friend posts more. :>
I agree that your argument is sound to support your own interpretation.
I would be a fool to argue against you on this.
|Then perhaps you aren't asking the right questions. There are only so many
|people in the Order's "upper echelon", so it doesn't make sense that we
|should get such diametrically opposed views.
It could be that what one of us has been taking as 'official policy' is
actually simply common assumption (i.e. dogma or rumor).
|The people I talk to are in
|the Grand Lodge, or E.C., (which means east coast or So. Cal. with the
|exception of the GTG.)
Well, you can talk to them all you like. If you simply ask them to tell
you their interpretations, then you may indeed get an exact support for
secrecy in the Order (and I think this may be very important if so), yet
did *you* ask them the 'right questions'? Did you ask any of them if what
you are telling me (which, I presume they told you) is 'required' and
considered 'official policy, breaching which will endanger your future
with the Order'?
Let me be very very clear here. I wish to know if anybody in the Order
(and the more the better) has every told you that the OTO has an 'accepted'
and 'required' interpretation of their initiations rites, which, being the
case, supports the view that secrecy is required of initiates for continued
membership and 'good report'.
|and unfortunately, the majority of them do not have an
|electronic presence, so it isn't likely that we're going to get the kind of
|answer that you want, online.
Well, I don't necessarily need them to come here and talk to me/us directly.
All I'd like is for you to quote somebody in response to what I asked above,
as they speak *for the Order*.
|I'll try to get you a USmail letter or phone
|call.
I'd appreciate that. I hope you know what I'm after here. Thanks. :>
|>Please have the 'people in the know' offer comment. Also, please identify
|>them so that we can be sure they speak *for the Order* and are not just
|>giving their opinions. Thanks.
|
|I've gotten Abu online.
Well, we really don't know who or what 'Abu' is, aside from someone with a
very short patience and apparently little substance behind his words.
|I'm trying to get others online too. Of course,
|you probably won't be satisfied unless it is H.B. who tells you so,
Look, I don't care if it is you who posts it. I just want you to QUOTE
somebody directly, who is speaking *for the Order* and directly supports
your claims. I offer myself as living proof that you are wrong, though
I may be VERY mistaken and destined for 'bad report'. :>
|it doesn't
|seem to matter if the people are high-ranking members of the Order (or at
|least, higher degree than yourself,) or initiators, or that kind of thing.
Actually it doesn't. All that matters is that they are capable of speaking
*for the Order* as a whole. I gather that you cannot do this. I suspect
that Abu cannot. I'm waiting for a QUOTE or a POST which includes this.
|>|...But the Order requires Oaths that you will not reveal the nature or
|>|symbolism of the initiations of the Order.
|
|>Please substantiate this. I claim you are wrong and would like to hear it
|>from someone of substance.
|
|I take it you do not consider myself "someone of substance." No, I am not
|H.B., or currently a member of Grand Lodge, but I am a substantially higher
|degree initiate than yourself.
Cool, are you speaking for the Order? Is what you say indicative of official
policy by which members shall be judged? Or are you simply mistaken about
this? I think you better be sure before you speak for the Order, and then
when you do, I'll do what I can to get a second opinion (from my initiator(s),
from friends in the Order, etc.). If what I dig up contradicts what you
say (and so far it has), then I'll come back and challenge your word on it
too. ;>
|>There are very
|>many good reasons for secrecy, and very few for requiring it.
|
|Yes. But the few reasons are good ones.
According to you, we know. For you this is true. Why should we believe
that what you say is true for all members?
|>I would not ask this question
|>of them, nor would it be likely that they COULD reveal the Mysteries to me,
|>even if they wanted to, which they would likely not. That is THEIR CHOICE.
|
|They very probably would not, because they have taken Oaths to the effect of
|not revealing those mysteries (aka secrets) to you.
Well, that is their prerogative to interpret this way. If they require
that I do ALSO, especially to be initiated again (hey, I've discussed this
somewhat with them already), then I'll not go any further in the Order
and likely 'go renegade'.
What seems more important to me is that I don't *want* to reveal the details
of these rites. I just don't want to be told that I *can't* in order to
continue being involved with the Order. See?
|>Who will speak for the Order in this matter? I want to hear it loud
|>and clear that OTO is doctrinal and then I'll be left to decide whether
|>I shall associate with it or no.
|
|Again, I'm trying to get that proof for you.
I greatly appreciate it, kin!
|>|Therefore it is doctrinal in
|>|some sense, but not overly so. A certain amount of doctrine is required,
|>|particularily in the initatory arena, otherwise there would be anarchy.
|
|>Logically false. My experience shows otherwise. Please substantiate or
|>desist in your false claims.
|
|I have done so, if theere was no doctrine in the initiatory arena, there
|would have been no Minerval ritual to begin with. A doctrine, as I know
|it, is "a set of guidelines, used to teach a particular concept, like a
|religion or a skill," perhaps even a set of symbols used to illuminate
|certain inner order secrets of the OTO.
As I tried to explain elsewhere, I don't think that doctrine NEED be a
requirement, especially 'to prevent anarchy' (:::shiver:::). Lotsa non-
traditional witches avoid doctrine very handily and some of us still
maintain our social hierarchy. Some of us HAVE anarchy (i.e. a lack
of rulership) and like it very much. Neither do we need to avoid this
spectre called 'anarchy' nor is it logically necessary to adopt absolute
doctrines in order to avoid it should we wish to.
|>Besides, anarchy in regards doctrine is
|>EXACTLY what there is, even while there is not anarchy of social status
|>within the Order.
|
|Now, it is your turn to substantiate your arguments.
I was only claiming once again what I've learned from a study of OTO
documents, what my initiators have and have not told me and required of
me (very little), and am just batting down your claims by promoting
myself as a living exception.
I'm sure that it is possible that I'm just a 'stray', who has 'fallen
through the cracks of the OTO rules & regs net', and this is why I don't
shout out that you are a liar and a revolutionary (horrors! :>), but
simply request (sometimes very adamantly) that you provide something
to back yourself up other than your own opinions about the Order.
|>Initiations do not ask anything. Perhaps I was asked if I would voluntarily
|>submit to discipline and organization in order to obtain freedom to do my
|>will. If so, I have already engaged this discipline and feel that I am
|>currently doing my true will. In doing this will I radically oppose secrecy.
|>Now where do you go from here?
|
|...I can only think that you may not be willing to
|take further initiation in the Order, if that is truly your will. Which
|means, yet again, I need to get an official letter or phone call to you
|from someone who you feel is of sufficient authority to speak for OTO
|policy.
Oh I'd greatly love (and hate!) to receive this. I'd love to receive it
because then I'd have proof that the Order is corrupt and will likely not
waste my time supporting it (though I may attempt first to change it
from within by showing the letter around a bit). I'd hate to receive
it because I have a great fondness for OTO (ask anyone here) and for what
I think it can become, what it stands for, what it ostensibly supports.
You would, in my view (I know, not in yours) be offering me the equivalent
of proof that the Order has debased itself to the worst possible offense
(i.e. requirement where it is not administratively necessary/expedient,
and, I argue, ultimately contrary to what its Prophet put forward in his
writings).
|While revealing your "deepest, nastiest secret ritual text" probably wont
|break any oaths (since there aren't any that haven't already been revealed
|somewhere), posting the "mysteries" of your initiation rites would likely
|cause troubles. If that is what it takes, than that is what it will take,
|but I'd caution you against it, Brother.
I take this caution very seriously, and, while my infuriation over the
approach of those such as 'Abu' leads me to make some very strident claims,
I would have to consider all of this very carefully before entering into
anything extreme. However, sometimes extreme measures are called for
(as Crowley proved with the GD).
|Are you saying that Oaths taken during initiations are not
|binding?
Any oaths of the kind you are speaking are not binding except socially.
I.e. I would only face social ostracization if I were to break these
silly rules. I care little about such a reaction. I engage OTO
because it is my will, it is my path (a discipline of sometimes
unimaginable torture), not because I care one whit for any rules
and regulations which may conflict with my will. I've already been
thrown out of groups (hey, too bad you weren't around for the ARCANA
debacle :>). Their loss. If people took the time to get to know me,
they'd see that I'm after the emancipation of all people, and that I
think my actions will lead to this, even (especially?) if everyone
were to emulate me. ;>
Not only this, I think Crowley supported it, exemplified it, and that
the UNIVERSE supports it. Any organization or individual which does
NOT support the Law of Thelema will be ripped to shreds and fall upon
the shards of their own sin.
This is the law of the strong! We accept of no substitutes. :D Fun.
|I agree that they can be superceeded by later Oaths, if you allow
|for that, but they are still binding.
Upon you, I have no doubt. They are not binding in any way except
possible socially, for me, yet you have not shown even this.
|...that Will is a tool with which you set out to find and
|fufill your Great Work. The Will is an aspect of that Great Work, and is
|empowered by the gnosis of union with the Divine (or HGA).
What beauty! What perfection! How well you have said this! I applaud
your expression! Encore! Author! Cudos! Huevos! I genuinely admire
your ability to express this. Thank you very much.
|I don't
|particularily care to explain things in philosophical terms like that, but
|you asked for more specific information, in at least how I understand Will.
I don't know why you have a problem with it, but I appreciate your candor.
Crowley at least has said things which are similar.
|Besides, chances are that regardless of my analysis, you are going to have
|your opinion, and I mine, and there is nothing to guarantee that we will ever
|agree. I can always look at a coffee cup and say "mug" and you may say "cup"
|and while we are talking about the same thing, we each see a slightly
|different thing.
If you want to get right down to it you are completely correct but for
different reasons than you might suppose. We WON'T ever 'agree' about this,
because I don't 'have' a particular opinion. I sometimes ACT from certain
interpretations (such as that which I maintain is necessary for me to
continue being a 'good report OTO member'), but I don't associate with
any lingual concept.
Your decision to do so is your own path. I don't do so because it places
too severe a limitation upon my will. That is not the way for me at present,
it seems. I don't believe anything, and I find that, for me, belief leads
to mind/soul death. By 'belief' I mean the assumption that a particular
perspective or ideal-construct is 'true'.
(i.e. "I believe that God exists" = "I assume that the statement that 'God
exists' is absolutely true and 'God does not exist' is absolutely false.")
|>No doubt you take them seriously. Perhaps overly. YOU would consider
|>it in direct violation of your oaths/Oaths. Let me give you a hypothetical.
|>Presume for the moment that the OTO is NOT doctrinally-based in this
|>matter, and that you may interpret the ritual text in any manner you
|>choose. Presume secondly that you choose to interpret your oaths NOT
|>as restrictions regarding secrecy but as statements about the limitations
|>of language and communications. Given this, would it then be a 'direct
|>violation of your Oaths' to speak of the particulars of text or form?
|
|If I were to presume that, then I would probably feel free to say or do
|anything I like, regardless of what it was, since I obviously only see
|what I want to see, and ignore what I don't want to see.
Well then, if I am supported by the 'official policy of OTO' (or lack
thereof), then you'll at least understand where I'm coming from. :>
I feel free to say and do whatever I like and think I can be supported
by just such reasoning.
|...I couldn't see anything as SIN. The dogma of such a
|concept as SIN would be too restrictive for me to comprehend. Therefore,
|I would probably not care much at all about what people do, or how they
|do it. I wouldn't aid anyone in anything, nor come down hard on anyone.
Whatever happened to 'the word of Sin is Restriction'? Hmmmm.
|>I don't need any 'justification'. The Order is not doctrinal. If you can
|>demonstrate that it is, I may renounce my ties with it completely and
|>oppose it to the end of my days as 'UNThelemic'. :> Have at it.
|
|You don't think it is doctrinal now... You should have seen it 10 years
|ago!
Eh? I'd like you to clarify this. I can't tell what you are intending
to imply here. Are you saying that it is much more 'structured'/'doctrinal'
than it was 10 years ago (this would fit into the Grady/anti-Grady war),
or that it is LESS so now (which I don't understand, if so)?
|>|Or rather, you are trying to understand why I
|>|believe that the Oaths (and Mysteries of the initiation) are meant to be
|>|held as sacred and secret.
|
|>Not 'meant to be' but 'REQUIRED TO BE'. Yes, this is more what I'm after,
|>and I hope you will rise to the challenge.
|
|Obviously this is a joke, since you have already stated that you cannot
|trust me as a reputable source of information.
Please read the words above once more. It is no joke. "I am trying to
understand why you believe that the Oaths (and Mysteries of the initiation)
are REQUIRED TO BE held as sacred and secret." I wish to know what
convinces you that members are required to be secretive. I think you've
already answered this to some degree since I've asked it (you say that
your conversations with various upper Order initiates convinced you of
this). I have no doubt that this is true. It may also be true that
what is 'policy' is different than what of you are convinced. :> If
this is the case, what would your reaction be?
|Nor can I speak for the OTO
|in this matter, so why do you ask something you know that I cannot provide?
If you cannot, then that answers my first question to you. I posed the
same to Abu, and from his nonresponse I gather that he is in a similar
position. Of all possible members, who *is* in a position to say what
is and what is not Order policy and speak *for* the Order? Certainly
not me. :>
|>I'm getting tired of all this
|>bluster over an issue which I've argued many times and never had any
|>substance come of it but my continued verity.
|
|Me too. It doesn't do either of us any good, since obviously we each have
|our own perspective on the issue, and neither seems to be willing to change.
Oh this discussion is very relevant, I think, but what I'm getting tired
of is people (like you and Abu) coming and vomitting all your dogma all
over me and my friends without something to back it up. That's what
tries my patience, not that we have a difference of opinion. I think
differences of opinion are VERY healthy! So are arguments like this one
when you can come up with something to back you up! :> I'm patient.
|>I very dearly hope that
|>you and Abu are wrong, for I greatly love OTO, and to see it turned into
|>some kind of intellectual enslavement mechanism, supporting the extreme
|>of secrecy, would be a horrible blow for all of us and the future of our
|>society.
|
|That is a narrow-minded view of the concept of initatory-secrets. There is
|no enslavement, there is caution.
If I agree to enter into slavery it is no less so. If I agree to think in
certain ways in order to be accepted by a group then it is no less slavery
to that group. For once I betray that master, rebuke hir authority, once
I think and act in ways which that group does not accept, then I am cast
out (if not outright killed). This is what is done with slaves.
With kin, they are addressed as reasonable adults and dealt with maturely,
accepting of their differences where possible, seriously considering what
they have to say, and in as many ways as possible allowing them to do,
think, and act in the way which they choose. See _Liber OZ_.
|Even "The Master," Crowley called the
|OTO a "serious and SECRET" organization.
There are many ways to interpret this.
|The King ritual asks the candidate
|to WILLINGLY understake the Oaths involved with the Order, not to enslave,
|but to liberate them.
Yup. And I do continue to "willingly and voluntarily accept (submit to)
discipline and organization, to maintain the knowledge and activation of
my will", I have understood the regulations of the Order to be limited
to administration, and have seen NO "apparent restrictions which my
obligations place upon me" that compromise this will of mine. Once and if
I do, so much for the regulations of the Order - they will be as cobwebs
to an elephant, kindling to the fire of my wrath.
|Darrin Hyrup
|sha...@speedway.net
|sha...@sorinc.cutler.com
|sha...@netcom.com
PS to all you people who were arguing that my interpretations of these
Thelemic concepts was 'overly lax' or that Crowleyites were 'unrealistic
idealists with no head for logic and rationality': See now what I am
up against?
I have those OUTSIDE my Order telling me that I am too liberal, that I
am an 'anarchist' and a 'Satanist'. I have those INSIDE my Order telling
me virtually the same thing! Our world does devolve so quickly, there is
very little room for individual freedom. Let us hope that what the Master
has begun will build up steam, break away from this horrid carcass which
I call 'THE SLAVERY OF ORGANIZATION', and renew itself in everlasting
perfection! May each of you achieve the Summum Bonum, True Wisdom and
Perfect Happiness. Yea, may you achieve True Wisdom and Perfect Happiness!
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Abu Hayyan begins to ask questions, which I appreciate. He quotes me and
writes:
|Why wait until you are black-balled?
Why wait for what? To 'break' these oaths of secrecy which you claim
I've taken (note that think differently even regarding this)? I have been
very clear about why I don't speak about initiation rituals. I hope I
won't have to say it again. I think it may be harmful to the potential
experience of people who ask about it and then set out to become initiated
by OTO presently. It might 'short out' the rite for them. If they come to
me and ask, then I'll tell them that there may be at least *2* results
of such an action on my part:
1) They may have the rite spoiled for them
and
2) I may be cast out of OTO for revealing what other members consider to
be 'secrets', even if there is no strict doctrinal interpretation-policy.
If they insist, I'll tell them everything which I know and have time for.
|Most of the feedback here from OTO members is that you are in danger
|breaking oaths.
Oh, well I'm not just going by this Internet exchange, you know. :>
Even if I was, I count two and two members each so far. I don't
think Kampe is a member (yet), but soon it may be three to two, if
such should occur. Perhaps you don't know who is an initiate here
and who is not??? ;> 'Rank' matters little to me in this excepting
where one can speak for the Order as a whole (as a member of the
National Supreme Council who will detail rules and regulations, for
example).
|>If [the OTO Governors] proceed by *YOUR* criteria [in granting
|>Charters for initiation], then I think the Order will suffer
|>immeasurably.
|
|Please explain.
I think that such a criteria would ultimately debilitate and undermine
the quality of the Order. The ability and willingness to engage in
secrecy, especially where it is REQUIRED, does not speak highly to me
of the person who shall be initiating (as compared to someone who
is not ruled by Rules ;>).
|Maturity can be measured by an individuals ability to keep secrets, no?
It can be, sure, but I also think that IMmaturity is often measured
by the amount of secretiveness and restriction one places upon others.
