Charge of the Goddess??
sheri ellis
: Where can I find this? How long is it? If it is short (a few pages) would
: someone email it to me?
: Thanks,
: Mick
: mbo...@meadville.com
: --- WinQwk 2.0 #0
Here it is!
From galaxy.ucr.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ESAMATC.LIB.MATC.EDU Sun Dec 11 07:08:26 1994
Path: galaxy.ucr.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ESAMATC.LIB.MATC.EDU
From: Raven <JSI...@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: RE: Poem?
Date: 09 DEC 94 15:06:47 EST
Organization: Milwaukee Area Technical College
Lines: 76
Sender: use...@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU
Message-ID: <09DEC94.16...@ESAMATC.LIB.MATC.EDU>
References: <3c9p93$8...@news.tuwien.ac.at>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 148.8.64.2
See THE GRIMOIRE OF LADY SHEBA (Llewellyn, 1972) or Stewart Farrar's
WHAT WITCHES DO (1971) for a full text. See Leland's ARADIA (1899)
for one, apparently major, source text from which Gardner et al. drew.
Oh, I might as well flex my fingers a bit more. Here's from Farrar:
________________________________________________________________________
THE CHARGE OF THE GODDESS
[The High Priest:]
Now listen to the words of the Great Mother, who was of old also
called among men Artemis, Astarte, Athene, Dione, Melusine, Aphrodite,
Cerridwen, Dana, Arianrhod, Isis, Bride, and by many other names.
At her altars, the youth of Lacedaemon in Sparta made due sacrifice.
[The High Priestess:]
Whenever ye have need of any thing, once in the month, and better
it be when the moon is full, then shall ye assemble in some secret
place, and adore the spirit of me, who am Queen of all witches.
There shall ye assemble, ye who are fain to learn all sorcery,
yet have not won its deepest secrets; to these will I teach things
that are as yet unknown.
And ye shall be free from slavery; and as a sign that ye be
really free, ye shall be naked in your rites; and ye shall dance,
sing, feast, make music and love, all in my praise. For mine is the
ecstasy of the spirit, and mine also is joy on earth; for my law is
love unto all beings.
Keep pure your highest ideal; strive ever towards it, let naught
stop you or turn you aside; for mine is the secret door which opens
upon the land of youth, and mine is the cup of wine of life, and the
cauldron of Cerridwen, which is the Holy Grail of immortality.
I am the gracious Goddess, who gives the gift of joy unto the
heart of man. Upon earth, I give the knowledge of the spirit eternal;
and beyond death, I give peace, and freedom, and reunion with those
who have gone before.
Nor do I demand sacrifice; for behold, I am the Mother of all
living, and my love is poured out upon the earth.
[The High Priest:]
Hear ye the words of the Star Goddess; she in the dust of whose
feet are the hosts of heaven, whose body encircles the universe.
[The High Priestess:]
I am the beauty of the green earth, and the white moon among the
stars, and the mystery of the waters, and the desire of the heart of man.
Call unto thy soul; arise and come unto me; for I am the soul of
nature, who gives life to the universe. From me all things proceed,
and unto me all things must return; and before my face, beloved of Gods
and of men, let thine innermost divine self be enfolded in the rapture
of the infinite.
Let my worship be within the heart that rejoiceth; for behold, all
acts of love and pleasure are my rituals. And therefore let there be
beauty and strength, power and compassion, honour and humility, mirth
and reverence within you.
And thou who thinkest to seek for me, know thy seeking and yearning
shall avail thee not unless thou knowest the mystery: that if that which
thou seekest thou findest not within thee, thou wilt never find it
without thee. For behold, I have been with thee from the beginning;
and I am that which is attained at the end of desire.
________________________________________________________________________
-- Raven (JSi...@Music.Lib.MATC.Edu). [All standard disclaimers apply]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Masochists are people who have pain confused | Morningstar
with pleasure. In a society which has television | (aka Sheri Ellis)
confused with entertainment, Doritos confused with |
food, and Dan Quayle confused with a national ----------------------
political leader, masochists are clearly less | sel...@brigid.ucr.edu
mixed up than the rest of us." - P.J. O'Rourke |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
mick boyle
Raven
|Where can I find this? How long is it? If it is short (a few pages) would
|someone email it to me?
Emailed.
Tim Maroney
>WHAT WITCHES DO (1971) for a full text. See Leland's ARADIA (1899)
>for one, apparently major, source text from which Gardner et al. drew.
Look at anything but The Book of the Law, right? Does it cause some
discomfort to see how much of the primary Wiccan scripture was taken
directly from the work of Aleister Crowley? Is it easier to simply
pretend that one of the primary sources of the Charge of the Goddess
does not exist?
