OTO - Rosicrucian???
AFGFXH
I am curious as to your opinions on both the classical and Crowleyite
OTO, and to what extent they could be considered 'Rosicrucian'. The
word is open to such interpretation, but I'm sure many of you could
elucidate its correlation to OTO and Thelema.
>From my recent researches, Crowley's definition of the 'True Will'
seems remarkably similar to the notion of the 'Master Within', and his
concept of the 'Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel'
reminds one of the concept of 'Illumination' or 'Re-integration'.....
Or am I being disingenuous? I'm sure there are many on this forum more
akin to disseminating occult sematics than I - perhaps I am reading
into that which is not akin.
I did read somewhere that AMORC accepts the Law of Thelema in the 11th
degree monogrpahs. And I was once at a meeting with fellow AMORCian
Rosicrucians when a high degree Frater told me that 'love is the law,
love under will'.
And I just thought, wow! He's a fan of Crowley. But apparently it's in
the monographs.
Anyhow, regardless of the fracas 'tween Crowley and Lewis, do you think
there is any middle ground between OTO (old & modern) and AMORC, or
Rosicrucianism and Thelema for that matter?
Kind regards
AFGFXH
Fra.'. EKO
>Hello everyone!
>I am curious as to your opinions on both the classical and Crowleyite OTO, and to what extent they could be considered 'Rosicrucian'. The word is open to such interpretation, but I'm sure many of you could elucidate its correlation to OTO and Thelema.<
Perhaps it'd be better put asking yourself and others which of the two contrasting Thelemic factions are more "Rosicrucian" than the other; or more to the point: Which periods of Catholicism each their Rosicrucian canon are based on.
>From my recent researches, Crowley's definition of the 'True Will' seems remarkably similar to the notion of the 'Master Within', and his concept of the 'Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel'
reminds one of the concept of 'Illumination' or 'Re-integration'.....<
If you're reading "True Will" and "Knowledge & Conversation" to be synonymous then I'd say the marked's been missed; but then the great fact on about such things is that what can be said to be correct are also so on four not so dissimilar ways. Prefered vantages in this regard are spun, largely, due to the misunderstanding of the doctrine on all four fronts.
"Knowledge & Conversation" isn't a spiritual experience, I think we can agree, as much is it is meant to lure one away from spiritual experience. The Crucifixion, for an example, isn't included, as it should be, in order to partake of "Knowledge & Conversation"; not to include of course The Crucifixion needed to get to the particular plane referred, oft times having gone on unbenounced.
To the point: "True Will" while arguably had been coined by Crowley to satirically include "Knowledge & Conversation" into his memetics, it also implies all that is false within one's sphere of sensation; to exclude the fact that one's, indeed all other's, sphere of sensation too is false and non-existant (read: Kether as extinction.) "True Will", "The Spermatazoon", "Lion-Headed Serpent" as far as Crowley's Thelema is concerned , are passwords, in a sense, of Chockmah ('above the abyss') that point to a reality and thus its magics that is _most true_ (and consciously, eternally constant) without negating reality, and one self, entirely.
"Re-integration".
"False".
"Not consciously constant."
Or am I being disingenuous?
Assuredly; but at least cleverly so. Then again, the horse is in fact dead. Perhaps, then..quit flogging it?
I'm sure there are many on this forum more akin to disseminating occult sematics than I - perhaps I am reading into that which is not akin.
Yours isn't akin to Crowley's Thelema, but then you knew that.
I did read somewhere that AMORC accepts the Law of Thelema in the 11th degree monogrpahs. And I was once at a meeting with fellow AMORCian Rosicrucians when a high degree Frater told me that 'love is the law,
love under will'.
And I just thought, wow! He's a fan of Crowley. But apparently it's in the monographs.
Anyhow, regardless of the fracas 'tween Crowley and Lewis, do you think there is any middle ground between OTO (old & modern) and AMORC, or Rosicrucianism and Thelema for that matter?