In other words, I think it varies, and while I'd agree that, taken very
much out of context, the ability to keep one's word in ANY way is a very
clear indicator of maturity, I think the willingness to give one's
word regarding secrecy is more often a measure of immaturity.
|>I only criticize [the OTO initiation rites] if they are rendered
|>weak by becoming stagnant.
|
|Do you perceive them as such?
Stagnant? Not exactly, though I do think that maintaining them in
a consistent form is a kind of weakness in that it makes them
vulnerable to publishing (which secrecy protects, but changing them
continually might solve).
|Why not write your own rituals?
Why not? Why doesn't everyone and those who have a Charter for OTO
initiation status can confer degrees in any way they'd like. The
more popular they become, perhaps the more popular will be their
style of rite, and it could be published among all members beyond
the degree to which it applies. This would allow for some creativity
and new thinking, at least. If it was 'sullied' by being published,
so what? The individual can create another if they so desire, or
require that the person whom they initiate has simply not encountered
its published version.
|>...I only know my own preference, which is toward complete freedom
|>of information regardless of consequences and firm support of the
|>Law of Thelema wherever I see it exercized.
|
|Have you always felt this way?
I have felt this way since becoming involved with the Order in the
'Associate Member' status. I even published and propagated some of my
ideas in this regard, sending them to most Order bodies within the U.S.
and several in Canada, just prior to becoming a 'Minerval'. I received
some favorable replies, and some criticism, though nobody told me that
my ideas were 'WRONG'. ;> Then again, I don't remember how strongly
I spoke out against 'secrecy'. I think I was quite explicit, but I
could review that document if you like and be sure.
Remember, for the longest time I've considered 'organized religion' and
often 'organized magick' as oxymorons. I think organizations are EVIL,
and I am involved with OTO as a discipline and I think it has the most
potential to serve the Law of Thelema and the INDIVIDUAL generally,
which is the focus of truly Thelemic organizations as I know them.
|Did you take your oaths knowing that you would break them?
This question is akin to 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'
I took my oaths knowing that others would have interpreted
them as requirements of secrecy, yes. I took them with the intent of
not necessarily adhering to any such secrecy, yes. I took them with
very specific interpretation which yielded the utmost latitude in
regard my actions, and I stand by my interpretations and hope that
the Order will stand by me in my action. If it doesn't, then it will
have to fall into the trash heap with all the other decomposing ideals.
If I were to post the entire text of all the rites I've ever been
involved with, I would NOT be breaking my oaths as I took them.
Now I MIGHT be breaking a rule that was made by the National Supreme
Council, but I have never heard that such a rule existed, and neither
you nor Darrin have yet to demonstrate that it does.
I am not shackled to your mind. Please realize this.
Haramullah rasulu 'Llah. Alaikum assalam, my kin.
Love is the law, love under will.
Haramullah
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Abu Hayyan and I continue our exchange.
|...why would you think that a person who has neither the
|knowledge or the experience with the OTO rituals can deliver the initiation
|successfully?
The initiation may catalyze a psychospiritual process (or simply add fuel
to it, depending on the condition of initiate). Specific forms of this
process are certainly different, yet there are enough general similarities
between people's experiences that specific forms can be said to be fairly
irrelevant. If you disagree, I could attack your position easily by
saying that the ENERGY and the SPECIFIC MANIFESTATION of that 'approved
OTO rite' will vary with EVERY initiator, and so the rites are ALREADY
different for every person.
There are few knowns here. I think there are a lot of ways to see this
and remain coherent. I don't associate with any one of them as 'truth',
however. I just point out possibilities.
|> ...Cite something. If you can't, even some
|>authority like the GTG or the Supreme Maximus Kingliness, saying that
|>this organization requires secrecy, then please desist from your
|>silly claims.
|
|Let's assume that they are not aware of your posts: what makes you think
|that they would answer in a public medium? A violation of an oath is an
|order concern, and as such need not be disscused in an open forum.
If they were NOT aware of my posts, then I presume they would not answer
at all. If they WERE aware of my posts, then I don't expect they would,
nor am I asking THEM to. YOU have made a statement about the Order I
care very deeply about. You have said that it requires secrecy concerning
its initiatic rites. I want you to cite some authority for this. Quote
someone who is in a place to speak *for* the Order when they are doing
so, stating that specific interpretations are required and that those
who don't do this, therefore keeping the rites secret because of these
'oaths', will likely be placed upon 'bad report' because of their
interpretations.
Note, as I have mentioned to Darrin, if it is simply the case that it
would serve as 'destructive to the well-being of the Order', and that
the Order is NOT doctrinally-based, I.E. NOT REQUIRING that its rites
are interpreted in a specific way, then I can understand this, though
I'm not sure how I'll react.
|...All I can say is that you should speak to your
|initiator regarding the oaths.
Then your claims regarding the Order and its requirements aren't very
well supported. You talk tough, but when I call your bluff, you back
down, it seems.
|You are in company of many members, many of
|which know the GTG personally; perhaps they will put you in touch with hir.
I am at present in no doubt as to my situation. You have claimed something
which is contrary to my experience of the Order. All I ask is that you
support your claims. So far you have not been able to do so.
|>Will you desist in this, at least to save your very precious fantasy
|>of secrecy, or will you continue to characterize the Order in so
|>UnThelemic a manner?
|
|UnThelemic? What is so UnThelemic about keeping ones word of honor?
The word of Sin is Restriction. Requiring secrecy is sin, and contrary
the Law of Thelema as I know it.
|A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a
|beggar cannot hide his poverty.
Ah but shall we treat all beggars then as Kings in case he be disguised?
NO! Such would be foolhardy! Let us act out our wills regardless of
his status, regardless of his 'authority'! Only then shall the Great
Work be achieved. Yea, let the Great Work be achieved!
|The oath is not open for interpretation. It is stated quite clearly.
Well, I AM interpreting it differently. Therefore I am a living
example of an exception to your claim. If you mean to imply that
it is not ACCEPTABLE TO OTO that I interpret it this way, then I
ask you for some proof of this. I've never heard any complaints
about my interpretations from those who would seem to be in a
position to 'put me down'.
It may not be acceptable for me to publish the rites, but not because
of my particular interpretation of them. If at all, it is because
those in charge feel that doing so would compromise the Order in some
fashion (NOT because I've broken any oaths).
|> I feel very strongly about this issue.
|
|It shows :)
I do appreciate your understanding. I've thought this through VERY
carefully, have weighed the writings of the Master, the advice of
my own HGA, and the various expressions of my kin, and think I have
an unassailable philosophical position as well as a clear understanding
of the policies of the Order and the motivations which may be involved
with the implementation of disciplinary action.
What you say about being placed on 'bad report' may indeed be the case.
It is quite possible that ANYONE can be placed on 'bad report' for
ANY reason if those who are in charge of deciding it rule that
that person is doing something which is 'greatly prejudicial to the
purposes of the O.T.O.'. I would not claim otherwise, yet the assertion
that OTO is doctrinal and requires secrecy through restriction of
acceptable interpretations is either ludicrous (as I maintain) or is
a new and very important revelation to me.
|DO seek the advise of others on this issue. I cannot
|continue this argument without violating my own oaths.
I don't require that you do that. I don't feel I need more advice,
and in that I think the burden of proof is upon YOU to substantiate
your claim that OTO is doctrinal, then perhaps you might seek
advice of your own (and bring it back here!).
|Your interpretation may have a few flaws in it, however.
It may indeed. I'd love to hear what (logical) flaws you think that it
may have.
|>|>How may an oath be broken? Of which oaths do you speak?
|>|
|>|Again, you are beating around the bush. An oath is a promise, you
|>|attach your honor and integrety to it in ceremony. To break the oath
|>|is to go against the promise you have made before you and your god.
|>
|>You seem to be in need of brushing-up regarding oaths, magical and
|>otherwise. Please see _Book Four_.
|
|Show me where Book 4 states that it is OK to break oaths.
This was not my point. Magical oaths CAN'T be broken. If you don't
remember that, then look it up.
|>By the Law of Thelema I shall do what I will, I may interpret what I
|>will,
|
|even if its incorrect?
It may be incoherent. It may be unorthodox. It may be heretical.
But it can never be 'incorrect'. In that any group rules it 'incorrect'
that social group is just a bunch of dogmatists spouting slave-chains.
|Even if your "interpretation" is at odds with the
|well-being of others?
Now THIS is possible, and it is why I would have to consider my actions
very carefully should you somehow show that OTO is doctrinally-limiting.
If it is my will, it is my will, and it cannot be contrary to the well-
being of others. See Crowley's metaphysics on this with regard to
Napoleon, _Book Four_.
|>...I will to interpret the rites as I see fit. Do you claim that
|>there are 'established', 'approved' and 'correct' interpretations?
|>If so, then cite your authority. If not, then desist and quit your
|>arrogance.
|
|Believe me, you have not seen arrogance.
I'm not just tossing words around here. If you seriously claim that
there are such interpretations and cannot cite an authority, then you
are essentially claiming authority where you have none, which is the
meaning of the word 'arrogance'. If you have some authority, then
I'd like to hear of it.
|>|Any moron, even amongst the most uneducated know what oaths are.
|>
|>Apparently you do not. Read up.
|
|Due to the difference in our ages, I will venture to say that I am more
|intimate with the written material than you are.
Ageism doesn't solve it. You may indeed be more familiar with the FORM
of the material, but that does not mean that you have understood all its
subtleties. Nor does your length of time in manifested bodily form
demonstrate that you remember all the possible interpretations of Crowley's
work, or that you have reviewed it as recently as myself.
|Perhaps YOU should read up.
I'm sure, though I don't have any problem supporting my claims, which it
seems you do.
|As has been proven in our courts systems, when a sleazeball is released
|because a sleazeball attorney uses the system to free the guilty.
Such is the law of the strong that those who have the power and actualize
it effect their liberation.
|Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Abu Hayyan quotes me and writes:
|> I've never been told what they meant by anyone in OTO. I've never
|> attended one of these 'classes' and am not sure that I'd ever want to.
|
|Why wouldn't you attend them?
Because a lot of people who are willing to 'tell me' what the rituals
mean are clueless preachers who wouldn't know the Law of Thelema if
it was their middle initial.
|The symbolism of the ritual is best known by
|the individuals who perform the.
No doubt, but that doesn't mean that their knowledge is conscious.
I've met people who were very experienced and still radically
stupid. They could do GREAT rites, but when it came to explaining
them, they were morons.
|You miss much during the actual rite, and
|being aware of what was done, and for what reason makes it easier for the
|candidate to make use of that symbology.
I would agree with this, though I think I agree with my initiators that
personal reflection is, at least for me (and perhaps people like me),
more important than finding out what 'X' thinks about the symbolism.
|[Your] initiator's job is to
|make sure you are aware of the symbolism which was all around you in your
|initiation. NOT to tell you what to make out of it.
I think that the initiator's job is to initiate. How they do it is up to
them, to a point. As I've never spoken with any of them regarding the
processes and am speaking only from my projection I could be off-base, but
I gather that there are few if any requirements in regards initiators in
OTO, excepting perhaps that they assume responsibility for everything that
the person whom they initiate does within the Order (which is quite a
lot).
|...The oaths are explicit. There is NO
|room for interpretation. "What part of 'no' didn't you understand".
Interesting. There are at least two people in this thread that don't
agree with this statement. I don't even think DARRIN would even agree
with this. The oaths are kinda vague, actually. Look to King's version
as a good example. Michael Jackson did a good job at laying out this
vagueness. I'm surprised you can't see it. Wellllll, maybe not. ;>
|>Again, is this official policy? With what authority do you speak on this
|>matter?
|
|The policy that you are refering to is in the initiator's handbook.
Ok, then perhaps I shall never be able to initiate within the OTO.
Perhaps the REQUIREMENT FOR GETTING A CHARTER is that the rites
be kept secret and not divulged to others. This makes sense to me,
but doesn't support your claim that the initiation rites themselves
require this.
|If this is true, then you should be discussing this with them. Have you
|ever asked?
Yup, consistently. :>
|It is hard for me to believe that you have spoke to your initiator
|regarding this matter and that he may agree with you. I will ask him
|myself.
Him? Hee hee hee. Please do. I hope he supports me. I expect he will,
if I know who you are talking about (actually any of the men who've been
involved with my rites would, I think). Upon consideration, I INSIST
that you consult him. :>
|> ...I claim that there is NO need for a
|> requirement of secrecy. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the
|> Law.
|
|Who are you to claim what is good and what is not for the Order?
Nobody, just the Sorcerer Supreme.
|If you
|want to tell secrets, tell your own. You have no right to prophane the
|teachings of the order; especially since you WILLINGLY took an oath to keep
|its teachings secret.
Man has the right to speak what he will.
Man has the right to write what he will.
etc.
etc.
There is no profane where I am.
|>|Try asking your initiator for the Mysteries of the
|>|IIIo for example, and see if they tell you.
|>
|>Who will speak for the Order in this matter? I want to hear it loud
|>and clear that OTO is doctrinal and then I'll be left to decide
|>whether I shall associate with it or no.
|
|Has it ever occured to you that by presisting you may not have that choice?
God, no. I never thought that the Order was so depraved as not to be even
able to withstand the utterance of an intellectual challenge by one of
its membership. If I am ejected for simply QUESTIONING this, then I would
be AIDED by being so ejected.
It is much like the security job I was fired from. Or like the job of
9 years that I left and the new head honcho didn't like me and so asked
me not to come back after giving notice and making a slight error on one
project. Both of these things were FABULOUS for me. The people who did
them cut off their nose to spite their face.
I just don't understand why people oppose me sometimes and think that by
doing so they'll harm me in any way.
|It seems to me like [Darrin]'s trying to help you.
It does, doesn't it? I'm very grateful. He's getting to be very nice
about all this. Even *you've* settled down a little. That is quite
reassuring to me.
|>My point, however, was that these things are not defined in any concrete
|>way by the OTO. OTO is social and initiatory, NOT DOCTRINAL.
|
|If you truly believe that its function is initiatory you should seize
|trying to undermine it by hampering its effectiveness.
I suppose you mean that I should STOP trying to undermine it. It is only
YOU who think I'm trying to undermine it. Personally I think that real
down-and-dirty philosophical brawls are what this Order needs. I'm not
trying to undermine it, I'm trying to LIBERATE it of its dead weight
which will surely sink it beneath the most stagnant mire if accepted
by the Order's Governors.
|When were you told that you were free to interpret the oath as you see fit?
Prior to every initiation that I've ever had. Both directly and indirectly
by some of the most notorious and intelligent men and women I've ever
known within the Order. Rascals, they, who did not wish to compromise
my will in the matter. Probably they knew that if they tried, they'd
have seen me running out the door. ;>
I consider my initiators to be TRUE THELEMITES, even should they now come
to me and howl after my blood! Hahahahahahahaha!!
|Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Darrin A. Hyrup
>On 02-Oct-93 in Re: Disclosing Rites of Sec..
>user Darrin A. Hyrup@sorinc.c writes:
>>Tyagi, if you were to quote the text of the current Minerval, you would
>>most certainly be put on bad report, and quite possibly expelled.
>while I recognize that this is only an educated guess and need not
>represent the facts, it says something about a so-called "Thelemic"
>order, doesn't it?
>whatever happened to Will?
It would then be your Will to be expelled, or put on bad report; as the
magickal reprecussions of breaking one's Oaths.
Very Thelemic.
Darrin A. Hyrup
>Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
>La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
>Darrin Hyrup makes more unsubstantiated claims as he quotes me:
Read on...
>Now, unless you or Abu can speak for the *National Supreme Council*
>regarding their Rules and Regulations, then your comments are either
>out of line or simply uninformed. Please cite your sources or go away.
You should be (if you haven't already) recieving a call from the GSG, who
can speak for the NSC in regards to this, and to your questions about
initiatory responsibility and the Oaths involved.
Believe me, a good many people have been expelled under the emergency
clause. All it really takes is the NSC or HB to say it, and it is done.
(That is usually assuming that the evidence against the member is without
defense.)
>|It would be impossible for Abu, myself, or any other person to do this
>|until such time as you receive a charter to initiate.
>It would not be physically impossible, though you may consider it beyond
>your abilities within the confines of the interpretations of your oaths.
This has nothing to do with Oaths, it says this information specifically
in the Initiator's Handbook.
Joshua Geller
you know, I have been watching this with some interest, though I
have been (admittedly) skipping many people's 200 or 300 or 400
line followups to each other.
I find forged cancellation messages aesthetically displeasing.
al billings (I think) pointed out that altnet has no rules or
policy as such. this is true. this means that the anonymous poster
posting copyrighted materials and the person at sorinc.cutler.com
posting forged cancellation messages are neither of them violating
any 'policy'. it also means that if someone wrote a script to cancel
every post coming from sorinc.cutler.com, they would not be violating
any 'policy' either.
as I said, I find forged cancellation messages aesthetically displeasing
and I would never consider doing such a thing.
it's real easy to do, though.
josh
Darrin A. Hyrup
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva (Ty...@cup.portal.com) writes:
>|>...My initiators told me that it was *my* job to discover for
>|>myself what it was these mysteries were and what the rites meant.
>|
>|Of course, it is your duty to find and define for yourself the "the Mysteries"
>|in a mystical sense, it's part of finding your Will. Each person has their
>|own "path" and need find it themself.
>I don't understand why you make such a divide between the 'mystical' and
>the 'mundane' senses. If we have authority in one, why not the other?
It is a difference of semantics. Since much of your earlier arguement dealt
with the verbage involved. Specifically, the definition of "Mysteries" and
what exactly the OTO is honoring you to "keep sacred and secret."
>|Look at the context of when and where
>|the Oaths are required, and the wording of the statements.