--
Tim Maroney. Please CC all public responses to t...@toad.com.
Peter Stephen Thomas Iii
(cut to a beautiful woman who looks as if she just stepped out of a certain
commercial for margarine)
"Hi! Do you know who I am? A lot of beings on the Physical Plane don't!
That's why I carry the Astral Express Card!"
(holds up gold card, zooms in on lower left hand corner,
*BANG*BANG*BANG*BANG*BANG* the words THE GODDESS appears)
fade to black
Bearhugs and Footrubs,
-----
Peter
"I'll lose my beard when they shave it from my cold, dead face!"
Quote from the Razor's Anonymous Handbook
Peter Thomas is p...@csd.uwm.edu B3/4 f+ t w- s+ r k+
Raven
|>See THE GRIMOIRE OF LADY SHEBA (Llewellyn, 1972) or Stewart Farrar's
|>WHAT WITCHES DO (1971) for a full text. See Leland's ARADIA (1899)
|>for one, apparently major, source text from which Gardner et al. drew.
|
|Look at anything but The Book of the Law, right? Does it cause some
|discomfort to see how much of the primary Wiccan scripture was taken
|directly from the work of Aleister Crowley? Is it easier to simply
|pretend that one of the primary sources of the Charge of the Goddess
|does not exist?
Tim, of the three books I mention, two are where the querent could find
the Gardnerian/Alexandrian "Charge of the Goddess"; the third is the
oldest source text of which I am aware, well predating Crowley's book;
and I did label it "one, apparently major, source text" -- not "the only
source text" -- so don't pretend I claimed other sources don't exist.
Or are you just obsessed with making false accusations?
Tim Maroney
>|>WHAT WITCHES DO (1971) for a full text. See Leland's ARADIA (1899)
>|>for one, apparently major, source text from which Gardner et al. drew.
t...@toad.com (Tim Maroney) writes:
>|Look at anything but The Book of the Law, right? Does it cause some
>|discomfort to see how much of the primary Wiccan scripture was taken
>|directly from the work of Aleister Crowley? Is it easier to simply
>|pretend that one of the primary sources of the Charge of the Goddess
>|does not exist?
Raven <JSI...@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU> writes:
>Tim, of the three books I mention, two are where the querent could find
>the Gardnerian/Alexandrian "Charge of the Goddess"; the third is the
>oldest source text of which I am aware, well predating Crowley's book;
Five years is "well predating"? _Aradia_ was published in 1899, while
_The_Book_of_the_Law_ is from 1904. (Note: The modern Phoenix edition
of _Aradia_ has an incorrect publication date of 1890, which is belied
by the footnote on the facing page citing an article from 1897. My
date of 1899 is from Shepard's _Encylopedia_of_Occultism_and_
_Parapsychology_, entry on Leland.)
Given that the borrowings from _Aradia_ and _The_Book_of_the_Law_ are
roughly equal in word count and thematic import, I do not understand
why one should be cited while the other is ignored, unless the cited
source is less anxiety-provoking than the the ignored one. You chose
to mention one and not the other, and the fact that one is half a
decade older is not a very compelling explanation for this omission.
Witches and pagans have been trying to downplay the significance of the
Thelemic influence on their tradition ever since Doreen Valiente
entered the picture in the 1950's. Your otherwise inexplicable
omission is a continuation of that tradition of malign neglect.
>and I did label it "one, apparently major, source text" -- not "the only
>source text" -- so don't pretend I claimed other sources don't exist.
I didn't say you claimed it didn't exist. I said you pretended it didn't
exist. I see no reason to modify my statement.
Gwendolyn M Piper
: (cut to a beautiful woman who looks as if she just stepped out of a certain
: commercial for margarine)
: "Hi! Do you know who I am? A lot of beings on the Physical Plane don't!
: That's why I carry the Astral Express Card!"
: (holds up gold card, zooms in on lower left hand corner,
: *BANG*BANG*BANG*BANG*BANG* the words THE GODDESS appears)
Whenever though have need of anything, once a month,
and better it be when
the Savings Account is full,
Nor do I demand aught of annual fees,
so long as the Minimum Balance is kept:
and as a sign that you be free, ye shall be naked
in thy bank statement,
For my law is credit unto all beings
"Hello, Astral express? I need a karmic balance increase..."
Trust me, folks, the Global Assist program is worth it.
Membership has its privileges...