The Crucifixion. All else lay in how often, if at all, The Crucifix is made use of. The O.T.O. is solely symbolic, for instance -- and as such even if in Crowley's line, were it that the symbolic isn't made actual, in the end it isn't Thelema. That "re-integration" revisited, on a lower level, as 'twere.
Kind regards
AFGFXH
E.K.O.
teletourgos
TT:
I suppose by 'classical' OTO you mean that of Reuss. It is true that in
the early days of that group, they used the name 'Rosicrucian' to
describe their activities. For example, Frank Bennett referred to his
lodge of OTO to be 'Rosicrucian' prior to 1920 however Crowley
intervened to suggest that name not be used.
Koenig's site notes :
"Allegedly, Franz Hartmann, as some said co-founder of the O.T.O.
although Hartmann quarrelled with Reuss before the O.T.O. had been
founded in 1906, came to the conclusion that the title 'Rosicrucian'
could only be employed in the most generalised terms in connection with
the O.T.O".
A number of other occultists very early on decide that Thelemic groups
and OTOs were not 'Rosicrucian' in the old sense of that term.
I suppose the one fraternity where it might be a bit difficult would be
Krum-Heller's FRA which does specfically identify with the classical,
Christian Rosicrucian ethos.
Personally I do not identify Crowleyan 'True Will' with the Master
Within. I feel from my experience they are to be very different
things.
I do not think there is much middle ground between Rosicrucianity of
the classic type and the OTO.
Between Thelema and Rosicrucianity, even less so since Rosicrucianism
is Christian and the prophet of Thelema specifically attacks the
Christ.
Jean
Malgwyn
AFGFXH wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> I am curious as to your opinions on both the classical and Crowleyite
> OTO, and to what extent they could be considered 'Rosicrucian'. The
> word is open to such interpretation, but I'm sure many of you could
> elucidate its correlation to OTO and Thelema.
Ordo Templi Orientis is a loose confederation of lots of things,
including R+C material. There are people within OTO groups that are
earnest students of R+C topics.
Crowley felt very strongly that one didn't join the R+C, one became
R+C. Anyone who called themselves a Rosicrucian was certainly not one,
as it clearly violated the rules of the Manifesto.
Crowley carried some ideas of what that R+C was from the Golden Dawn,
which posited the R+C as an Inner Order, where the Adept would
accomplish various tasks including knowledge and Conversation of the
Holy Guardian Angel. The OTO doesn't handle that, it serves as a
vehicle for social and religious activities, as well as teaching
Thelema via graded degree lessons.
> Anyhow, regardless of the fracas 'tween Crowley and Lewis, do you think
> there is any middle ground between OTO (old & modern) and AMORC, or
> Rosicrucianism and Thelema for that matter?
Forget their dead heads, if you put a Thelemite and an AMORC member in
a room together, they more likely than not have many interests in
common. Ex members of both are known to accumulate in large anarchic
bunches, and can happily argue for hours. Older members of both tend
towards Buddhism.
shas...@my-deja.com
Crowley, however,
I have mixed feelings.
I believe that Rosicrucianism in general has a deep respect for the
creative sexual
force--especially in males. Heindal claims that mystics will respond
in horror
at the misuse of this force because its misuse causes all of the ills
of mankind.
Deep respect for the generative and regenerative power within us is
echoed
in the Parsifal myth, where Klingsor represents the misuse of that
force,
while Parsifal demonstrates its proper use. While there is middle
ground,
both use the spear, they are still antagonistic. Klingsor attempts to
use
the spear against Parsifal, but to no effect. Parsifal realizes the
true
nature of the spear--to heal, and restricts himself to that use only.
I would tend to view OTO as those who misuse sexual energies to
their own ends (but I have no first hand experience and apologize
if my second-hand knowledge of OTO practices is incorrect).
In Crowley's defense, however, I think the concept of WILL
means divine will--perfect will. And I always read him as
attacking the imperfections and arrogance of the Catholic Church,
not the Christ (again, could be wrong here too).
S~
shas...@my-deja.com
Rosicrucian Order."
S~