>I have. Our ideas are different, and I don't see this as a travesty. I see
>that your interpretation is a very reasonable and tenable one. I only know
>that for *me* to interpret the way you do, for myself (I won't try to do it
>for anyone else), would be to make the very greatest error.
That is your right, however, it may be that your personal philosophy and that
of the Order may be in some part incompatible. I have confirmation from the
GSG of the interpretation of the Order.
>|When the candidate is first led into the camp, an Oath is required, of which
>|the applicable text is: "... Humbly, yet frankly, I demand your hospitality,
>|and participation in YOUR MYSTERIES, which I swear to study and hold sacred
>|and SECRET, and if I break this oath..." ["Your mysteries" would seem to me
>|to refer to the mysteries of the OTO, not "The Mysteries" in general. Since
>|the OTO cannot, by your own admission, teach you "The Mysteries", they must
>|be referring to the mysteries, as introduced to you in the way of OTO
>|symbolism and ritual.]
>Well, you are paraphrasing me in a way which I feel is in error. I did not
>say that the OTO cannot teach me the Mysteries. I said that my initiators
>could not TELL me them, nor would they. I might learn the Mysteries from
>them and from the OTO.
Okay, but do you also agree that "The Mysteries" of the OTO may be different
from "The Mysteries" as delivered by another initiatory body, or by personal
initiation? How about in that "The Mysteries" of the OTO itself may include
the regalia, symbolism, and initiatory methods themselves? That is what I
am trying to say.
>I think, as I've continually maintained, that any interpretation which is
>coherent (as yours certainly is) is valid for the person who makes it.
>I only dispute the value (and the Order's support of) making such decisions
>for others. I'll say this to you in myriad ways because I like your style,
>but I'm not saying anything new here.
There is nothing that says you have to interpret your degree according to
rules set down by the OTO, nor that you must accept "The Mysteries" as
delivered unto you by initiation. However, the Oaths are not one of the
aspects of initiation that are considered optional.
>|After which, the candidate is welcomed to the Camp, and instructed in the
>|grips, et al that are required for admission in the future.
>I've never been required to give the grips, et al, when approaching these
>bodies again. They knew I'd been initiated. Perhaps they didn't bother.
Well, of course you are not required to demonstrate proof to regain entry
upon later initiation, or with those who know your initiatory status. This
does not always hold true when attending initiations of other members,
however. Particularily if the body performing the initiation is not the
same body as initiated you, or if there are those who would question your
status, which is their right.
>Of course if I went to New Jersey and expected a member to provide me with
>a place to stay in their Lodge for a night or two and they asked me to
>demonstrate my membership, I might not be able to. Why? Because I have
>continually rejected these items as symbolically important though on the
>whole only supportive of secrecy. When my initiators implied at any time
>that they considered any information 'secret', I either destroyed it or
>gave it back to them or both, and I make no effort to remember them.
Then that is your loss. Most OTO bodies would probably not require that you
need demonstrate membership to partake in the hospitality of their camp. But
if for some reason you had put yourself in the position where it would be
required to verify your membership, and it wasn't feasable to check on you
via the phone or looking you up in the Order records (for those that have
that ability), then the grips, etc. are the last means of identification.
>|After which
>|the candidate is explained the merits of voluntary submission to discipline
>|and organization. It then goes to say; "The regulations of our Order are
>|strict..."
>Indeed. Now, let us determine exactly to which Order this applies and what
>the rules and regulations of the OTO *really* are, beyond our apparent
>mis/conceptions.
It is an OTO initiation, the "Order" is obviously the OTO. As for the rules
and regulations, they are put forth in the by-laws of the Order, as well as
the commandments of those "higher on the food chain" in the Order; Like the
Master of the OTO body you affiliate with, the E.C., members of the Grand
Lodge, the N.S.C., and last but certainly not least, H.B. In days past (and
in many places still), it also applies to those of a higher degree than
yourself, but that isn't necessarily a rule, but a courtesy.
There are also further regulations set forth in the initiatory material
that is given to chartered initiators, and in the degree packets for each
degree (specifying what need be accomplished before one is ready to progress
to the next degree.)
I think that does it. At least in my own interpretation.
>|and "Chafe not, therefore, at the apparent restriction which your
>|obligations place upon you. They are designed soley to enable you to do
>|your will." [This would imply that the order is (or at least was) a doctrinal
>|organization.]
>Well, as I've said before, your interpretations are quite valuable, but not
>necessary.
Well, by the definition of doctrine, as defined by every dictionary source I
could find, the OTO would qualify as a doctrinal organization.
>|The King ritual then goes on to say that the OTO doesn't know nor care what
>|your will is, and that "We unreservedly place power in your hands. If it be
>|your will to enter this army as a spy to destroy your comrades, so be it!"
>|"Yet remember, that you have made solemn affirmations to us in these words,
>|which you will again repeat after me..." [This would imply that the OTO
>|allows for people who wish to spy (retrieve secrets to be revealed to others
>|that should not know them), yet reminds them they have made Oaths to keep
>|dissuade them from such actions.]
>I don't think so. There are many other possibilities here. Again, I think
>you are very reasonable, and I have understood the POSSIBILITY Of accepting
>such an interpretation. I only wish to know why it is NECESSARY to do so.
>Either it is necessary because it is a rule of the Order (thus proving the
>doctrine-requirement of OTO), or it is necessary because it is the ONLY
>POSSIBLE interpretation, which it is obviously not.
It would be hard for me to see another interpretation, but I grant you that
your interpretation can certainly be valid for you. The reason that I cannot
see it your way is because you are defining terms in a way that makes no
sense in the context of the ritual. (This is assuming you are still
maintaining that the "Mysteries" of the OTO are not what the Oath is talking
about.)
>Something else I might mention is that they might say that there is NO
>doctrinal requirement, but that they have decided to make a rule within
>the Order that this information is not to be disclosed to non-initiates.
>This might be a different matter, though one I'm not sure I'd like to
>support either.
That is the ultimate point. The OTO requires secrecy only in as far as one
disclosing Order 'secrets' to non-initiates, or in disclosing the 'secrets'
to degrees of a higher nature than that of the initiate. It says that any
person may join the Order and recieve its Mysteries, but that the information
is not meant for those outside the Order.
>We each find our chains, locks and keys. The only question beyond this is
>how long it takes us to liberate ourselves from slavery. I don't think
>that OTO enslaves through required secrecy and I hope that I am correct.
I think your definition of slavery needs further illumination. Slavery to
me is being forced into doing something against my Will. Not necessarily
against my desires. (They may be totally different, and often are.)
What does it mean to you?
>|That is my argument. At least the part that I can illuminate through the
>|King text. There are more specific Oaths I would like to point out that
>|come up in the later degrees, but I cannot do so, obviously.
>We may be able to do so soon, if our friend posts more. :>
I hope that doesn't happen, otherwise things could get a little rough.
>I agree that your argument is sound to support your own interpretation.
>I would be a fool to argue against you on this.
I'm glad that you at least agree that my arguement is at least logical, if
not plausible. Hopefully, by the time you read this, you will have spoken
to the GSG.
>|Then perhaps you aren't asking the right questions. There are only so many
>|people in the Order's "upper echelon", so it doesn't make sense that we
>|should get such diametrically opposed views.
>It could be that what one of us has been taking as 'official policy' is
>actually simply common assumption (i.e. dogma or rumor).
I have been making direct inquiries on policy. I can't speak for policy in
the Order, except as it applies to myself and my OTO body, but I can contact
those people who do. And I have done so.
>|The people I talk to are in
>|the Grand Lodge, or E.C., (which means east coast or So. Cal. with the
>|exception of the GTG.)
>Well, you can talk to them all you like. If you simply ask them to tell
>you their interpretations, then you may indeed get an exact support for
>secrecy in the Order (and I think this may be very important if so), yet
>did *you* ask them the 'right questions'? Did you ask any of them if what
>you are telling me (which, I presume they told you) is 'required' and
>considered 'official policy, breaching which will endanger your future
>with the Order'?
I always ask direct questions when I can. I've never been one for gossip,
hearsay, or speculation. I like to get directly to the point.
>Let me be very very clear here. I wish to know if anybody in the Order
>(and the more the better) has every told you that the OTO has an 'accepted'
>and 'required' interpretation of their initiations rites, which, being the
>case, supports the view that secrecy is required of initiates for continued
>membership and 'good report'.
In as far as Oaths are concerned, and in regards to revealing the inner
order "Mysteries" of the Order to non-initiates, yes.
>|and unfortunately, the majority of them do not have an
>|electronic presence, so it isn't likely that we're going to get the kind of
>|answer that you want, online.
>Well, I don't necessarily need them to come here and talk to me/us directly.
>All I'd like is for you to quote somebody in response to what I asked above,
>as they speak *for the Order*.
Hopefully, you will have that answer for yourself in the way of a phone call.
(Or, which was also suggested, a call to your initiator(s), asking them to
contact you in regards to their conversation.)
>|I'll try to get you a USmail letter or phone
>|call.
>I'd appreciate that. I hope you know what I'm after here. Thanks. :>
I believe I do. I fear that it isn't going to be what you want to hear
tho. Unless the people are telling me, and everyone I know in the Order one
thing, and those of you at Joshua Norton something else.
>|>Please have the 'people in the know' offer comment. Also, please identify
>|>them so that we can be sure they speak *for the Order* and are not just
>|>giving their opinions. Thanks.
>|
>|I've gotten Abu online.
>Well, we really don't know who or what 'Abu' is, aside from someone with a
>very short patience and apparently little substance behind his words.
Peace, tolerance, and truth. :) Not everyone finds it as easy to remain
calm when trying to convey emotionally charged issues.
>|I'm trying to get others online too. Of course,
>|you probably won't be satisfied unless it is H.B. who tells you so,
>Look, I don't care if it is you who posts it. I just want you to QUOTE
>somebody directly, who is speaking *for the Order* and directly supports
>your claims. I offer myself as living proof that you are wrong, though
>I may be VERY mistaken and destined for 'bad report'. :>
Xerox as above.
>|it doesn't
>|seem to matter if the people are high-ranking members of the Order (or at
>|least, higher degree than yourself,) or initiators, or that kind of thing.
>Actually it doesn't. All that matters is that they are capable of speaking
>*for the Order* as a whole. I gather that you cannot do this. I suspect
>that Abu cannot. I'm waiting for a QUOTE or a POST which includes this.
Fair enough. I would like to see this myself. I hope you will post your
observations, when you hear from Grand Lodge.
>|>|...But the Order requires Oaths that you will not reveal the nature or
>|>|symbolism of the initiations of the Order.
>|
>|>Please substantiate this. I claim you are wrong and would like to hear it
>|>from someone of substance.
>|
>|I take it you do not consider myself "someone of substance." No, I am not
>|H.B., or currently a member of Grand Lodge, but I am a substantially higher
>|degree initiate than yourself.
>Cool, are you speaking for the Order? Is what you say indicative of official
>policy by which members shall be judged?
I don't need to speak for the Order, nor should I want to. Thats why we have
administrative titles for those in the Order who's duty it is to deal with
issues like these.
>If what I dig up contradicts what you
>say (and so far it has), then I'll come back and challenge your word on it
>too. ;>
It could very well be that the reason those you associate with have the same
ideas on what is and is not policy, stems from common initiators up the
the stream some ways. There seems to be large variations in how each regional
variety of the OTO operates. Take the Thelema Lodge group and compare it
against the Baphomet Lodge group. Almost a black and white difference in
some areas, and almost no difference in others. Unfortunately, policy is
one of the grey areas.
>|>There are very
>|>many good reasons for secrecy, and very few for requiring it.
>|
>|Yes. But the few reasons are good ones.
>According to you, we know. For you this is true. Why should we believe
>that what you say is true for all members?
Seeing it from your side of the fence, there is no reason. But then again,
I am trying to get your proof to you.
>|>I would not ask this question
>|>of them, nor would it be likely that they COULD reveal the Mysteries to me,
>|>even if they wanted to, which they would likely not. That is THEIR CHOICE.
>|
>|They very probably would not, because they have taken Oaths to the effect of
>|not revealing those mysteries (aka secrets) to you.
>Well, that is their prerogative to interpret this way. If they require
>that I do ALSO, especially to be initiated again (hey, I've discussed this
>somewhat with them already), then I'll not go any further in the Order
>and likely 'go renegade'.
The initiatory guidebooks are quite explicit. Not as subject to interpretation
as the not-always-clear pen of Crowley.
Its a moot point anyway, since you won't test this theory unless you were
to break the Oath of secrecy, that you don't maintain to haven taken.
>|>Logically false. My experience shows otherwise. Please substantiate or
>|>desist in your false claims.
>|
>|I have done so, if theere was no doctrine in the initiatory arena, there
>|would have been no Minerval ritual to begin with. A doctrine, as I know
>|it, is "a set of guidelines, used to teach a particular concept, like a
>|religion or a skill," perhaps even a set of symbols used to illuminate
>|certain inner order secrets of the OTO.
>As I tried to explain elsewhere, I don't think that doctrine NEED be a
>requirement, especially 'to prevent anarchy' (:::shiver:::).
Well, in general no. As you say below, many other initiatory and non-
initiatory groups do not need nor use doctrine. However, those groups
are not the OTO, nor do they have the same roadmap to illumination that
the OTO has designed for the aid of their initiates. Of course, that does
not mean that unless you recieve the OTO initiations that you cannot find
the same illumination, but rather than if you follow the path as the OTO
has lain it out, that you will come to the same illumination as those before
you have. (The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion.) In order to make
that theory work, there must be some doctrinal requirements, or nothing
happens.
>Lotsa non-
>traditional witches avoid doctrine very handily and some of us still
>maintain our social hierarchy. Some of us HAVE anarchy (i.e. a lack
>of rulership) and like it very much. Neither do we need to avoid this
>spectre called 'anarchy' nor is it logically necessary to adopt absolute
>doctrines in order to avoid it should we wish to.
Anarchy is not just the lack of rulership. It is the lack of direction,
of motivation, and form. Granted, it is not wise to adopt any absolute
doctrine or dogma, but the OTO offers both the yin and the yang. Chaos
with a side of Order.
>|>Besides, anarchy in regards doctrine is
>|>EXACTLY what there is, even while there is not anarchy of social status
>|>within the Order.
>|
>|Now, it is your turn to substantiate your arguments.
>I was only claiming once again what I've learned from a study of OTO
>documents, what my initiators have and have not told me and required of
>me (very little), and am just batting down your claims by promoting
>myself as a living exception.
>I'm sure that it is possible that I'm just a 'stray', who has 'fallen
>through the cracks of the OTO rules & regs net', and this is why I don't
>shout out that you are a liar and a revolutionary (horrors! :>), but
>simply request (sometimes very adamantly) that you provide something
>to back yourself up other than your own opinions about the Order.
Well, without opinions there is no growth. If I had just gotten a FAX
from HB which stated "The OTO is doctrinal. OTO Oaths require secrecy.
Tyagi is misled." and posted the text of that. It would have been very
boring. Now, I am not saying that this will happen, but I have tried to
explain my side of the story in as compassionate, yet restrained manner I
could, while awaiting a decree of policy from the Grand Lodge. You must
agree, we now know more about each other than we probably would have ever
gotten to know based on the normal amount of feedback between each other.
>|I need to get an official letter or phone call to you
>|from someone who you feel is of sufficient authority to speak for OTO
>|policy.
>Oh I'd greatly love (and hate!) to receive this. I'd love to receive it
>because then I'd have proof that the Order is corrupt and will likely not
>waste my time supporting it (though I may attempt first to change it
>from within by showing the letter around a bit).
Corrupt to you, perhaps. The word "Order" implies structure, and in some
ways that is against the absolute freedom of Thelema. We voluntarily take
some measure of freedom and trade it for structure, so we can have a solid
foundation upon which we can build a future. The Thelemic current does not
require a person be a member of the OTO to be a Thelemite. In some very
real ways, it would be too big a restriction of your freedom to join ANY
organization. That's partially what the A:.A:. is about, but there are also
tradeoffs there.
If you believe that the Order is the crux of Thelema, then I see why you
think this way. It isn't the perfect representation of Thelema, but it is
its heart. If you see it as more, then it probably is corrupt in your eyes.
Of course, I don't think anyone could say that was Order policy, since it
is a statement of belief, based on how I interpret Thelema, but I'm sure
you understand that.
>I'd hate to receive
>it because I have a great fondness for OTO (ask anyone here) and for what
>I think it can become, what it stands for, what it ostensibly supports.
I also have the same fondness for the Order as you, as well as the same
vision.
>You would, in my view (I know, not in yours) be offering me the equivalent
>of proof that the Order has debased itself to the worst possible offense
>(i.e. requirement where it is not administratively necessary/expedient,
>and, I argue, ultimately contrary to what its Prophet put forward in his
>writings).
I don't agree. You are reading something into this whole mess that I don't
see. I don't subscribe to your slavery assertation, nor with the lack for
need of scrutiny and even secrecy. But then again, I may have a different
interpretation of what the Order represents, and how Thelema relates to it.
>|While revealing your "deepest, nastiest secret ritual text" probably wont
>|break any oaths (since there aren't any that haven't already been revealed
>|somewhere), posting the "mysteries" of your initiation rites would likely
>|cause troubles. If that is what it takes, than that is what it will take,
>|but I'd caution you against it, Brother.
>I take this caution very seriously, and, while my infuriation over the
>approach of those such as 'Abu' leads me to make some very strident claims,
>I would have to consider all of this very carefully before entering into
>anything extreme.
I'm glad you feel this way. You are an valuable member of the Order, and
it would be a loss to have this relationship tarnished or destroyed because
of a rash decision.
In the past I have voluntarily placed my membership in the OTO at risk to
defend what I believe to be right. I would do so again, if the cause were
just. Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean that I wouldn't
do the same thing if I felt it necessary. But again, I caution you to use
wisdom, and be sure of what it is you do, before you do it.