DADADADADADADADADADADADADADDADADDA
MAGIC RAT
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{{{ Don't ask me, Midgarder, I just work here...}}
------------They don't scurry when something bigger comes their way----
--------......don't take what's not theirs" ---pearl jam----------
Raven
|>|>See THE GRIMOIRE OF LADY SHEBA (Llewellyn, 1972) or Stewart Farrar's
|>|>WHAT WITCHES DO (1971) for a full text. See Leland's ARADIA (1899)
|>|>for one, apparently major, source text from which Gardner et al. drew.
|
|t...@toad.com (Tim Maroney) writes:
|>|Look at anything but The Book of the Law, right? Does it cause some
|>|discomfort to see how much of the primary Wiccan scripture was taken
|>|directly from the work of Aleister Crowley? Is it easier to simply
|>|pretend that one of the primary sources of the Charge of the Goddess
|>|does not exist?
|
|Raven <JSI...@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU> writes:
|>Tim, of the three books I mention, two are where the querent could find
|>the Gardnerian/Alexandrian "Charge of the Goddess"; the third is the
|>oldest source text of which I am aware, well predating Crowley's book;
|
|Five years is "well predating"? _Aradia_ was published in 1899, while
|_The_Book_of_the_Law_ is from 1904. (Note: The modern Phoenix edition
|of _Aradia_ has an incorrect publication date of 1890, which is belied
|by the footnote on the facing page citing an article from 1897. My
|date of 1899 is from Shepard's _Encylopedia_of_Occultism_and_
|_Parapsychology_, entry on Leland.)
It was and is not unusual for footnotes to be added to later editions,
citing material newer than the original editions (or manuscripts).
|Given that the borrowings from _Aradia_ and _The_Book_of_the_Law_ are
|roughly equal in word count and thematic import, I do not understand
|why one should be cited while the other is ignored, unless the cited
|source is less anxiety-provoking than the the ignored one. You chose
|to mention one and not the other, and the fact that one is half a
|decade older is not a very compelling explanation for this omission.
[snip]
Since I have already pointed out this made no pretense of being any
"exclusive" or "comprehensive" list, I don't see that I need justify
"omissions". I listed three books I thought might help. Certainly
there are many more than three books that COULD help -- but since this
was a passing mention in the first place, why list every single book?
As to why list the oldest of the books? Obvious, surely -- this is
the one that did NOT borrow from any of the other (= later) books,
the oldest extant source book, the oldest complete text... compared
to the fragments, or second-hand references like the Canon Episcopi.
In that the imperative instructions to meet once a month, better it be
at the full moon, and as a sign of freedom be naked in the rites,
come directly from ARADIA, clearly this has relevance. (The flowery
filler from elsewhere, such as the youth of Lacedaemon making sacrifice
at her altars, is pretty but forceless, and historically dubious.)
That it is explicitly a WITCHCRAFT text rather increases its relevance.
What would be inexplicable would be, if I were going to list just one
source as an example, to list any other source instead of that one.
|>and I did label it "one, apparently major, source text" -- not "the only
|>source text" -- so don't pretend I claimed other sources don't exist.
|
|I didn't say you claimed it didn't exist. I said you pretended it didn't
|exist. I see no reason to modify my statement.
Perhaps you don't, but then kindly explain what "pretend" means here.
It doesn't mean to pretend to OTHERS -- you've conceded I made no such
claim, and in fact my phrasing implied the existence of other sources.
So are you claiming that I pretended to MYSELF? Yet still used phrasing
that implied the existence of other sources? That sounds unlikely.
Who's left for me to pretend to, Tim? Or were you just pretending?
Paul and Michele
for the material that was adapted into the Charge?
--Paul
--
Paul Suliin and Michele Cox | Experience has shown that men
POB 1993 | and nations will often act
San Gabriel, CA 91778 | wisely, once they have exhausted
310/719-9097 | all available alternatives.
Shawn Clayton Knight
> |t...@toad.com (Tim Maroney) writes:
> |>|[on _The Book of the Law_ and its influence on "Charge of the Goddess"
> |
> |Raven <JSI...@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU> writes:
> |>Tim, of the three books I mention, two are where the querent could find
> |>the Gardnerian/Alexandrian "Charge of the Goddess"; the third is the
> |>oldest source text of which I am aware, well predating Crowley's book;
> |
> [t...@toad.com (Tim Maroney) writes:]
>
> It was and is not unusual for footnotes to be added to later editions,
> citing material newer than the original editions (or manuscripts).
That's true. I'm still not sure that I'd say 1890 -> 1904 is "well
predating".