>However, sometimes extreme measures are called for
>(as Crowley proved with the GD).
That's often what it comes down to. If it is truly your Will to do a thing
then that is what it will be. Crowley apparently felt it was his Will to
reveal the G:.D:. secrets when he did. However, it could be that the reason
his life turned out so poorly was because of the karmic backlash of such an
action, which was against his Oaths.
>|Are you saying that Oaths taken during initiations are not
>|binding?
>Any oaths of the kind you are speaking are not binding except socially.
>I.e. I would only face social ostracization if I were to break these
>silly rules. I care little about such a reaction.
I see more in it than just social. The OTO is a part of my spiritual
being. The Thelemic current has a lot to do with who I am, and why I do
what I do. I feel that the Oaths I take within the OTO to be magickal
oaths, which are irrevocable, since they involve the process of my magickal
progress. I could very likely make the same progress without the OTO,
perhaps taking longer, and not coming out exactly the same, and most surely,
without having to take any Oaths, but I feel the sacrifice to be noble and
just.
I believe that the breaking of any magickal Oath will cause the Mage to
recieve karmic retribution. Social ostracization may be only one symptom
of such a retribution. Crowley spoke to some extent upon this. If you
don't consider Oaths taken within initiation to be magickal, then there
is the answer to why this whole debacle came up.
>I engage OTO
>because it is my will, it is my path (a discipline of sometimes
>unimaginable torture), not because I care one whit for any rules
>and regulations which may conflict with my will. I've already been
>thrown out of groups (hey, too bad you weren't around for the ARCANA
>debacle :>). Their loss. If people took the time to get to know me,
>they'd see that I'm after the emancipation of all people, and that I
>think my actions will lead to this, even (especially?) if everyone
>were to emulate me. ;>
This is going to sound bad, but you should probably start your own Order
then. Now I don't mean this to be facist, but it has been shown that
those people who start their own Order, tend to attract people with a
similiar nature to themself.
>Not only this, I think Crowley supported it, exemplified it, and that
>the UNIVERSE supports it. Any organization or individual which does
>NOT support the Law of Thelema will be ripped to shreds and fall upon
>the shards of their own sin.
I think Crowley supported it but was destroyed by it. The Law of Thelema
is a very broad ranging Law. It has room for any possibility. Including,
<shudder> the freedom that one has by giving up their freedom. (Not to
say that any organization does this, besides maybe the Xtians. <ducking>)
>This is the law of the strong! We accept of no substitutes. :D Fun.
For True Will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is
every way perfect.
>|I agree that they can be superceeded by later Oaths, if you allow
>|for that, but they are still binding.
>Upon you, I have no doubt. They are not binding in any way except
>possible socially, for me, yet you have not shown even this.
That is because we disagree on the nature of the Oaths involved.
>|...that Will is a tool with which you set out to find and
>|fufill your Great Work. The Will is an aspect of that Great Work, and is
>|empowered by the gnosis of union with the Divine (or HGA).
>What beauty! What perfection! How well you have said this! I applaud
>your expression! Encore! Author! Cudos! Huevos! I genuinely admire
>your ability to express this. Thank you very much.
See, now look at what you made me do. :) But, I hope I still have not said
anything that will color the aspirations of others to define Will for
themselves.
>|I don't
>|particularily care to explain things in philosophical terms like that, but
>|you asked for more specific information, in at least how I understand Will.
>I don't know why you have a problem with it, but I appreciate your candor.
>Crowley at least has said things which are similar.
I don't think that knowing my definition of Will helps to illuminate the
conflict we have been having, but if you feel it helps, I am glad.
>I don't believe anything, and I find that, for me, belief leads
>to mind/soul death. By 'belief' I mean the assumption that a particular
>perspective or ideal-construct is 'true'.
>(i.e. "I believe that God exists" = "I assume that the statement that 'God
> exists' is absolutely true and 'God does not exist' is absolutely false.")
I have no problem saying something like "God does and does not exist." That
statement can hold differring 'quantum states' depending on the context of
the analysis. So, it can both be absolutely true and false at the same
time. While this does not always make sense, it does to me.
Doubt all. Doubt even that thou doubtest all.
I try to remain neutral for most situations, except when it gets close to
home. This, is one of those times.
>|>No doubt you take them seriously. Perhaps overly. YOU would consider
>|>it in direct violation of your oaths/Oaths. Let me give you a hypothetical.
>|>Presume for the moment that the OTO is NOT doctrinally-based in this
>|>matter, and that you may interpret the ritual text in any manner you
>|>choose. Presume secondly that you choose to interpret your oaths NOT
>|>as restrictions regarding secrecy but as statements about the limitations
>|>of language and communications. Given this, would it then be a 'direct
>|>violation of your Oaths' to speak of the particulars of text or form?
>|
>|If I were to presume that, then I would probably feel free to say or do
>|anything I like, regardless of what it was, since I obviously only see
>|what I want to see, and ignore what I don't want to see.
>Well then, if I am supported by the 'official policy of OTO' (or lack
>thereof), then you'll at least understand where I'm coming from. :>
>I feel free to say and do whatever I like and think I can be supported
>by just such reasoning.
>|...I couldn't see anything as SIN. The dogma of such a
>|concept as SIN would be too restrictive for me to comprehend. Therefore,
>|I would probably not care much at all about what people do, or how they
>|do it. I wouldn't aid anyone in anything, nor come down hard on anyone.
>Whatever happened to 'the word of Sin is Restriction'? Hmmmm.
That would be a restriction in itself. Of course, I could also take it to
be literal in the sense of language, as in Sin=Restriction. So, the text
"the word of Sin is Sin" and "the word of Restriction is Restriction" would
be the same as "the word of Sin is Restriction."
If you do not restrict yourself at all, then you cannot ever undertake any
degree of learning. It would be restrictive to believe that you do not
know everything there is to know. Yet, there would also be restriction in
believing that you know everything. There is no such thing as perfect freedom
nor complete restriction. We need to find the balance within ourselves.
>|You don't think it is doctrinal now... You should have seen it 10 years
>|ago!
>Eh? I'd like you to clarify this. I can't tell what you are intending
>to imply here. Are you saying that it is much more 'structured'/'doctrinal'
>than it was 10 years ago (this would fit into the Grady/anti-Grady war),
>or that it is LESS so now (which I don't understand, if so)?
Both. But, I'd better save the reason for this for another post, or a
private letter, since the size of this is getting too overwhelming, and I
could post a couple of pages on this subject.
>"I am trying to
>understand why you believe that the Oaths (and Mysteries of the initiation)
>are REQUIRED TO BE held as sacred and secret." I wish to know what
>convinces you that members are required to be secretive. I think you've
>already answered this to some degree since I've asked it (you say that
>your conversations with various upper Order initiates convinced you of
>this). I have no doubt that this is true. It may also be true that
>what is 'policy' is different than what of you are convinced. :> If
>this is the case, what would your reaction be?
Then I would say that a policy of some kind need be published to lay to
rest the dichotomy in the Order as to this kind of subject. Until this
conversation, I have not met another member of the Order that held the
same opinion on the issue of Order secrets. Of course, I have only met
a small percentage of the Order-at-large (Maybe 3-5%), and of those that
I have met, I did not direct questions of this nature to each one. However,
of the ones I know well (maybe 20 members), I would be very suprised to
see any of them disagreeing with my position in this issue.
I would be not be alarmed, if HB were to declare that the Mysteries of our
Order were not to be considered restricted. In fact, I would probably
celebrate it, and enjoin all the people I know to participate in its
Mysteries. (BUT, I wouldn't post copyrighted material in the process.)
>|Nor can I speak for the OTO
>|in this matter, so why do you ask something you know that I cannot provide?
>If you cannot, then that answers my first question to you. I posed the
>same to Abu, and from his nonresponse I gather that he is in a similar
>position. Of all possible members, who *is* in a position to say what
>is and what is not Order policy and speak *for* the Order? Certainly
>not me. :>
The E.C. is the most direct representative of the Order at large. But
any Grand Lodge member, (particularily those within the NSC) can fill those
shoes, and, of course, anything H.B. says is law.
>|>I'm getting tired of all this
>|>bluster over an issue which I've argued many times and never had any
>|>substance come of it but my continued verity.
>|
>|Me too. It doesn't do either of us any good, since obviously we each have
>|our own perspective on the issue, and neither seems to be willing to change.
>Oh this discussion is very relevant, I think, but what I'm getting tired
>of is people (like you and Abu) coming and vomitting all your dogma all
>over me and my friends without something to back it up. That's what
>tries my patience, not that we have a difference of opinion. I think
>differences of opinion are VERY healthy! So are arguments like this one
>when you can come up with something to back you up! :> I'm patient.
Well, the same can be said of you, and your arguement. In actuality, it is
more appropriately reversed, since "coming and ..." would tend to make the
vomiter a new arrival, and you are a new arrival to us. So, you came along
and spewed forth your diatribe upon us, (and as far as we know), the rest of
the Order. Obviously, there is the possibility that we are wrong, but I
don't think we could have recieved the initiatory current without being
briefed on what that consists of. Plus, the GSG would have said something
before the conversations of late.
Where is your proof? We cannot use ourselves as examples, because we each
represent our own issues.
>With kin, they are addressed as reasonable adults and dealt with maturely,
>accepting of their differences where possible, seriously considering what
>they have to say, and in as many ways as possible allowing them to do,
>think, and act in the way which they choose. See _Liber OZ_.
Again, this can be attributed to the Oath issue. To me, Oaths are a
solidification of one's Will, to a specific purpose, for a specific cause.
If you take an Oath, you say that it is your Will to restrict yourself in
that way. So, OZ is maintained. You are only responsible to yourself to
keep the Oaths. If you do not, the karmic retribution is what causes the
other problems to befall you. (Such as the social ostricization.) So,
as long as you are doing your Will, you cannot be a slave.
>|Even "The Master," Crowley called the
>|OTO a "serious and SECRET" organization.
>There are many ways to interpret this.
Secret means secret, no matter how you interpret it.
>|The King ritual asks the candidate
>|to WILLINGLY understake the Oaths involved with the Order, not to enslave,
>|but to liberate them.
>Yup. And I do continue to "willingly and voluntarily accept (submit to)
>discipline and organization, to maintain the knowledge and activation of
>my will", I have understood the regulations of the Order to be limited
>to administration, and have seen NO "apparent restrictions which my
>obligations place upon me" that compromise this will of mine. Once and if
>I do, so much for the regulations of the Order - they will be as cobwebs
>to an elephant, kindling to the fire of my wrath.
Again, this all falls to semantics and the practice of making Oaths. You
feel the semantics of the "Mysteries" in the text do not include the symbol
and regalia of the OTO (or such as it was when the King ritual was
chronicled.) And likewise, feel that the Oaths that that ritual requires
are only social Oaths, so therefore not binding magickally. If that is
indeed the case, then there is no restriction upon you. And again, it
will do no good arguing the case, because that is ultimately what it comes
down to.
>PS to all you people who were arguing that my interpretations of these
>Thelemic concepts was 'overly lax' or that Crowleyites were 'unrealistic
>idealists with no head for logic and rationality': See now what I am
>up against?
Logic and rationality can sometimes break down when confronted with such
concepts as ultimate freedom or ultimate restriction.
>I have those OUTSIDE my Order telling me that I am too liberal, that I
>am an 'anarchist' and a 'Satanist'. I have those INSIDE my Order telling
>me virtually the same thing!
That's what you get. Karma is fun sometimes.
>Our world does devolve so quickly, there is
>very little room for individual freedom. Let us hope that what the Master
>has begun will build up steam, break away from this horrid carcass which
>I call 'THE SLAVERY OF ORGANIZATION', and renew itself in everlasting
>perfection! May each of you achieve the Summum Bonum, True Wisdom and
>Perfect Happiness. Yea, may you achieve True Wisdom and Perfect Happiness!
Without some organization, there will be no freedom. So, while I agree with
the principle of what you say, I disagree with the method of its achievement.
(I had to disagree somewhere, otherwise the universe would split in two and
be destroyed. <grin>)
93 93/93.
JJ...@psuvm.psu.edu
A different thread on the "Quotations" group had me
reading George Bernard Shaw's _Back to Methuselah_.
The preface to the play would repay reading for
any Thelemic initiate, I think.
The play charts humankind's Evolution, through the
agency of Will. The first act is set in the Garden
of Eden where the Serpent (a female) is instructing
Adam and Eve on a number of new and interesting words.
She has just taught Adam to understand the word "fear."
The following passage seemed to me providential in that I
read it the same day as the broken-vow-and-ritual reaction
threaded through this group. (The passage *is* copyrighted,
of course. I quote only a small portion, for the purpose
of demonstration):
ADAM Fear will drive me to anything. The serpent gave
me fear. Let it now give me certainty or go in fear of me.
SERPENT Bind the future by your will. Make a vow.
ADAM What is a vow?
SERPENT Choose a day for your death; and resolve to die on
that day. Then death is no longer uncertain but certain.
Let Eve vow to love you until your death. Then love will
be no longer uncertain.
ADAM Yes: that is splendid: that will bind the future.
EVE [displeased, turning away from the serpent] But it will
destroy hope.
ADAM [angrily] Be silent, woman. Hope is wicked. Happiness
is wicked. Certainty is blessed.
SERPENT What is wicked? You have invented a word.
ADAM Whatever I fear to do is wicked. Listen to me, Eve;
and you, snake, listen too, that your memory may hold
my vow. I will live a thousand sets of the four seasons - -
SERPENT Years. Years.
ADAM I will live a thousand years; and then I will endure
no more: I will die and take my rest. And I will love Eve
all that time and no other woman.
EVE And if Adam keeps his vow I will love no other man
until he dies.
SERPENT You have both invented marriage. And what he will
be to you and not to any other woman is husband; and what
you will be to him and not to any other man is wife.
ADAM [instinctively moving his hand towards her] Husband and wife.
EVE [slipping her hand into his] Wife and husband.
SERPENT [laughs] !!!
EVE [snatching herself loose from Adam] Do not make that odious
noise, I tell you.
ADAM Do not listen to her: the noise is good: it lightens
my heart. You are a jolly snake. But you have not made
a vow yet. What vow do you make?
SERPENT I make no vows. I take my chance.
ADAM Chance? What does that mean?
SERPENT It means that I fear certainty as you fear uncertainty.
It means that nothing is certain but uncertainty. If I
bind the future I bind my will. If I bind my will I strangle
creation.
EVE Creation must not be strangled. I tell you I will
create, though I tear myself to pieces in the act.
ADAM Be silent, both of you. I will bind the future.
I will be delivered from fear. [to Eve] We have made our
vows; and if you must create, you shall create within the
bounds of those vows. You shall not listen to that snake
any more.
EVE Let me go, you fool. It has not yet told me the secret.
ADAM That is true. What is a fool?
EVE I do not know: the word came to me. It is what you
are when you forget and brood and are filled with fear.
Let us listen to the snake.
ADAM No: I am afraid of it. I feel as if the ground were
giving way under my feet when it speaks. Do you stay and
listen to it.
SERPENT [laugh] !!!
ADAM [brightening] That noise takes away fear. Funny. The snake
and the woman are going to whisper secrets.
[He chuckles and goes away slowly, laughing his first laugh].
EVE Now the secret. The secret.
[She sits on the rock and throws her arms round the serpent,
who begins whispering to her].
Eve's face lights up with intense interest, which increases
until an expression of overwhelming repugnance takes its
place. She buries her face in her hands.
**********
One can imagine, mutatis mutandis, this scene being part of an
initiation drama.
WRT the discussion going on in this group, it seems that we
are divided between (in Shaw's terms) "Adamic" practitioners
and the "Serpentine".
Doug Pavey
Abu_Musa_Jab...@sorbbs.sorinc.cutler.com wrote:
:Ty...@cup.portal.com (Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva) wrote:
:> I disagree. Secrecy is part of the discipline which SOME undertake.
:
: You have joined an order which requires the utmost secrecy from its adepts.
Many organisations conform to this philosophy. Most do not really have
any to keep, and thus suggest that what is discussed within the confines
of any meeting of the group, unless specified in that meeting are not to
be discussed with persons that are not members of the same rank and order.
: You knew that when you joined, or like many people, you joined being
: uninformed (although I don't think this is the case with you... knowing
: your initiator). If you don't want to keep secrets, quit. If you break
: your oaths you will be placed on bad report... perhaps permanently.
Sounds logical. However, the idea of secrecy should be made known in the
starting minutes of the rite or ceremony, before the oath or obligation
is requested of the candidate, with adequate routes for orderly egress
from the proceedings at any point that the candidate does not wish to
continue until further explaination is offerred to quell their misgivings.
:> Who told you that the Order requires any sort of restriction?
:> Don't you think that this is rather contrary to the Law of Thelema?
:
: As I state earlier: The Law of Thelema requires responsibility. You are
: mistaken by assuming it is unThelemic to assume that and organization
: subscrbing to the Laws of Thelema is running agaisnt the grain by
: expectiong you to be honorable and keep your oaths.
Many religious orders and religions or belief systems expect an adherance
to an oath or obligation taken under one's own free Will. The measure of
a man is best based upon his word.
:> I suggest you take a peek into _Book Four_.
:
: NOWHERE in Book Four does it say one should feel free to break their oaths.
:
:> I did, I don't agree. Now what?
:
: If you don't agree, perhaps other organizations are more lax pertaining to
: secrecy. Perhaps the Masons?
Freemasonry expect and demand secrecy of it's members on certain points.
Much of the ritual has been revealed in many places. Some true, others
partially true, still others present so little truth that they are more
harm than good, the remainder are completely ficticious.