> |[tim wonders why raven omits _The Book of the Law_]
[raven]
> Since I have already pointed out this made no pretense of being any
> "exclusive" or "comprehensive" list, I don't see that I need justify
> "omissions". I listed three books I thought might help. Certainly
> there are many more than three books that COULD help -- but since this
> was a passing mention in the first place, why list every single book?
You do seem to be stepping around both denying that _Liber AL_ had any
influence, and also around admitting the same.
> That it is explicitly a WITCHCRAFT text rather increases its relevance.
This is fair.
> What would be inexplicable would be, if I were going to list just one
> source as an example, to list any other source instead of that one.
Also fair. I would prefer that you list a number of sources for such
things.
What is being gotten at is this: _Liber AL_ and the "witchcraft" texts
Raven cites have similarities. There is little evidence that _Aradia_
influenced Crowley, yet much that Crowley (and definitely, therefore,
_Liber AL_) influenced Gardner, the Farrars, etc.
(Wiccans denying Thelema in their religious heritage is just as bad as
Christians denying the old mystery religions; if not worse because
it's hypocrisy. Of all the Wiccans I've met, the one I know and
respect the most, an ex of mine, refers to Wicca as "a hybrid of
Crowleyan Thelema and traditional Pagan concepts." But what do I
know? I'm just a stuffy Thelemite and it might be my Will to harm
some. ;>)
flames to /dev/null
-shawn
Shawn C. Knight/knigh...@cmu.edu | "The nights of love ... We loved so
2010 Wendover Street Apartment No.5 | hard, we shook the stars above ..."
Pittsburgh, PA 15217 (412) 422-2842 | - Emerson, Lake, and Palmer
Raven
|What is being gotten at is this: _Liber AL_ and the "witchcraft" texts
|Raven cites have similarities. There is little evidence that _Aradia_
|influenced Crowley, yet much that Crowley (and definitely, therefore,
|_Liber AL_) influenced Gardner, the Farrars, etc.
If Liber Al, then definitely, therefore, Crowley? That follows.
If Crowley, then definitely, therefore, Liber Al? That does not follow.
The reference to Liber Al rests on the recurrence of those words; this
would adequately support a claim of influence by Crowley, even were the
people not known to have had contact. But let's get the logic right.
As to Crowley not being influenced by ARADIA. No serial numbers, true;
which may mean no influence, or may mean that he filed them off rather
more carefully than Gardner & Co. did. It's hard to prove a negative.
Given the wide range of Crowley's reading and interests, and his use of
injokes and hidden references/borrowing, up to and including pop-culture
slang like "23 Skidoo", is it really likely that he never read, nor gave
any thought to, a book published 5-or-more years earlier in his own area
of interest, an alleged scripture of a pre-Christian European religion,
with a Goddess giving instructions to her followers?
Or that this had no influence whatsoever when he in turn drafted a text
of such similar theme, context, and import?
Sherry Michael
: >|>See THE GRIMOIRE OF LADY SHEBA (Llewellyn, 1972) or Stewart Farrar's
: >|>WHAT WITCHES DO (1971) for a full text. See Leland's ARADIA (1899)
: >|>for one, apparently major, source text from which Gardner et al. drew.
: Raven <JSI...@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU> writes:
: >Tim, of the three books I mention, two are where the querent could find
: >the Gardnerian/Alexandrian "Charge of the Goddess"; the third is the
: >oldest source text of which I am aware, well predating Crowley's book;
: Five years is "well predating"? _Aradia_ was published in 1899, while
: _The_Book_of_the_Law_ is from 1904. (Note: The modern Phoenix edition
: of _Aradia_ has an incorrect publication date of 1890, which is belied
: by the footnote on the facing page citing an article from 1897. My
: date of 1899 is from Shepard's _Encylopedia_of_Occultism_and_
: _Parapsychology_, entry on Leland.)
Five years is old enough for the Old Goat to "borrow" it, yes.
: Witches and pagans have been trying to downplay the significance of the
: Thelemic influence on their tradition ever since Doreen Valiente
: entered the picture in the 1950's. Your otherwise inexplicable
: omission is a continuation of that tradition of malign neglect.
Maybe because it has something to do with pagans not being Thelemic? Sure,
sure, I can understand when one gripes of ingnorance of roots, but not
crybabying because pagans don't kiss one philosopher's ass.
: >and I did label it "one, apparently major, source text" -- not "the only
: >source text" -- so don't pretend I claimed other sources don't exist.
: I didn't say you claimed it didn't exist. I said you pretended it didn't
: exist. I see no reason to modify my statement.
: --
: Tim Maroney. Please CC all public responses to t...@toad.com.
Tim, I don't think you have seen enough or Raven's posts to accuse her of
this omission. I suggest you re-read her comment and consider the
possibility of more people other than Mr. Beast contributing to paganism.
-moonowl
--
She is a bird indeed; but being conscious of her crime she avoids the
human gaze and the light, and conceals her shame in the darkness; and by
all the birds she is expelled entirely from the sky. -Ovid
Shawn Clayton Knight
wedn...@tezcat.com (Wednesday) writes:
> Agreed. Sigh.
> I had one of those conversations with Robin (that's my roommate, FYI,
> who subscribes to the style of Wicca that makes yonder Shawn here
> cringe)
A pal here at CMU knows all he has to do to p*** me off is say "Say,
Aleister Crowley ... wasn't he one of those fluffy-bunny Wiccans? :)"
> yesterday or the day before when we were shopping, where I tried
> to discuss 93ness, and kept coming up against a wall of the Pagan
> trappings and "So Mote It Be" and "An Ye Harm None." It can be a
> *very* frustrating experience, because the couplets make me want
> to hide in spite of my beliefs.
I have to admit that reciting the Thelemic Law at the beginning and
end of posts can actually be tiresome. Crowley insists we should be
joyful, knowing that we are free, but I sometimes get weary stating
what is to me, by now, self-evident. I really say it for the sake of
others - some folks stop and ask "Do what *what*??" and then I explain
Thelema to them and they say, "Oh, cool."
Some people (certain Wiccans and Christians, generally) react with the
"Oh, you're one of *them*" attitude. In those cases, it lets the
person know where I'm coming from, religiously, up-front, and if
they're a Crowleyphobe or a Thelemaphobe, I figure I'm doing them a
service by helping them stear clear of me right away. :)
> It frequently gets down to my trying to explain how I regard 93ness
> as *identical* to "An ye doo-wah" and that the Wiccan version is
> largely *redundant*, and potentially dangerous when lived out on the most
> superficial level. (Of course, they both are, but I think 93ness is
> probably the one least likely to cause self-destruction on its
> most superficial interpretation).
You've explained this to me. The thing is I actually think the Wiccan
Rede is safer if you use a superficial interpretation - at least to
others. It can be crippling to self ("Oh goddess, what if I hurt
something?"), which cannot be said of a superficial interpretation of
Thelema ("F*** everyone else!"). I don't think that the Rede's
injunction against harm is redundant vis-a-vis the Law of Thelema,
until you get down to a really serious (possible) interpretation of
each.
(Or maybe my attempt to deny the identity of the Rede and the Law is
my hypocritical equivalent of Wiccans who deny the influence of
Thelema on their religion. Still, I don't think so.)
> This, however, does not always translate. It amazes me how two
> people who consider themselves to be of basically the same spiritual
> lineage to some extent or another can speak such radically different
> languages. How do you convey matters to someone when you don't
> fall into the redundancies of Wiccaspeak?
See above re "redundancies"; I don't feel that the Rede is redundant,
given the fact that you're not supposed to unduly or unjustly harm
someone/thing. (When I say "unduly or unjustly" I mean that,
according to my understanding of Wicca, it is acceptable to eat
animals for food (according to most Wiccans) but not kill for sport;
it's acceptable to harvest branches, leaves, etc. from a plant, but
not to wantonly destroy a plant, etc.)
In Thelema, we accept the principle that it might happen to be
necessary to harm someone. The fact is that "what thou wilt" is
usually interpreted by students of Crowley to mean - "OK, harm
someone, but there better be a good reason and you must accept the
consequences".
An example which I'm sure Wednesday will grok is being cruel to
someone to get a point across, not for the sake of the cruelty.
Now when you look at my above comment on Thelemically harming someone
("there better be a good reason") and put it side by side with my
comments about harming something according to the Rede (harvesting,
food, medicine, etc.) ---- THERE is where you can find the roots of
Wednesday's identity between Thelema and Wicca.
Too often I see Wiccans accuse Thelemites of being irresponsible or
uncaring about others. Too often I see Thelemites accuse Wiccans of
being "wusses who are afraid to harm someone even when necessary". I
myself have been known to do the latter.
Well, this little babble should plant the seeds of further discussion,
which is what both these newsgroups are for.
Love is the law, love under will.
Tim Maroney
>Just out of curiosity, Tim, where should I look in my copy of Liber Al
>for the material that was adapted into the Charge?
All the bits I recall are from the first chapter of AL, but I don't have
a copy handy, so I can't say for sure. The book is less than a
half-hour's read, so you might as well read all of it!