I do take offence at the implications that you made in that remark, as it
was and is uncalled for, not to mention completely untrue.
:> Well, I'm RE-posting excerpts from them. I'm an initiate. Does
:> this now make the point relevant?
: No, it makes you dishonorable, a squelcher. A makes you a person not to be
: trusted because your word does not mean anything.
Does an excerpt hurt, especially if it aids in the understanding of
what it means to be a member, explaining tenets or philosophies that
are illustrated within the allegory used in the initiation?
Experiences based upon the life of the candidate are all he has to draw
upon. Sometimes it is the only potent example from his experiences that
can be used to illustrate the point. One must be careful of how far to
go and what can be given, but small snippets should not hurt, if given
properly and given in just enough detail to demonstrate the point.
The initiate should be able to talk freely about parts of his experience
and not about other parts. The initiate should be told what parts are
to be kept secret and what cannot be mentioned to anyone outside the
group. Otherwise, the new member does not know what can or cannot be
mentioned. To some, this means all, to others, it may mean nothing.
Shalom. Go in Peace.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Douglas A. Pavey /\---. This is not an official document of
Systems Analyst/MIS Mgr /()\--' AAA Sports or WildCard. My employer
AAA Sports dba Wild Card .--/\\//\ does not pay me to speak for them.
+1 513/860-3440 ext 278 `-/ \/ \
cccbbs!doug....@uceng.uc.edu Member of #695 F&AM + #193 RAM (OH)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Darrin Hyrup quotes me and writes:
|You should be (if you haven't already) recieving a call from the GSG, who
|can speak for the NSC in regards to this, and to your questions about
|initiatory responsibility and the Oaths involved.
Haven't yet. I'll be listening for it. I've been working weekends, so
he might have missed me if he tried earlier. Thanks! More fun!
|Believe me, a good many people have been expelled under the emergency
|clause. All it really takes is the NSC or HB to say it, and it is done.
|(That is usually assuming that the evidence against the member is without
|defense.)
Now this is what I'd like to know more about. Could you explain your
statement a bit? What is 'the emergency clause'? Is that the one
which allows them to expell based on 'committing some act which is greatly
prejudicial to the O.T.O.'?
|>|It would be impossible for Abu, myself, or any other person to do this
|>|until such time as you receive a charter to initiate.
|
|>It would not be physically impossible, though you may consider it beyond
|>your abilities within the confines of the interpretations of your oaths.
|
|This has nothing to do with Oaths, it says this information specifically
|in the Initiator's Handbook.
May I ask if you agreed to what was in that Handbook prior to seeing it?
When is the request for secrecy made? Upon applying or being accepted
for Initiator status?
This is all very important information for me to hear. Thank you very much.
Thomas E. Conlon IV
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Darrin Hyrup and I have quite a long exchange going on, and while I
appreciate his response, I don't see revelatory information within it
which resolves the original issue. I quote his questions and a couple
of his statements and respond to them below:
|Do you also agree that "The Mysteries" of the OTO may be different
|from "The Mysteries" as delivered by another initiatory body, or by
|personal initiation?
I think that one may interpret these words in any way they choose.
Someone pointed out to me recently (Graeme, I think) that we, just
prior to the text at issue (at least in the King version), declare
that we are "a native of Corinth, a freeman of the city of Athens,
the ally of Mitylene, and that [we are] travelling peacable to Heliopolis,
the City of the Sun, in search of Light and Truth, of Wisdom and
Peace."
Now I think this rather nicely sets the stage for the initiate to
take things rather METAPHORICALLY and SYMBOLICALLY, rather than
LITERALLY, especially as "your MYSTERIES" are mentioned in the next
line by the same person ('Saladin'). Not only is it unlikely that
the person who is performing the rite the historical Saladin, but
it is also unlikely that the initiate originates as she is asked to
declare. This is one reason I asked what "Order" is being referred
to in the text. I think this is in NO way obvious. I took it, after
reflection, to mean that it was the Secret Templars, and that our rite
was a magical time-phase (perhaps described as invoking the spirits of
the original knight-monks), allowing us to become initiates of the
Order with which OTO associates most strongly. I'd hate to hear that
this interpretation (and its accompanying lack of requirement of
secrecy) was forbidden. I'd be very reminded of the Masons, so many of
whom seem to have completely overlooked the very rich meaning of their
rites.
|I think your definition of slavery needs further illumination. Slavery
|to me is being forced into doing something against my Will.
For one, what you describe is coercion or aggressive violation. It is not
really up to 'slavery' unless it is continual. For another, I think it
is impossible to do ANYTHING which will prevent, sway, swerve or otherwise
prohibit another from doing their Will. If we are able to, then it was
not their Will at all.
|Not necessarily against my desires. (They may be totally different, and
|often are.)
After some reflection this makes some sense to me. I know there are some
people who engage 'Master-Slave' relationships, and while the Master may
require (physically, emotionally or simply verbally) that the Slave do
something which they find repugnant, if they really didn't desire to be
in the relationship and do it, then they would not.
It is also possible that our desires conflict with our true will (which I
presume you mean by 'Will'). I don't think we can be forced to bend from
our true will, and I think that Crowley's text supports me in this. You
seemed to refer to it slightly when you quoted the _Book of the Law_:
"For pure will, unassuaged.... is in every way perfect." I don't think
perfection can be prevented in the slightest.
|What does it [slavery] mean to you?
What I meant by it is was convincing someone through torture, lies, the
requirement of oaths or otherwise that they MUST submit their will to you
or anyone else in order to discover their true will. The lies and web
of deceipt which television spreads is a type of mental straight-jacket,
and I meant that I think REQUIRING certain thoughts/interpretations of
any texts is similar to this, especially if it is not PREVIOUSLY
mentioned, but even at any time at all. Conditioning people to be sheep
is a lot easier than breaking them like horses after they've tasted
their freedom. Both circumstances (conditioned or broken) are what
I mean by slavery. Surely you are not talking about the former, but
what you are describing seems to me very much like the latter.
|You... feel that the Oaths that [the OTO] ritual requires are only
|social Oaths, so therefore are not binding magickally.
...
|If you don't consider Oaths taken within initiation to be magickal,
|there is the answer to why this whole debacle came up.
I tried to be nice about this, but I'm genuinely suprised that you
and Abu respond in this way, especially after you both made such a
big deal about being so very familiar with the Master's work. I'll
quote a line or two for you:
"A real Magical Oath cannot be broken; you think it can, but it can't.
This is the advantage of a real Magical Oath."
_Magick_ (_Book Four_, Part I), By Crowley,
Edited by Symonds/Grant, page 71.
___________________________________________
If I have even the POSSIBILITY of breaking the oaths you speak of,
then they are merely social rules, not magical oaths. If they
can be broken, then the rites are not magical. Period.
|Where is your proof? We cannot use ourselves as examples, because
|we each represent our own issues.
No, you don't represent an example that the Order requires secrecy or
the particular interpretation of its rites. If you had been KICKED
OUT of the Order for breaking these rules, then you'd be an example.
I AM an example of how the Order has either let someone fall through
the cracks interpreting rites as they will, or of how the Order does
not have requirements in this area. I claim it is the latter and hope
that my claim is born up.
Grendel Grettisson
Joshua Geller <jos...@cpac.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>al billings (I think) pointed out that altnet has no rules or
>policy as such. this is true. this means that the anonymous poster
>posting copyrighted materials and the person at sorinc.cutler.com
>posting forged cancellation messages are neither of them violating
>any 'policy'. it also means that if someone wrote a script to cancel
>every post coming from sorinc.cutler.com, they would not be violating
>any 'policy' either.
I did say the above but I find your idea to be bad. This was actually
done (with slight variations) earlier this year. Someone wrote a cancel
robot to take out postings from the anon site. He publically told people
what he had done before he was going to implement it and even attempted
to have it do a test run to edit his own posts slightly to show that his
program worked. Unfortunatly, he wasn't as good of a programmer as he
thought he was and managed to have his robot create HUNDREDS of
duplicates of his messages in the Usenet policy newsgroup. Needless to
say, the public reaction to this (from machines being crashed by 250 line
long headers and hour long transfer times for news) caused quite a little
backlash against the fellow. Ask someone in those newsgroups about it
sometime. The standard threat now against people who threaten to
implement such a program is to threaten to write a counter-program to
cancel THIER messages and THEIR cancel messages. You can see how this can
start going back and forth. Forging cancel messages is in poor taste enough.
Wassail,
Grendel Grettisson
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
| Al Billings aka Grendel Grettisson | "You are, each one, a priest, |
| mi...@u.washington.edu | Just for yourself." |
| Sysop of The Sacred Grove (206)634-1980 | |
| Admin for Troth-L, The Asatru E-Mail List | -Noble Drew Ali- |
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
Grendel Grettisson
Darrin A. Hyrup <sha...@sorinc.cutler.com> wrote:
>Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva (Ty...@cup.portal.com) writes:
>>It would not be physically impossible, though you may consider it beyond
>>your abilities within the confines of the interpretations of your oaths.
>
>This has nothing to do with Oaths, it says this information specifically
>in the Initiator's Handbook.
Too bad that this information and handbook is limited to the Initiators
and not given to the Initiates. If it was given to them, then Tagi would
already have heard it.
Thomas E. Conlon IV
Well now that the cat is out of the bag, thank you Tyagi...
have been trying to tie all the symbolism together, that helped a little
Anyone have any info on like where Thelema will be now? Berkeley? O-town?
jeez I am almost driving again and am really excited about going to classes
etc. becuase workshops had just started again and Jerry had to get married
*sigh* happens to the best of us!
(p.s. grats to Jerry and Marlene!!! many happy years!)
Love is the Law, Love under Will!
-tom
con...@crl.com
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
TMN> reviewed the entirety of the Articles and a good portion of the
Bylaws
TMN> and have NOT discovered ANY clauses about secrecy. Supposing I find
TMN> nothing there, this only leaves any Rules and Regulations of the
TMN> National Supreme Council regarding secrecy to be determined.]
The obvious does not need to be instated. The Oaths are clear and do not
require interpretation. However, thanks to such things there will probably
need to be an ammendment made.
Tim Maroney
<knigh...@CMU.EDU> writes:
>Regarding undermining ritual secrecy: From what I've noticed about
>human psychology, the sole purpose of ritual secrets (that I can find)
>is to impress them more firmly upon the mind of the Candidate. In other
>words, for example, a Master Mason is aided in retaining his myriad
>passwords, signs, and grips, because he remembers that they must never
>be disclosed to the profane. Also, this makes them a useful key in
>switching from "normal" consciousness to the peculiar state of mind
>demanded by ritual.
That's one of the main reasons, to be sure. But there are other
reasons. You might be interested in reading Jean La Fontaine's book
_Initiation_ from Penguin (1985) for an anthropological perspective on
the role of "secret knowledge". Initiation acts to move the initiate
from one condition of existence to another, and the thing which makes
the initiate a member of the "sacral order" is precisely this
possession of secret knowledge. That is, the sacred order of initiates
is defined as the body of persons having this knowledge. This is just
as true of a completely open rite of passage like marriage as it is of
the secret ceremonies of Freemasons or the Triad.
I'm not arguing with you, just building on your valid insight. I do
think you go too far in saying that your reason is the only reason,
though. I made a similar mistake some years ago in the Twilight
Crossing charter when I said that secrecy would be permitted only as a
way of facilitating ritual surprise. Secrecy serves quite a few
different functions -- not all of which are praiseworthy!
--
Tim Maroney, Communications and User Interface Engineer
{apple!sun}!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"A book is the product of a contract with the Devil that inverts the Faustian
contract, he'd told Allie. Dr Faustus sacrificed eternity in return for two
dozen years of power; the writer agrees to the ruination of his life, and
gains (but only if he's lucky) maybe not eternity, but posterity, at least.
Either way (this was Jumpy's point) it's the Devil who wins."
-- Salman Rushdie, THE SATANIC VERSES
Tim Maroney
Um, yes, they are. They swear never to reveal the rituals, in words
very similar to the oaths of secrecy sworn by regular Freemasons.
Though, generally speaking, the oaths are not enforced (for reasons
both pragmatic and mystical -- after all, they are drawn in such a way
that it is impossible to violate them in their essence) I am fairly
sure that anyone who improperly divulged initiatory materials would be
expelled.
>|If so, then why should anyone make a big deal about the ritual being posted?
>Because it could be dangerous or it could ruin the experience for many
>who would otherwise benefit tremendously from it.
They don't have to read it. If they do read it, then their reading of
it (freely chosen) is part of their initiation. While I don't speak
for the Order hierarchy, it is certainly not a dogma that studying a
ritual in advance will prevent the initiation from having its effect.
It is well known in the Order that it is folly to initiate those who
have not initiated themselves, and that the true initiations happen in
the world, outside the formal ritual context. Actually performing the
ceremony is the least part of initiation.
You have to realize that the "secret" rituals were published years
before the current formal branch of the Order even existed. The
Caliphate has never been under the illusion that its candidates would
not have studied its rituals before taking them. Such study is neither
forbidden nor recommended. It is a matter for the individual
conscience.
--
Tim Maroney, Communications and User Interface Engineer
{apple!sun}!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"The pride of the peacock is the glory of God.
The lust of the goat is the bounty of God.
The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God.
The nakedness of woman is the work of God."
- Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
Tim Maroney
>% which you will again repeat after me. 'If I break this oath and betray
>% the bread and salt, may I be mutilated and be no more a man.'
The analyses of the Minerval oath that I've seen all omit one main
approach: that a true magical oath cannot be betrayed. It is not as if
some geas were being laid upon you to force you to act a certain way;
instead, a fact of nature is being revealed to you. If you betray the
bread and salt, then by nature you are no longer a man or a woman. No
Cosmic Juju will come down and cut off your genitals; no unconscious
force will neccessarily turn your body against you; by betraying the
bread and salt you have denied your own nature as a sexual being. You
have symbolically emasculated or defeminized yourself. This would
be true whether you took the initiation or not.
>I should confess that there was one part of the
>ritual that went right over my head. Of what are the 'salt' and 'bread'
>symbolic, and how might they be betrayed? I was only able to read them as
>hospitality ... but I suspect I am missing a great deal.
I think I just gave you the answer, albeit indirectly. To say more
would be pointless, since one purpose of the ritual is to encourage the
initiate to ponder the meaning of these symbols.
--
Tim Maroney, Communications and User Interface Engineer
{apple!sun}!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"I am convinced that cross-posting is an evil Satanic plot."
-- Eugene Miya on soc.net-people, misc.headlines, misc.kids, misc.misc,
news.misc, and soc.misc
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
<knigh...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
Actually, I wrote this :)
>Tyagi, if you were to quote the text of the current Minerval, you would
>most certainly be put on bad report, and quite possibly expelled.
> while I recognize that this is only an educated guess and need not
> represent the facts, it says something about a so-called "Thelemic"
> order, doesn't it?
> whatever happened to Will?
Your Will may or may not have anything to do whith what one wants: in
fact, ones Will may be completely at odds with an individual's desire.
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
-- Via DLG Pro v0.995
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
<knigh...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
> TMN> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
> TMN> Man has the right to think, speak, write and build what he will.
>
> [then Abu himself]
>Let me guess. I bet you think you are Crowley, right? If I wanted to go
>to McDonald's with an Uzi and whippe out several families while they were
>enjoying the Sunday morning with a Big Mac I should just assume it was my
>will to do it correct? Not likely pal, I wish people like you would stop
>bastardizing The Law to justify your inabilities to behave honorably.
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
> The word of Sin is Restriction.
> I now quote from Liber OZ.
[Liber OZ omited]
> people in question had the Will to die, then they would be fools to
> stand in his way. (I do hope that this would not come to pass, and it
> should be noted that with the freedom of Thelema comes responsibility.
>
This is where "restriction" comes in: Suppose at least one of the
individuals at the Mc Donald's had many years ahead of them, then, the
criminal in question would have effectively interfered with the Will of
another: This is restriction.
> However, I have little doubt that Haramullah, being II' OTO and based
> on our private conversations, would be very careful in implementing the
> Law.)
> Now, of course you have the *right* to say that Tyagi is bastardizing"
> the Law to "justify his inability to behave honorably." But at the
> same time as you have the right, it doesn't sound all that Thelemic, or
> intelligent. Comprende?
One of us is incorrect. Wouldn't you agree? Please do not try to apply
philosophical importance to the question. There is nothing sublime in an
oath that specifically states "don't do this". If a persoan cannot keep
their oaths, or take them seriously one is better off refusing to take them
than to be though dishonest. That is my only point.
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Davis-Howe) wrote:
BD> Abu_Musa_Jab...@sorbbs.sorinc.cutler.com (Abu Musa Jabir
BD> Ibn Hayyan) writes:
>I agree. However, why would you think that a person who has neither the
>knowledge or the experience with the OTO rituals can deliver the
initiation
>successfully?
BD> Of course, Aleister Crowley, toward the end of his life, granted
people
BD> the 9th degree by virtue of them paying him money and him handing them
BD> the rituals to read. You are demanding more structure than Crowley
BD> seemed to feel was necessary. If Crowley thought "that a person who
has
BD> neither the knowledge or the experience with the OTO rituals can
deliver
BD> the initiation successfully" why don't you?
This is an untruth. There was a time where the "Santuary of The Gnosis"
was incomplete, and therefore its ineffectiveness was hampered by the fact
that it did not contain the necessary number of members. Crowley gave some
individuals "honorary degrees" to the IX with the understanding that if
they were going to be paying the dues of their degrees. If you could quote
your source I would be greatful.
(Also, the Ninths job is not one of initiation.)
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
TMN> 931002 [Methinks he's grasping for straws now. No substance, eh?]
That's a matter of opinion. I don't see other OTO members rushing out of
the wood work to validate your claims.
TMN> Abu Hayyan quotes me and writes:
|>|[Abu]
|>|If you have neither time nor inclination for the OTO, then you
|>|certainly have no right to help yourself to the study of its
|>|Mysteries.
|>Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
|>Man has the right to think, speak, write and build what he will.
TMN> |Let me guess. I bet you think you are Crowley, right?
TMN> I've associated with 666 before. You decide.
Yet another one. Define "associated" please.
TMN> |If I wanted to go
TMN> |to McDonald's with an Uzi and whippe out several families while
TMN> they were
TMN> |enjoying the Sunday morning with a Big Mac I should just assume it
TMN> was my
TMN> |will to do it correct?
TMN> I won't tell you what your will is. Figure it out yourself,
TMN> lunkhead.
Such disrespect and arrogance. WHy Taygi, you, a man of words resorting to
name calling?
TMN> |Not likely pal, I wish people like you would stop
TMN> |bastardizing The Law to justify your inabilities to behave
TMN> honorably.
TMN> It is the your conviction regarding there being absolute standards
TMN> of 'honorable behavior' which convinces me of your slavery.
You are a slave of a self righteous, over inflated ego. I have not set any
standards for "honorable behavior" outside of breaking oaths. I am calling
the kettle black: if you behave like a liar...
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
TMN> Indeed. I feel it would be horrible of you to tell me what I should
TMN> do at all, and this is the central issue I'm putting forward. That
OTO
TMN> would stoop to telling its members HOW TO INTERPRET ITS RITES strikes
me
TMN> as very evil (or at least contrary to everything for which it
supposedly
TMN> stands).
No one interprets the obvious Taygi. The oath is loud an clear. No one
wants to tell you what kind of experience to have after your initiation,
that would be ridiculous. Certain things are in the temple when you are
initiated: those symbols have a specific purpose or role in the
initiation. If I say to you "that red chair over there is symbolic of the
Throne of Saint Nick" I am not interpreting anything. I would be simply
stating a fact which you may, or may not be aware of.
TMN> This is hardly my argument. I am not saying that we ought rewrite
TMN> them (though this might be a very good thing for us all), but that
we
TMN> ought to be left to interpret them as we will.
Again. I don't understand what you are refering to. It IS highly likely
that you may be refering to something completely different than what I am
getting. Everyone is left to interpret their experience as they will. The
initiator's only duty is that the candidate is fully informed about their
oaths and the symbols used in the rite.
TMN> I've never been required to give the grips, et al, when approaching
TMN> these bodies again. They knew I'd been initiated. Perhaps they
didn't
TMN> bother.Of course if I went to New Jersey and expected a member to
TMN> provide me with a place to stay in their Lodge for a night or two and
TMN> they asked me to demonstrate my membership, I might not be able to.
TMN> Why? Because I have continually rejected these items as symbolically
TMN> important though on the whole only supportive of secrecy. When my
TMN> initiators implied at any time hat they considered any information
TMN> 'secret', I either destroyed it or gave it back to them or both, and
I
TMN> make no effort to remember them.
This behavior is admirable. (To me, anyways) But the reason that you
didn't just say "ok, I wont tell anyone", and then run to your computer to
post it on internet is that you must have had the inclination that to do so
would be either dishonest, or dishonorable. (I am assuming a lot, but
that's how I interpret your post. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
:))
Why not discuss the oath with your initiator BEFORE you take it? Ask if
you will be required to take an oath of secrecy, and if you are then you
can decide whether or not you can, in all good consciousness take the
degree? This is a suggestion. Not an order.
TMN> It was their prerogative to consider them secrets, but as long as
TMN> they do not require that *I* do so, then I will continue to spew
forth
TMN> lovely information from the depths of my mind without restraint
Here I see a "catch-22". You say that as long as they don't require that
*you* keep secret you will continue to "spew forth". But then you mention
that if the Order DOES require *you* to keep secrets you will "spew forth".
It seems that you just don't want to be incorrect. Look, if the Order
requires your secrecy, and you feel that this is hampering YOUR spiritual
development or freedom, then you can quit. If it is NOT hampering YOUR
spirtual progress or freeedom then why not conform to the oaths that you
take willingly? Especially if they are designed to help you. The fact
that you don't yet understand HOW they help you is irrelevant.
TMN> Indeed. Now, let us determine exactly to which Order this applies
and
TMN> what the rules and regulations of the OTO *really* are, beyond our
TMN> apparent mis/conceptions.
"Which Order"? Please explain. When you take your Minerval, you only join
one.
TMN> |and "Chafe not, therefore, at the apparent restriction which your
TMN> |obligations place upon you. They are designed soley to enable you
TMN> to do your will." [This would imply that the order is (or at least
was)
TMN> a doctrinal organization.]
TMN> Well, as I've said before, your interpretations are quite valuable,
TMN> but not necessary.
Perhaps you could share your interpretations of the post above. Also,
please comment on the oath as YOU see it. I would like to know how you are
interpreting it in order to argue this point intelligently.
TMN> |The King ritual then goes on to say that the OTO doesn't know nor
TMN> care what your will is, and that "We unreservedly place power in your
TMN> hands. If it be your will to enter this army as a spy to destroy
your
TMN> comrades, so be it!"
TMN> |"Yet remember, that you have made solemn affirmations to us in these
TMN> words, which you will again repeat after me..." [This would imply
that
TMN> the OTO allows for people who wish to spy (retrieve secrets to be
TMN> revealed to others that should not know them), yet reminds them they
TMN> have made Oaths to keep dissuade them from such actions.]
TMN> I don't think so. There are many other possibilities here. Again,
TMN> I think you are very reasonable, and I have understood the
POSSIBILITY
TMN> Of accepting such an interpretation. I only wish to know why it is
TMN> NECESSARY to do so.
TMN> Either it is necessary because it is a rule of the Order (thus
proving
TMN> the doctrine-requirement of OTO), or it is necessary because it is
the
TMN> ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation, which it is obviously not.
Perhaps it is necessary in order for the organization to protect itself
aand its members from non-sympathetic forces. The OTO would like to see
the absolute freedom of all of its members. (It is a dues paying
organization, and its only responsibility is, after all, for its members).
We have a constitution, our own government, our own army. Some (especially
those that have the most to lose from people's freedom) might consider us a
liability. It may or may not be a good thing for anyone to have access to
our customs and our rites. It is not up to you to decide that for the
Order as a whole. You just might be comprimising (either now, or later)
the well-being or job security of individuals who have made their
membership to the OTO known to their employers. Please comment.
TMN> This might be a different matter, though one I'm not sure I'd like
TMN> to support either.
Explore the possiblility that oaths are given to protect initiates. Take
for example the computer programmer who works at Hughes Aircraft, Bendix,
or other military research facilities. What of them, or their families
when they are considered security risk due to the nature of our belifs and
activities? It is possible for you not to suffer any consequense by
breaking your oaths (although I doubt this), but what about YOUR BROTHERS
AND SISTERS?
TMN> It could be that what one of us has been taking as 'official policy'
TMN> is actually simply common assumption (i.e. dogma or rumor).
Who would you like to hear it from? What is your criteria? The Grand
Tribunal does not interfere at all, unless it is to take action against an
individual. this is not "policy", just a fact. So who? HB has got better
things to do, If you get hir attention it will not do you any good at all.
I could tell you that you are in danger. I am in what you call "official"
position to speak for the Order. I don't feel it is necessary for me to
wear that "hat" in order for you to believe what I say to you. You will
receive a phone call soon. It is not necessary for the Order to have the
secrecy clause in the bylaws. They are in your oaths, a violation of your
oaths is grounds for emmediate expulsion. That is all.
TMN> Let me be very very clear here. I wish to know if anybody in the
Order
TMN> (and the more the better) has every told you that the OTO has
TMN> an'accepted' and 'required' interpretation of their initiations
rites,
TMN> which, being the case, supports the view that secrecy is required of
TMN> initiates for continued membership and 'good report'.
Don't change the tune. The OTO does not have any "official" or otherwise
interpretation for the rites. The oath is not up for interpretation.
TMN> Well, we really don't know who or what 'Abu' is, aside from someone
TMN> with a very short patience and apparently little substance behind
his
TMN> words.
If you think my words are without substance, it is because you are not
listening because I am not saying what you want to hear. My inpatience is
due to the fact that I have stated several places that you are in danger of
violation your oaths, in which case you will probably be expelled. You
have called me a liar and continue to argue your point about the oaths. I
am about as official as you are going to get in this medium.
Bottom line is this: if you like what the OTO has to offer to you, then
you will obide by its regulations. If not, you will have to go. You can
rant about how "UnThelemic" it all is, but it wont matter. The Order
protects its members. You are a member, but if your behavior can
potentially effect the Order's effectiveness you will be expelled. What is
so hard to understand about all this. You keep mentioning "well, MY
interpretation of the oath is .... and does not require for me to keep
silence. You are mistaken.
My impatience is that I have better things to do than spend hours reading
through your posts and arguing over and over about things YOU refuse to
accept.
TMN> |I'm trying to get others online too. Of course,
TMN> |you probably won't be satisfied unless it is H.B. who tells you so,
TMN> Look, I don't care if it is you who posts it. I just want you to
QUOTE
TMN> somebody directly, who is speaking *for the Order* and directly
supports
TMN> your claims.
TMN> Actually it doesn't. All that matters is that they are capable of
TMN> speaking *for the Order* as a whole. I gather that you cannot do
this.
TMN> I suspect that Abu cannot.
You do not know who I am. Assuming ANYTHING at this point might be
embarrasing.
TMN> Well, that is their prerogative to interpret this way. If they
require
TMN> that I do ALSO, especially to be initiated again (hey, I've discussed
TMN> this somewhat with them already), then I'll not go any further in the
TMN> Order and likely 'go renegade'.
You'd be in interesting company. You might feel out of place.
TMN> What seems more important to me is that I don't *want* to reveal the
TMN> details of these rites. I just don't want to be told that I *can't*
in
TMN> order to continue being involved with the Order. See?
There is no need to play games. If I want my child to do something, all I
must do is to tell them I do not wish them to do it. Do you consider this
behavior mature? We already know you are stubborn. I would have hoped
that you knew when to draw the line between pride and self inflicted
injury. I don't mean this in a insulting way, just think about it.
|>Who will speak for the Order in this matter? I want to hear it loud
|>and clear that OTO is doctrinal and then I'll be left to decide whether
|>I shall associate with it or no.
It would be more interesting to understand your interpretation of the oath
in question.
TMN> Which means, yet again, I need to get an official letter or phone
call
TMN> to you from someone who you feel is of sufficient authority to speak
for
TMN> OTO policy.
TMN> Oh I'd greatly love (and hate!) to receive this. I'd love to
TMN> receive it because then I'd have proof that the Order is corrupt and
TMN> will likely not waste my time supporting it (though I may attempt
first
TMN> to change it from within by showing the letter around a bit). I'd
hate
TMN> to receive it because I have a great fondness for OTO (ask anyone
here)
TMN> and for what I think it can become, what it stands for, what it
TMN> ostensibly supports.
TMN> You would, in my view (I know, not in yours) be offering me the
TMN> equivalent of proof that the Order has debased itself to the worst
TMN> possible offense (i.e. requirement where it is not administratively
TMN> necessary/expedient, and, I argue, ultimately contrary to what its
TMN> Prophet put forward in his writings).
You can't accept the fact that there is a flaw in your thinking. I am
sure, that if you are expelled, or quit on your own behalf, you will, like
many others before you, slander and throw dirt into the faces of an
institution from which you could have greatly benefited. All because you
could not accept being mistaken.
TMN> I take this caution very seriously, and, while my infuriation over
TMN> the approach of those such as 'Abu' leads me to make some very
strident
TMN> claims, I would have to consider all of this very carefully before
TMN> entering into anything extreme. However, sometimes extreme measures
are
TMN> called for (as Crowley proved with the GD).
I supposse the Secret Chiefs have ordered you to break your oaths?
TMN> |Are you saying that Oaths taken during initiations are not
TMN> |binding?
TMN> Any oaths of the kind you are speaking are not binding except
TMN> socially. I.e. I would only face social ostracization if I were to
tmn> break these silly rules. I care little about such a reaction. I
engage
TMN> OTO because it is my will, it is my path (a discipline of sometimes
TMN> unimaginable torture), not because I care one whit for any rules
TMN> and regulations which may conflict with my will. I've already been
TMN> thrown out of groups (hey, too bad you weren't around for the ARCANA
TMN> debacle :>). Their loss. If people took the time to get to know
TMN> me, they'd see that I'm after the emancipation of all people, and
that
TMN> I think my actions will lead to this, even (especially?) if everyone
TMN> were to emulate me. ;>
You think very highly of yourself. Perhaps undeservedly so. It could be
you don't know your behind from "will". In any case, you will never find
out, since you are so convinced that the possibility of error does not
exist in your mind.
TMN> Not only this, I think Crowley supported it, exemplified it, and
TMN> that the UNIVERSE supports it. Any organization or individual which
TMN> does NOT support the Law of Thelema will be ripped to shreds and
fall
TMN> upon the shards of their own sin.
You mean "The Law of Thelema" according to the way you see it. Get a grip.
Crowley is very explicit about oaths. If you can't keep it, don't take it.
It is a simple as that.
TMN> This is the law of the strong!
Yeah, verily. Strength comes in many different packages.
TMN> |I agree that they can be superceeded by later Oaths, if you allow
TMN> |for that, but they are still binding.
TMN> Upon you, I have no doubt. They are not binding in any way except
TMN> possible socially, for me, yet you have not shown even this.
The OTO is a social organization. In the Constitution.
TMN> Oh this discussion is very relevant, I think, but what I'm getting
tired
TMN> of is people (like you and Abu) coming and vomitting all your dogma
all
TMN> over me and my friends without something to back it up. That's what
TMN> tries my patience, not that we have a difference of opinion. I think
TMN> differences of opinion are VERY healthy! So are arguments like this
TMN> one when you can come up with something to back you up! :> I'm
TMN> patient.
Stay tuned for further developments.
TMN> [Lot's about slavery omited] See _Liber OZ_.
Liber OZ does not give you the right to interfere with the natural state of
any organism. Therefore, your weak use of Liber OZ will do little to
support your views pertaining to the Order. You have no right to change
the OTO to suit your needs, if in doing so it would compremise the safety
or security of its other members.
TMN> |Even "The Master," Crowley called the
TMN> |OTO a "serious and SECRET" organization.
TMN> There are many ways to interpret this.
Let's hear your interpretation.
TMN> I do, so much for the regulations of the Order - they will be as
TMN> cobwebs to an elephant, kindling to the fire of my wrath.
Perhaps. Until then....
TMN> these Thelemic concepts was 'overly lax' or that Crowleyites were
TMN> 'unrealistic idealists with no head for logic and rationality': See
now
TMN> what I am up against?
Are you accusing Darrin and I of being "Crowleyites"? That is very funny
from some one who claims to have "associated with 666". Give it a rest.
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
TMN> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
TMN> La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
TMN> Abu Hayyan begins to ask questions, which I appreciate. He quotes
TMN> me and writes:
TMN> |Most of the feedback here from OTO members is that you are in
TMN> danger breaking oaths.
TMN> Oh, well I'm not just going by this Internet exchange, you know. :>
TMN> Even if I was, I count two and two members each so far. I don't
TMN> think Kampe is a member (yet), but soon it may be three to two, if
TMN> such should occur. Perhaps you don't know who is an initiate here
TMN> and who is not??? ;> 'Rank' matters little to me in this excepting
TMN> where one can speak for the Order as a whole (as a member of the
TMN> National Supreme Council who will detail rules and regulations, for
TMN> example).
Hmmm. If they were involved in this in any "official" capacity I don't
think it would be a pleasant experience. I have never known the NSC to
mediate or interfere in disputes unless it is to remove someone.
|>If [the OTO Governors] proceed by *YOUR* criteria [in granting
|>Charters for initiation], then I think the Order will suffer
|>immeasurably.
TMN> |
TMN> |Please explain.
TMN> I think that such a criteria would ultimately debilitate and
TMN> undermine
TMN> the quality of the Order. The ability and willingness to engage in
TMN> secrecy, especially where it is REQUIRED, does not speak highly to
TMN> me
TMN> of the person who shall be initiating (as compared to someone who
TMN> is not ruled by Rules ;>).
The "rules" are used as a means to insure the correct performance of the
rituals. Initiation is a delicate matter as it involves much psychological
input. For example; if the Order knows that by pushing button 'A' a
certain thing happens, (and the thing that happens is desirable) then it
SHOULD for the safety of candidates, make sure that the initiator is going
to push button A and not B. It is a liability to have individuals doing
whatever they think will "freak someone out", or even to alter the rite
ever so sligthly as to not deliver the appropriate message to the psyche...
or even worse, the wrong or destructive message. IMHO, if I were going to
have to be responsible for the actions of my initiators in the court of
law, I will make sure that they adhere to the script and refraim from
experimentation.
TMN> |Maturity can be measured by an individuals ability to keep secrets,
TMN> no?
TMN> It can be, sure, but I also think that IMmaturity is often measured
TMN> by the amount of secretiveness and restriction one places upon
TMN> others.In other words, I think it varies, and while I'd agree that,
TMN> taken very much out of context, the ability to keep one's word in ANY
TMN> way is a very clear indicator of maturity, I think the willingness to
TMN> give one's word regarding secrecy is more often a measure of
immaturity.
OK. I can certainly perceive the way you chose to look at this. However,
people are not forced to take these oaths. In fact, for them to be
magically significant they must be taken willingly. My question is: why
take an oath if one considers it immature?
|>I only criticize [the OTO initiation rites] if they are rendered
|>weak by becoming stagnant.
TMN> |
TMN> |Do you perceive them as such?