Please note that my pointing out the influence of this book on Wiccan
writing does not imply any sort of wholesale endorsement of the Book of
the Law, any necessary condemnation of the Gardnerian text, or a denial
of the sigificance of other influences. I have a good deal of respect
for Gardnerian witchcraft, while my heretical statements of
disagreement with the Book of the Law have made me persona non grata in
some Thelemic circles. Furthermore, I feel there are other influences
on Gardnerian witchcraft which are at least as important as Thelema --
I do not endorse the school of thought which holds witchcraft to be
merely a poor man's Thelema.
I mention all this because a lot of Thelemists come at the issue with a
hidden agenda, which you would be right to suspect. For myself,
though, I am simply trying to keep the record straight. I would
summarize my position as being this:
1. There has been a systematic effort since the 1950's to downplay, even
to cover up, the influence of Crowley's work on the modern pagan
movement. Only over the last five years has it even become possible to
mention the influence without touching off a firestorm. There is still
a long way to go in this regard.
2. The influence of Crowley has been significant enough that it is
hard to understand a number of symbols and assumptions in the pagan
movement without familiarity with his work.
Wednesday
In article <Ij2LqES00...@andrew.cmu.edu>,
Shawn Clayton Knight <knigh...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
>What is being gotten at is this: _Liber AL_ and the "witchcraft" texts
>Raven cites have similarities. There is little evidence that _Aradia_
>influenced Crowley, yet much that Crowley (and definitely, therefore,
>_Liber AL_) influenced Gardner, the Farrars, etc.
And every single Wiccan down the line, by consequence, without their
knowing it always.
>(Wiccans denying Thelema in their religious heritage is just as bad as
>Christians denying the old mystery religions; if not worse because
>it's hypocrisy. Of all the Wiccans I've met, the one I know and
>respect the most, an ex of mine, refers to Wicca as "a hybrid of
>Crowleyan Thelema and traditional Pagan concepts." But what do I
>know? I'm just a stuffy Thelemite and it might be my Will to harm
>some. ;>)
Agreed. Sigh.
I had one of those conversations with Robin (that's my roommate, FYI,
who subscribes to the style of Wicca that makes yonder Shawn here
cringe) yesterday or the day before when we were shopping, where I tried
to discuss 93ness, and kept coming up against a wall of the Pagan
trappings and "So Mote It Be" and "An Ye Harm None." It can be a
*very* frustrating experience, because the couplets make me want
to hide in spite of my beliefs.
This happens with a lot of people I know.
It frequently gets down to my trying to explain how I regard 93ness
as *identical* to "An ye doo-wah" and that the Wiccan version is
largely *redundant*, and potentially dangerous when lived out on the most
superficial level. (Of course, they both are, but I think 93ness is
probably the one least likely to cause self-destruction on its
most superficial interpretation).
This, however, does not always translate. It amazes me how two
people who consider themselves to be of basically the same spiritual
lineage to some extent or another can speak such radically different
languages. How do you convey matters to someone when you don't
fall into the redundancies of Wiccaspeak?
--
- - - - - - - - - - W e d n e S d a Y WWW information temporarily unavailable
w e d n s d a y @ t e z c a t . c o m as Wednesday relocates from MCS to here
w e d n s d a y @ m c s . c o m - - - so pleeeeease be patient, OK everyone??
Arlie Stephens
simply use my killfile.) The following response is not entirely to Tim;
his article just seems to be a good starting point for discussing
this recurring topic.
In article <60...@toad.com>, Tim Maroney <t...@toad.com.UUCP> wrote:
>>|>See THE GRIMOIRE OF LADY SHEBA (Llewellyn, 1972) or Stewart Farrar's
>>|>WHAT WITCHES DO (1971) for a full text. See Leland's ARADIA (1899)
>>|>for one, apparently major, source text from which Gardner et al. drew.
>
>t...@toad.com (Tim Maroney) writes:
>>|Look at anything but The Book of the Law, right? Does it cause some
>>|discomfort to see how much of the primary Wiccan scripture was taken
>>|directly from the work of Aleister Crowley? Is it easier to simply
>>|pretend that one of the primary sources of the Charge of the Goddess
>>|does not exist?
I frequently encounter self identified Thelemites insisting that Wiccans
and Pagans should constantly mention the part of our roots that is
connected with Thelema and Aleister Crowley.
Some of them seem to want us to 'acknowledge' that these influences
are the sole (or at least most important) source of the Wiccan/Pagan
movement. (For example, certain postings insisting that Crowley personally
wrote all of Gardner's rituals.) This position is fairly absurd; there
are a large number of fairly easily traceable sources for Wicca and
Paganism, and Crowley is only one of them.