TMN> Stagnant? Not exactly, though I do think that maintaining them in
TMN> a consistent form is a kind of weakness in that it makes them
TMN> vulnerable to publishing (which secrecy protects, but changing them
TMN> continually might solve).
Changing them when they are so effective would prove impractiall. I have
taken initiations in at least 3 other organizations... none which delivered
the message or that were more effective than the OTO's. From a practical
point, it is a shame to have to change the rites, rather than insure that
the people initiated can respect them enough to keep quiet about them.
TMN> |Why not write your own rituals?
TMN> Why not? Why doesn't everyone and those who have a Charter for OTO
TMN> initiation status can confer degrees in any way they'd like. The
TMN> more popular they become, perhaps the more popular will be their
TMN> style of rite, and it could be published among all members beyond
TMN> the degree to which it applies. This would allow for some
TMN> creativity
TMN> and new thinking, at least. If it was 'sullied' by being
TMN> published,
TMN> so what? The individual can create another if they so desire, or
TMN> require that the person whom they initiate has simply not
TMN> encountered
TMN> its published version.
I agree with you point... once again. However, since the Order will have
to be ultimately responsible for the actions of its initiators, it must
keep a handle on what is done to candidates. You could certainly initiate
people if you wanted to using your own rites, but you couldn't call them
OTO initiations.
|>...I only know my own preference, which is toward complete freedom
|>of information regardless of consequences and firm support of the
|>Law of Thelema wherever I see it exercized.
TMN> |
TMN> |Have you always felt this way?
TMN> I have felt this way since becoming involved with the Order in the
TMN> 'Associate Member' status. I even published and propagated some of
TMN> my
TMN> ideas in this regard, sending them to most Order bodies within the
TMN> U.S.
TMN> and several in Canada, just prior to becoming a 'Minerval'. I
TMN> received
TMN> some favorable replies, and some criticism, though nobody told me
TMN> that
TMN> my ideas were 'WRONG'. ;> Then again, I don't remember how
TMN> strongly
TMN> I spoke out against 'secrecy'. I think I was quite explicit, but I
TMN>
TMN> could review that document if you like and be sure.
I have it, you sent me one :) However, the aspect of secrecy effects the
Order as a whole, and therefore you shouldn't take it upon yourself to make
decisions that will effect other members.
TMN> Remember, for the longest time I've considered 'organized religion'
TMN> and
TMN> often 'organized magick' as oxymorons. I think organizations are
TMN> EVIL,
TMN> and I am involved with OTO as a discipline and I think it has the
TMN> most
TMN> potential to serve the Law of Thelema and the INDIVIDUAL generally,
TMN> which is the focus of truly Thelemic organizations as I know them.
It also carries the burden of looking out for the members best interest.
This is a double edged sword for the Order. Imagine the damage that an
unbalanced individual could cause an initiate through the improper use of
the rites.
TMN> |Did you take your oaths knowing that you would break them?
TMN> This question is akin to 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'
TMN> I took my oaths knowing that others would have interpreted
TMN> them as requirements of secrecy, yes. I took them with the intent
TMN> of
TMN> not necessarily adhering to any such secrecy, yes. I took them
TMN> with
TMN> very specific interpretation which yielded the utmost latitude in
TMN> regard my actions, and I stand by my interpretations and hope that
TMN> the Order will stand by me in my action. If it doesn't, then it
TMN> will
TMN> have to fall into the trash heap with all the other decomposing
TMN> ideals.
Hopefully, you will be more flexible than that ;) There is a need for the
policies in the Order, even if you do not yet understand them. I am not
trying to patronize you, all I am saying is that they would not be there is
they did not need to be.
TMN> If I were to post the entire text of all the rites I've ever been
TMN> involved with, I would NOT be breaking my oaths as I took them.
TMN> Now I MIGHT be breaking a rule that was made by the National
TMN> Supreme
TMN> Council, but I have never heard that such a rule existed, and
TMN> neither
TMN> you nor Darrin have yet to demonstrate that it does.
There is some communication coming your way.
TMN> I am not shackled to your mind. Please realize this.
Gladly so. You are free to do what you will, so long as you don't
interfere with the will of the Order... or anyone else.
Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan
Nagasiva) wrote:
TMN> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
TMN> La ilaha illa 'Llah. Assalam alaikum, my kin.
Greetings and 93.
TMN> Abu Hayyan and I continue our exchange.
TMN> |...why would you think that a person who has neither the
TMN> |knowledge or the experience with the OTO rituals can deliver the
TMN> initiation
TMN> |successfully?
TMN> The initiation may catalyze a psychospiritual process (or simply add
TMN> fuel
TMN> to it, depending on the condition of initiate). Specific forms of
TMN> this
TMN> process are certainly different, yet there are enough general
TMN> similarities
TMN> between people's experiences that specific forms can be said to be
TMN> fairly
TMN> irrelevant. If you disagree, I could attack your position easily
TMN> by
TMN> saying that the ENERGY and the SPECIFIC MANIFESTATION of that
TMN> 'approved
TMN> OTO rite' will vary with EVERY initiator, and so the rites are
TMN> ALREADY
TMN> different for every person.
YES! This IS certainly true... I have SEEN it. Not only the Initiator,
but also the Candidate.
The "format" of the ritual, however should always remain the same until its
effectiveness is transcended by the psycho/spiritual evolution of the race.
Until then, it is important to remain within the format which experience
has shown us to work best.
TMN> There are few knowns here. I think there are a lot of ways to see
TMN> this
TMN> and remain coherent. I don't associate with any one of them as
TMN> 'truth',
TMN> however. I just point out possibilities.
Nor do I. They are metaphors at best.
TMN> |Let's assume that they are not aware of your posts: what makes you
TMN> think
TMN> |that they would answer in a public medium? A violation of an oath
TMN> is an
TMN> |order concern, and as such need not be disscused in an open forum.
TMN> If they were NOT aware of my posts, then I presume they would not
TMN> answer
TMN> at all. If they WERE aware of my posts, then I don't expect they
TMN> would,
TMN> nor am I asking THEM to. YOU have made a statement about the Order
TMN> I
TMN> care very deeply about. You have said that it requires secrecy
TMN> concerning
TMN> its initiatic rites. I want you to cite some authority for this.
TMN> Quote
TMN> someone who is in a place to speak *for* the Order when they are
TMN> doing
TMN> so, stating that specific interpretations are required and that
TMN> those
TMN> who don't do this, therefore keeping the rites secret because of
TMN> these
TMN> 'oaths', will likely be placed upon 'bad report' because of their
TMN> interpretations.
There is some communication coming.
TMN> Note, as I have mentioned to Darrin, if it is simply the case that
TMN> it
TMN> would serve as 'destructive to the well-being of the Order', and
TMN> that
TMN> the Order is NOT doctrinally-based, I.E. NOT REQUIRING that its
TMN> rites
TMN> are interpreted in a specific way, then I can understand this,
TMN> though
TMN> I'm not sure how I'll react.
Well, at least you are allowing the possibility to exist. Now we can BOTH
learn something should the opportunity come up. :)
TMN> |...All I can say is that you should speak to your
TMN> |initiator regarding the oaths.
TMN> Then your claims regarding the Order and its requirements aren't
TMN> very
TMN> well supported. You talk tough, but when I call your bluff, you
TMN> back
TMN> down, it seems.
Like I said before, I can't publically make any remark without being in
danger of violating my own oaths. Be patient... (I know, I know, I haven't
been patient either.)
TMN> |You are in company of many members, many of
TMN> |which know the GTG personally; perhaps they will put you in touch
TMN> with hir.
TMN> I am at present in no doubt as to my situation. You have claimed
TMN> something
TMN> which is contrary to my experience of the Order. All I ask is that
TMN> you
TMN> support your claims. So far you have not been able to do so.
My point was: Since you have access to hir, why not ask hir the same
question? They would be able to answer you, and they are in a official
standing you are likely to respect.
|>Will you desist in this, at least to save your very precious fantasy
|>of secrecy, or will you continue to characterize the Order in so
|>UnThelemic a manner?
TMN> |
TMN> |UnThelemic? What is so UnThelemic about keeping ones word of
TMN> honor?
TMN> The word of Sin is Restriction. Requiring secrecy is sin, and
TMN> contrary
TMN> the Law of Thelema as I know it.
Then don't take oaths of secrecy.
TMN> |A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain
TMN> test: but a
TMN> |beggar cannot hide his poverty.
TMN> Ah but shall we treat all beggars then as Kings in case he be
TMN> disguised?
TMN> NO! Such would be foolhardy! Let us act out our wills regardless
TMN> of
TMN> his status, regardless of his 'authority'! Only then shall the
TMN> Great
TMN> Work be achieved. Yea, let the Great Work be achieved!
TMN> |The oath is not open for interpretation. It is stated quite
TMN> clearly.
TMN> Well, I AM interpreting it differently. Therefore I am a living
TMN> example of an exception to your claim. If you mean to imply that
TMN> it is not ACCEPTABLE TO OTO that I interpret it this way, then I
TMN> ask you for some proof of this. I've never heard any complaints
TMN> about my interpretations from those who would seem to be in a
TMN> position to 'put me down'.
Your assumption is that you would not be breaking oaths by revealing the
rites. I say you are wrong. There is the basis for our disagreement.
TMN> It may not be acceptable for me to publish the rites, but not
TMN> because
TMN> of my particular interpretation of them. If at all, it is because
TMN> those in charge feel that doing so would compromise the Order in
TMN> some
TMN> fashion (NOT because I've broken any oaths).
|> I feel very strongly about this issue.
TMN> |It shows :)
TMN> I do appreciate your understanding. I've thought this through VERY
TMN> carefully, have weighed the writings of the Master, the advice of
TMN> my own HGA, and the various expressions of my kin, and think I have
TMN> an unassailable philosophical position as well as a clear
TMN> understanding
TMN> of the policies of the Order and the motivations which may be
TMN> involved
TMN> with the implementation of disciplinary action.
TMN> What you say about being placed on 'bad report' may indeed be the
TMN> case.
TMN> It is quite possible that ANYONE can be placed on 'bad report' for
TMN> ANY reason if those who are in charge of deciding it rule that
TMN> that person is doing something which is 'greatly prejudicial to the
TMN> purposes of the O.T.O.'. I would not claim otherwise, yet the
TMN> assertion
TMN> that OTO is doctrinal and requires secrecy through restriction of
TMN> acceptable interpretations is either ludicrous (as I maintain) or
TMN> is
TMN> a new and very important revelation to me.
Take for example the purpose of the NSC. Their function is one of judicial
nature. You wouldn't think the NSC as UnThelemic... why not? They may
make policy that you would consider UnThelemic, they may even decide
against you in disputes. You see, there IS a need for some form of order.
TMN> |DO seek the advise of others on this issue. I cannot
TMN> |continue this argument without violating my own oaths.
TMN> I don't require that you do that. I don't feel I need more advice,
TMN> and in that I think the burden of proof is upon YOU to substantiate
TMN> your claim that OTO is doctrinal, then perhaps you might seek
TMN> advice of your own (and bring it back here!).
The whole argument is rather frustrating mainly because the communication
which needs to take place is of a personal nature. You will have that
communication, and if you'd like to bring it here it would be you choice.
TMN> |Your interpretation may have a few flaws in it, however.
TMN> It may indeed. I'd love to hear what (logical) flaws you think that
TMN> it
TMN> may have.
Previous posts attempt to illustrate some. Especially with regards to the
Order as a WHOLE>
TMN> This was not my point. Magical oaths CAN'T be broken. If you
TMN> don't remember that, then look it up.
A Magical Oath CAN be broken. It is only effective when the possibility of
violating it exists.
|>By the Law of Thelema I shall do what I will, I may interpret what I
|>will,
TMN> |
TMN> |even if its incorrect?
TMN> It may be incoherent. It may be unorthodox. It may be heretical.
TMN> But it can never be 'incorrect'. In that any group rules it
TMN> 'incorrect'
TMN> that social group is just a bunch of dogmatists spouting
TMN> slave-chains.
Are you willing to accept the possibility that you could be mistaken?
TMN> |Even if your "interpretation" is at odds with the
TMN> |well-being of others?
TMN> Now THIS is possible, and it is why I would have to consider my
TMN> actions
TMN> very carefully should you somehow show that OTO is
TMN> doctrinally-limiting.
TMN> If it is my will, it is my will, and it cannot be contrary to the
TMN> well-
TMN> being of others. See Crowley's metaphysics on this with regard to
TMN> Napoleon, _Book Four_.
|>...I will to interpret the rites as I see fit. Do you claim that
|>there are 'established', 'approved' and 'correct' interpretations?
|>If so, then cite your authority. If not, then desist and quit your
|>arrogance.
I have already answered this in other posts.
TMN> |
TMN> |Believe me, you have not seen arrogance.
TMN> I'm not just tossing words around here. If you seriously claim
TMN> that
TMN> there are such interpretations and cannot cite an authority, then
TMN> you
TMN> are essentially claiming authority where you have none, which is
TMN> the
TMN> meaning of the word 'arrogance'. If you have some authority, then
TMN> I'd like to hear of it.
It wouldn't be relevant.
|>|Any moron, even amongst the most uneducated know what oaths are.
|>
|>Apparently you do not. Read up.
TMN> |
TMN> |Due to the difference in our ages, I will venture to say that I am
TMN> more
TMN> |intimate with the written material than you are.
TMN> Ageism doesn't solve it. You may indeed be more familiar with the
TMN> FORM
TMN> of the material, but that does not mean that you have understood all
TMN> its
TMN> subtleties. Nor does your length of time in manifested bodily form
TMN> demonstrate that you remember all the possible interpretations of
TMN> Crowley's
TMN> work, or that you have reviewed it as recently as myself.
TMN>
I did not mean that you were a moron. I have read it recently. In fact,
when you first suggested it.
TMN> |Perhaps YOU should read up.
TMN> I'm sure, though I don't have any problem supporting my claims,
TMN> which it
TMN> seems you do.
TMN> |As has been proven in our courts systems, when a sleazeball is
TMN> released
TMN> |because a sleazeball attorney uses the system to free the guilty.
TMN> Such is the law of the strong that those who have the power and
TMN> actualize
TMN> it effect their liberation.
This is not justice. Therefore, I must assume it is at odds with the Law of
Thelema. See Duty, pertaining to criminals.
Darrin A. Hyrup
>you know, I have been watching this with some interest, though I
>have been (admittedly) skipping many people's 200 or 300 or 400
>line followups to each other.
>I find forged cancellation messages aesthetically displeasing.
They aren't forged. If they were forged, they would be coming from the
site that posted the message.
>al billings (I think) pointed out that altnet has no rules or
>policy as such. this is true.
Actually, that isn't exactly true. the alt.* groups are still on the NSFnet
backbone, and are held as part of Usenet in general (if not in specific) by
many sites, so by association, they are subject to the rules.
>this means that the anonymous poster
>posting copyrighted materials and the person at sorinc.cutler.com
>posting forged cancellation messages are neither of them violating
>any 'policy'.
They are violating policy on most news sites (including this one), and the
Usenet rules. It has been argued many times that alt.* groups are not part
of the Usenet, but they are carried with it, and by it, so they are part of
it by association.
They ARE violating U.S. policy as well as those in many other countries, in
regards to breaking copyright laws.
>it also means that if someone wrote a script to cancel
>every post coming from sorinc.cutler.com, they would not be violating
>any 'policy' either.
Well, that is your interpretation. People have done such things in the past
however, and usually it results in the suspension of access by the system
administrator at the posting site, or the site being removed from usenet
access. Not to say that this would happen in this case, but that is what
has happened in the past to people doing this.
>as I said, I find forged cancellation messages aesthetically displeasing
>and I would never consider doing such a thing.
I never forge them. I only post cancellation messages that are in reply to
illegal activity on the network, or in as far as it applies to my site, and
the policy as I know it. I also make sure that the cancellation messages
state exactly who and where they come from, so people with a problem with
it can contact me. To date, in my 6+ years as a participant on the Usenet,
I've not had to do this before, however. Nor will I have to do so again in
the future, I hope.
>it's real easy to do, though.
Its real easy to forge the cancellation messages too. And perhaps easier to
force all posts from one site to appear to come from another site.
It isn't nice to threaten people on the net Josh.
93,
Darrin A. Hyrup
>In article <JOSHUA.93...@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,
>Joshua Geller <jos...@cpac.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>al billings (I think) pointed out that altnet has no rules or
>>policy as such. this is true.
>>it also means that if someone wrote a script to cancel
>>every post coming from sorinc.cutler.com, they would not be violating
>>any 'policy' either.
> I did say the above but I find your idea to be bad. This was actually
>done (with slight variations) earlier this year.
>[...]
>The standard threat now against people who threaten to
>implement such a program is to threaten to write a counter-program to
>cancel THIER messages and THEIR cancel messages. You can see how this can
>start going back and forth.
I'm glad there are other people who pay attention things like this that goes
on in the net. As I mentioned in my last post, threats like this are not
looked well upon by the net population.
Best,
Darrin A. Hyrup
>In article <CEBEz...@sorinc.cutler.com>,
>Darrin A. Hyrup <sha...@sorinc.cutler.com> wrote:
>>This has nothing to do with Oaths, it says this information specifically
>>in the Initiator's Handbook.
> Too bad that this information and handbook is limited to the Initiators
>and not given to the Initiates. If it was given to them, then Tagi would
>already have heard it.
Well, thats why one asks the initiatiors about things like this if they
have questions.
Darrin A. Hyrup
>Anyone have any info on like where Thelema will be now? Berkeley? O-town?
Who knows, perhaps it will go back to Oz. You might talk to the new Lodge
Master about it.
In any case, Jerry has applied for a new Camp, so I'm sure some of the OTO
folks will be focusing themselves in that direction.