Does it cause some discomfort to realize that Wiccans and Pagans are
mostly not especially interested in this part of our roots, and (in
many cases) have been working to remove Crowleyan influences from
our traditions and disassociate from Thelemites ?
>Raven <JSI...@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU> writes:
>>Tim, of the three books I mention, two are where the querent could find
>>the Gardnerian/Alexandrian "Charge of the Goddess"; the third is the
>>oldest source text of which I am aware, well predating Crowley's book;
[snip]
>Given that the borrowings from _Aradia_ and _The_Book_of_the_Law_ are
>roughly equal in word count and thematic import, I do not understand
>why one should be cited while the other is ignored, unless the cited
>source is less anxiety-provoking than the the ignored one. You chose
>to mention one and not the other, and the fact that one is half a
>decade older is not a very compelling explanation for this omission.
The original context has, unfortunately, expired at my site.
Was the original topic a general discussion of history (where all roots
are surely relevant) or specific suggestions for farther reading
for some Pagan who was interested in similar materials ?
>Witches and pagans have been trying to downplay the significance of the
>Thelemic influence on their tradition ever since Doreen Valiente
>entered the picture in the 1950's. Your otherwise inexplicable
>omission is a continuation of that tradition of malign neglect.
Wicca and Paganism are living traditions. Most of us revise our practices
and theories towards what feels right to us. Valiente, for example,
didn't feel comfortable with much of the material in Gardner's rituals...
I believe she said something like "beautiful poetry, but it doesn't suit
what we believe"; she consequently rewrote a number of rituals with
material that seemed more appropriate to her... and these revised
rituals were successful, in that many people have chosen to use them,
not Gardner's original material. As it happens, a lot of the material
she removed appears to have been derived from Crowley's work.
Wicca has a number of other sources. The Masonic influence is obvious,
especially in our early rituals. Yet most Wiccans are not comfortable
with pure Masonry, and chose to be Wiccans, but not Masons. Over time,
also, Masonic influences appear to have been removed from our traditions...
because they do not feel right to us. This has reached the point that
most recent traditions show almost no sign of Masonic influence, and
members of these traditions are unaware of the Masonic influence...
unless they are also into Masonry, or happen to be history buffs.
Gardner was also apparently into some branches of medieval ceremonial
magic; his notes are full of borrowings from the Goetia. This influence
died out almost immediately; most Wiccans, even those who worked with
Gardner directly, apparently had little use for this stuff. (Some like
it, of course ... but it never became part of Wicca.)
We also have roots in Christianity, classical paganism, various
eastern religions, etc.. These are primarily of interest to historians,
and to those who happen to be "into" some specific source of our
traditions. (Many of us feel especially connected to our roots
in pre-Christian western traditions, so prefer to discuss these roots.)
The Thelemic influence on Wicca is similar to the Masonic influence.
Most people who become Wiccans and Pagans aren't especially "into"
Thelema, though there are pieces of it that many of us do like.
Consequently, the Crowleyan influence has been removed over time,
except for those pieces that fit us... to the point where, once again,
members of newer traditions may be unaware of it, unless they are
history buffs or Thelemites. There appear to be more Wicca-compatible
aspects of Thelema than of Masonry, so there are more visible
remnants of Thelema within Wicca. Nonetheless, we are not a Thelemic
tradition, and many of us are violently allergic to Thelema.
Consequently, when pointing out interesting reading to potential
Wiccans, the Book of the Law isn't likely to be mentioned.
Thelema (as a whole) simply isn't Wiccan. Some people are into
both; many are into only one; and a few seem to think they are
the same idea in different clothing. (Hence the individuals that
insist that the two forms of "do what thou will" are variants of
each other, except that one or other is more correct.)
What I don't understand is why there are so many Thelemites who insist
on discussing Wicca's historical connection with Thelema. This discussion
seems unlikely to make Wiccans and Pagans become Thelemites; it seems much
more likely to make people angry, and biased against Thelemites.
I suppose the motivation is similar to Pagans who insist on "correcting"
the Thelemic "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" into
"An it harm none, do what ye will". Whether or not one of these is
derived from the other, these are clearly different now.
Personally, I rather wish both types of individual would shut up.
Unwanted proselytizing is extremely tedious. (Perhaps I should take
my own advice, and not post this message :-))
[snip]
>--
>Tim Maroney. Please CC all public responses to t...@toad.com.