93,
Joshua Geller
In article <28o36t$g...@news.u.washington.edu> mi...@u.washington.edu (Grendel
> In article <JOSHUA.93...@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,
> Joshua Geller <jos...@cpac.washington.edu> wrote:
> >al billings (I think) pointed out that altnet has no rules or
> >policy as such. this is true. this means that the anonymous poster
> >posting copyrighted materials and the person at sorinc.cutler.com
> >posting forged cancellation messages are neither of them violating
> >any 'policy'. it also means that if someone wrote a script to cancel
> >every post coming from sorinc.cutler.com, they would not be violating
> >any 'policy' either.
> I did say the above but I find your idea to be bad.
so do I. I didn't say it was a good idea. I said it was easy to do.
josh
Joshua Geller
> Grendel Grettisson (mi...@u.washington.edu) writes:
> >In article <JOSHUA.93...@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,
> >Joshua Geller <jos...@cpac.washington.edu> wrote:
> >>al billings (I think) pointed out that altnet has no rules or
> >>policy as such. this is true.
> >>[...]
> >>it also means that if someone wrote a script to cancel
> >>every post coming from sorinc.cutler.com, they would not be violating
> >>any 'policy' either.
> > I did say the above but I find your idea to be bad. This was actually
> >done (with slight variations) earlier this year.
> >[...]
> >The standard threat now against people who threaten to
> >implement such a program is to threaten to write a counter-program to
> >cancel THIER messages and THEIR cancel messages. You can see how this can
> >start going back and forth.
> I'm glad there are other people who pay attention things like this that
> goes on in the net. As I mentioned in my last post, threats like this are
> not looked well upon by the net population.
I think I was pretty explicit in saying I wasn't going to do this. in case I
wasn't:
I have no intentions whatsoever of writing a cancelbot.
but as far as your last sentence goes, forged cancel messages are not
looked well upon by the net population.
josh
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
my intent is not to add to any thread that contains King's published rites. :>
___________________________________________________________________________
To: Abu_Musa_Jab...@sorbbs.sorinc.cutler.com
From: Ty...@HouseOfKaos.Abyss.com
Subject: Re: OTO Minerval Ritual
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 11:43:16 PDT
|> I've associated with 666 before. You decide.
|
|Yet another one. Define "associated" please.
My previous motto, prior to my adoption of 'Haramullah' was:
"Frater (I) Nigris (666) 333"
|> I won't tell you what your will is. Figure it out yourself,
|> lunkhead.
|
|Such disrespect and arrogance. WHy Taygi, you, a man of words resorting to
|name calling?
It was a joke. Sorry you didn't see the humor. My apologies if you found
this disrespectful.
|>|...I wish people like you would stop
|>|bastardizing The Law to justify your inabilities to behave
|>|honorably.
|
|> It is the your conviction regarding there being absolute standards
|> of 'honorable behavior' which convinces me of your slavery.
|
|You are a slave of a self righteous, over inflated ego. I have not set any
|standards for "honorable behavior" outside of breaking oaths. I am calling
|the kettle black: if you behave like a liar...
Perhaps this is so. I hope not. I thought your characterization of me above
as being 'unable to behave honorably' and the implication that simply because
I do not consider the oaths to mean what you think them to mean I may not
be thus able to do so was indicative of your absolute standards.
You admit yourself that 'breaking oaths' is part of your standards and
justify my assertion. I have not broken any of my oaths, nor could I
ever do so. I am resolutely set upon them and incapable of breaking
them since they are magical in nature.
Tyagi
Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Please take this to email or take it to another thread. I am not as
capable of changing this and don't want to continue in this thread for
very much longer. Thanks.
_________________________________________________________________
Abu quotes me and writes:
|>When my
|>initiators implied at any time hat they considered any information
|>'secret', I either destroyed it or gave it back to them or both, and
|>I make no effort to remember them.
|
|This behavior is admirable. (To me, anyways) But the reason that you
|didn't just say "ok, I wont tell anyone", and then run to your computer to
|post it on internet is that you must have had the inclination that to do so
|would be either dishonest, or dishonorable.
Nope, it is because I think I might harm people by doing so. It would be
similar (though with perhaps more repercussions, if I was to post to the
Usenet the plot to a just-released movie or novel).
|Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
|:))
Done.
|Why not discuss the oath with your initiator BEFORE you take it?
I have made it a very strict rule for myself to avoid ALL references
(including King's) to OTO rites prior to my initiation. This has sometimes
frustrated higher Order members around me when they began to mention it and
I either complained or left the room.
|Ask if
|you will be required to take an oath of secrecy, and if you are then you
|can decide whether or not you can, in all good consciousness take the
|degree?
Actually, I agreed to apply for initiation *ON STRICTLY THIS BASIS*.
I said that as long as I was not going to have my will limited by ANY
oaths I was ready to apply. Otherwise I'd pass OTO right by.
They told me that it would be alright (or misunderstood me and assured
me that it would be ok anyway). I took the initiation and, while somewhat
surprised by the POTENTIAL to be restricted in this manner (because it is
a very EASY interpretation in which to become caught) I decided that I
felt slightly deceived and set about getting another initiator for the rite
to follow.
|> It was their prerogative to consider them secrets, but as long as
|> they do not require that *I* do so, then I will continue to spew
|> forth lovely information from the depths of my mind without restraint
|
|Here I see a "catch-22". You say that as long as they don't require that
|*you* keep secret you will continue to "spew forth". But then you mention
|that if the Order DOES require *you* to keep secrets you will "spew forth".
No, I won't bind myself more by oath. If pressure is applied, then I may
resist. My understanding is that no pressure is being applied, though
incentive is indeed offered (continued association with the Order).
| TMN> Indeed. Now, let us determine exactly to which Order this applies
|and
| TMN> what the rules and regulations of the OTO *really* are, beyond our
| TMN> apparent mis/conceptions.
|
|"Which Order"? Please explain. When you take your Minerval, you only join
|one.
I'm not sure of this and will not discuss it further in public.
| TMN> |and "Chafe not, therefore, at the apparent restriction which your
| TMN> |obligations place upon you. They are designed soley to enable you
| TMN> to do your will." [This would imply that the order is (or at least
|was)
| TMN> a doctrinal organization.]
|
| TMN> Well, as I've said before, your interpretations are quite valuable,
| TMN> but not necessary.
|
|Perhaps you could share your interpretations of the post above. Also,
|please comment on the oath as YOU see it. I would like to know how you are
|interpreting it in order to argue this point intelligently.
I place great emphasis on the word 'apparent'.
||>Who will speak for the Order in this matter? I want to hear it loud
||>and clear that OTO is doctrinal and then I'll be left to decide whether
||>I shall associate with it or no.
|
|It would be more interesting to understand your interpretation of the oath
|in question.
In email I'd love to discuss it, once I could be sure that either you were
of sufficient rank or insisted despite your not being so.
| TMN> |Even "The Master," Crowley called the
| TMN> |OTO a "serious and SECRET" organization.
|
| TMN> There are many ways to interpret this.
|
|Let's hear your interpretation.
It could mean that it is so secret that even YOU don't know about it.
It could be that 'OTO' exists at a level of reality which is beyond
that of 'grips, and signs'.
|Are you accusing Darrin and I of being "Crowleyites"?
No.
Jon C. Gilliam
In a previous article, Abu_Musa_Jab...@sorbbs.sorinc.cutler.com
writes:
>
> TMN> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
> TMN> Man has the right to think, speak, write and build what he will.
>
>Let me guess. I bet you think you are Crowley, right? If I wanted to go
>to McDonald's with an Uzi and whippe out several families while they were
>enjoying the Sunday morning with a Big Mac I should just assume it was my
>will to do it correct? Not likely pal, I wish people like you would stop
>bastardizing The Law to justify your inabilities to behave honorably.
Of course it would have been your will -- what else could it have been?
It can also be the will of the police officer to arrest you, and the will
of the judge to sentence you, and the will of the executioner to take
your life in retribution.
Or not. There is no rational, Universally applicable morality. There
may be a non-rational, other-than-morality, inexplicable something that may
direct our moral decisions in this life, on the level of assigning meanings
to situations and altering our base perceptions and assumptions, and this is
synonomous with 'free will'. There are no rational laws, and that is the
only rational law.
But have no mistake -- as you stand in judgment of the Uzi bearer (as I
too would), realize that it is not 'the law' which condems him, and not
'morality,' and not 'the good of society' --- it is YOU.
:jon
Doug Pavey
In <92...@cup.portal.com> Ty...@cup.portal.com (Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva) wrote:
: 931002
: Darrin Hyrup quotes me [Tyagi] and writes:
:
:|...It isn't my responsibility to tell you what you
:|should have found through resources you aren't using.
:
: Indeed. I feel it would be horrible of you to tell me what I should do
: at all, and this is the central issue I'm putting forward. That OTO would
: stoop to telling its members HOW TO INTERPRET ITS RITES strikes me as very
: evil (or at least contrary to everything for which it supposedly stands).
Tyagi, is it improper for them to state their position, what they were
told that the symbolism is supposed to represent, or what the moral to
the story is supposed to be? It is okay to have your own way of seeing
the ritual with your own viewpoint, but what is wrong with allowing them
to present you with what the ritual is supposed to mean?
It would seem that you _might_ be missing something important by not
attending their 'educational resources' or classes that tell you what
the 'official' view of the symbolism means or what the 'official' view
of the ritual is, for your own knowledge. you do not have to accept
their view, but it would be helpful, would it not?
:|I also agree that it is also your duty to find out what the rites mean to you.
:|However, that does not mean rewrite them within yourself.
:
: This is hardly my argument. I am not saying that we ought rewrite them
: (though this might be a very good thing for us all), but that we ought to
: be left to interpret them as we will.
Yes. Does it hurt to know another's view or the 'official' interpretation?
I think it would be beneficial, not harmful.
: Of course if I went to New Jersey and expected a member to provide me with
: a place to stay in their Lodge for a night or two and they asked me to
: demonstrate my membership, I might not be able to. Why? Because I have
: continually rejected these items as symbolically important though on the
: whole only supportive of secrecy. When my initiators implied at any time
: that they considered any information 'secret', I either destroyed it or
: gave it back to them or both, and I make no effort to remember them.
The demonstration of knowledge obtained from one's initiation into the
order ought to be important to you, if the experience itself was at all
important to you. The grips, words and similar items are found within
many groups to distinguish oneself from the crowd - as a member of the
group, easily identified.
What is wrong with keeping something that is given to you in secret?
To be held by you and given only to certain members of the group that
knows of it? That is one way of setting the group aside as special
and different from all others. Why not learn and keep them? Why is
it necessary to 'destroy' or avoid secrets?
: It was their prerogative to consider them secrets, but as long as they do
: not require that *I* do so, then I will continue to spew forth lovely
: information from the depths of my mind without restraint (excepting in the
: case of ruining the experience for another, about which their insistence
: would release me from concern).
What is so important that keeps you from allowing 'secrets' to exist and
keep the secrets (unknown to others outside the group)?
:|Are you saying that Oaths taken during initiations are not
:|binding?
:
: Any oaths of the kind you are speaking are not binding except socially.
: I.e. I would only face social ostracization if I were to break these
: silly rules.
How do you see the oath taken in the illustated initiation as a social
obligation, not binding upon you to keep their 'mysteries' secret from
those outside the Order? As a Freemason, I take my oaths and obligations
seriously. I have been given authority from my Grand Master (From my
city and AASR Valley), and from the current Supreme Commander of the
AASR (From my Lodge) to continue support of Freemasonry by divulging
some of the ritual (Others I cannot comment upon, without breaking my
oaths :). I know how far I can go. I go no further. }:->
: I care little about such a reaction. I engage OTO
: because it is my will, it is my path (a discipline of sometimes
: unimaginable torture), not because I care one whit for any rules
: and regulations which may conflict with my will.
I appreciate your position. Rules and regs exist to maintain order.
the first word in the name of the organisation you have sought as
your path for magickal (mystical) enlightenment (fulfillment?) - OTO.
If they in Truth do conflict with your Will (I suspect they may indeed
conflict with your wants and desires, but not necessarily your Will),
then it becomes necessary to reevaluate your path and see yet another.
: I've already been
: thrown out of groups (hey, too bad you weren't around for the ARCANA
: debacle :>). Their loss.
Your pride seems to be a bit misplaced. Perhaps, you should look at
the source of the problem (look in a mirror, it may be you :). The
problem may not exist outside of yourself. Self evaluation is one
very difficult, but important part of spiritual (magickal?) and
emotional growth.
: If people took the time to get to know me,
: they'd see that I'm after the emancipation of all people, and that I
: think my actions will lead to this, even (especially?) if everyone
: were to emulate me. ;>
I like to emulate myself as well. }:>
: Not only this, I think Crowley supported it, exemplified it, and that
: the UNIVERSE supports it. Any organization or individual which does
: NOT support the Law of Thelema will be ripped to shreds and fall upon
: the shards of their own sin.
:
: This is the law of the strong! We accept of no substitutes. :D Fun.
It requires great responsibility. Not every person is capable of
living according to it's philosophy (weak will or no will).
Does Thelema actually have a concept as dreadful as Sin? I did not
get that picture from Liber AL, short as it is (but very deep :)
: Your decision to do so is your own path. I don't do so because it places
: too severe a limitation upon my will.
Why is it a limitation, severe or not upon your Will? What does this
type of suppression of information do to you or others? There should
be no real pressing 'need' to reveal the 'mysteries' that you find in
your search for enlightenment via OTO. If you see the need, why not
reveal that to us for our general knowledge?
: That is not the way for me at present,
: it seems. I don't believe anything, and I find that, for me, belief leads
: to mind/soul death. By 'belief' I mean the assumption that a particular
: perspective or ideal-construct is 'true'.
Not even in the temporal existance that you now appear within? It is
often useful to relate to a set of beliefs. If they don't work, find
one that does work. If it does not fit all sets of circumstances that
you find yourself working in, then find one that fits that scheme.
: (i.e. "I believe that God exists" = "I assume that the statement that 'God
: exists' is absolutely true and 'God does not exist' is absolutely false.")
What is 'wrong' or incorrect in making one or the other assumption and
working within those parameters? The possibility of both schemes that
exist simultaneously is (at the moment beyond me).
: Please read the words above once more. It is no joke. "I am trying to
: understand why you believe that the Oaths (and Mysteries of the initiation)
: are REQUIRED TO BE held as sacred and secret."
In the rite as posted to this group, you are REQUIRED TO hold them as
sacred and secret, by your word prior to advancement into the encampment.
The wording does appear to have no other meaning than what they speak.
sha...@sorinc.cutler.com (Darrin A. Hyrup) wrote:
: I'll quote a bit from King's minerval, and a bit of interpretation, even if
: it isn't the same as yours, highlighting sections I think may be of specific
: interest, to give you an idea of what it is I am saying:
:
: When the candidate is first led into the camp, an Oath is required, of which
: the applicable text is: "... Humbly, yet frankly, I demand your hospitality,
: and participation in YOUR MYSTERIES, which I swear to study and hold sacred
: and SECRET, and if I break this oath..."
-------
I demand your hospitality and participation in your mysteries ....
This is what the initiate seeks, and demands (requests) in exchange,
(s)he gives an oath, binding hirself to the order by ...
... which I swear to study and hold sacred and secred ...
the OTO mysteries are to be held in confidence, not reveled to anyone,
in otherwords kept secret.
Shalom. Go in peace.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Douglas A. Pavey /\---. This is not an official document of
Systems Analyst/MIS Mgr /()\--' AAA Sports or WildCard. My employer
AAA Sports dba Wild Card .--/\\//\ does not pay me to speak for them.
+1 513/860-3440 ext 278 `-/ \/ \
cccbbs!doug....@uceng.uc.edu Member of #695 F&AM + #193 RAM (OH)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Doug Pavey
In <92...@cup.portal.com> Ty...@cup.portal.com (Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva) writes:
:Abu Hayyan quotes me [Tyagi] and writes:
:|Maturity can be measured by an individuals ability to keep secrets, no?
:
: It can be, sure, but I also think that IMmaturity is often measured
: by the amount of secretiveness and restriction one places upon others.
Maturity (and honour) is measured by the ability (wisdom) to keep
information given in confidence (secret) to ones self. Immaturity
is the inability to act mature.
: In other words, I think it varies, and while I'd agree that, taken very
: much out of context, the ability to keep one's word in ANY way is a very
: clear indicator of maturity,
I agree.
: I think the willingness to give one's
: word regarding secrecy is more often a measure of immaturity.
This conflicts directly with the first part of this sentence.
A more accurate assessment based upon the first premis is as follows:
' UNwillingness to give one's word ...
' is more often a measure of immaturity.
:|Did you take your oaths knowing that you would break them?
:
: I took my oaths knowing that others would have interpreted
: them as requirements of secrecy, yes.
and rightfully so.
: I took them with the intent of
: not necessarily adhering to any such secrecy, yes.
Therefore your word of honour has not honour?
: I took them with
: very specific interpretation which yielded the utmost latitude in
: regard my actions, and I stand by my interpretations and hope that
: the Order will stand by me in my action. If it doesn't, then it will
: have to fall into the trash heap with all the other decomposing ideals.
:
: If I were to post the entire text of all the rites I've ever been
: involved with, I would NOT be breaking my oaths as I took them.
However, you would be breaking the oaths as administered or intended.
Shalom. Go in Peace.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Pavey, Wild Card - We Put The TRADE Back
Systems Analyst/MIS Manager Into Trading Cards! (tm)
Voice: 513-860-3440 ext 278 10139 Commerce Park Drive
fax: 513-860-3728 Cincinnati, Ohio 45246-1335
INTERNET: cccbbs!doug....@uceng.uc.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------