---
Arlie Stephens ar...@netcom.com
Sherry Michael
: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
: Some people (certain Wiccans and Christians, generally) react with the
: "Oh, you're one of *them*" attitude. In those cases, it lets the
: person know where I'm coming from, religiously, up-front, and if
: they're a Crowleyphobe or a Thelemaphobe, I figure I'm doing them a
: service by helping them stear clear of me right away. :)
Maybe I can explain some of this. *sigh* I'd suppose it would be worthless to
mention the very annoying tendancy of many Thelemites to "fluffy bunny"
Wicca? Honest, there ARE Wiccans who read and understand more then
Llewellyn philosophy. I guess if Wicca is fluffy-bunny, hollow and watered
down Crowley, then Thelema is the "One True Way?" My point: maybe the, 'you
are one of *them*' is a reaction of being constantly belittled.
: You've explained this to me. The thing is I actually think the Wiccan
: Rede is safer if you use a superficial interpretation - at least to
: others. It can be crippling to self ("Oh goddess, what if I hurt
: something?"), which cannot be said of a superficial interpretation of
: Thelema ("F*** everyone else!"). I don't think that the Rede's
: injunction against harm is redundant vis-a-vis the Law of Thelema,
: until you get down to a really serious (possible) interpretation of
: each.
[zap]
: See above re "redundancies"; I don't feel that the Rede is redundant,
: given the fact that you're not supposed to unduly or unjustly harm
: someone/thing. (When I say "unduly or unjustly" I mean that,
: according to my understanding of Wicca, it is acceptable to eat
: animals for food (according to most Wiccans) but not kill for sport;
: it's acceptable to harvest branches, leaves, etc. from a plant, but
: not to wantonly destroy a plant, etc.)
: In Thelema, we accept the principle that it might happen to be
: necessary to harm someone. The fact is that "what thou wilt" is
: usually interpreted by students of Crowley to mean - "OK, harm
: someone, but there better be a good reason and you must accept the
: consequences".
: An example which I'm sure Wednesday will grok is being cruel to
: someone to get a point across, not for the sake of the cruelty.
: Now when you look at my above comment on Thelemically harming someone
: ("there better be a good reason") and put it side by side with my
: comments about harming something according to the Rede (harvesting,
: food, medicine, etc.) ---- THERE is where you can find the roots of
: Wednesday's identity between Thelema and Wicca.
: Too often I see Wiccans accuse Thelemites of being irresponsible or
: uncaring about others. Too often I see Thelemites accuse Wiccans of
: being "wusses who are afraid to harm someone even when necessary". I
: myself have been known to do the latter.
I think you have some very interesting points. However, I think we may be
looking at individual interpretations of the law and the rede. A Wiccan,
such as I, realize that sometimes harming something will cause it the least
harm in the end. The example being cruel to get a point across. Sometimes
people need to be slapped around by a 2x4...but the results of awareness
may overwelm the harm inflicted. Making the rede or law absolute
commandments instead of guidelines is were the error may lie.
All in all, I think the law and the rede supplement each other instead of
cancel out. The rede can be used to keep the law from becoming "fuck
everyone" and the law can be used to keep the rede from becoming
unrealistic and "fluffy bunny".
-moonowl
Shawn Clayton Knight
> All in all, I think the law and the rede supplement each other instead of
> cancel out. The rede can be used to keep the law from becoming "fuck
> everyone" and the law can be used to keep the rede from becoming
> unrealistic and "fluffy bunny".
>
A very interesting way to look at it. I like this. Thanks for
contributing something meaningful, and understanding where I was
coming from!
mark
p...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Peter Stephen Thomas Iii) wrote:
>
> (cut to a beautiful woman who looks as if she just stepped out of a certain
> commercial for margarine)
>
> "Hi! Do you know who I am? A lot of beings on the Physical Plane don't!
> That's why I carry the Astral Express Card!"
>
> (holds up gold card, zooms in on lower left hand corner,
> *BANG*BANG*BANG*BANG*BANG* the words THE GODDESS appears)
>
> fade to black
We just had this thread a few months ago....
(Looks up hill, sees Her on Her way down)
#insert "boogie_woogie_cavalry_charge.h"
mark "Cap'n Custer, this here's Cap'n Sittin' Bull...."
Raven
|The original context has, unfortunately, expired at my site.
|Was the original topic a general discussion of history (where all roots
|are surely relevant) or specific suggestions for farther reading
|for some Pagan who was interested in similar materials ?
One person, not a regular alt.pagan poster, quoted a snippet of text
and asked if anyone could identify for her what it was from, etc.
I replied that it was the Charge of the Goddess as set out by Gerald
B. Gardner and Doreen Valiente, derived in part from C.G. Leland....
} See THE GRIMOIRE OF LADY SHEBA (Llewellyn, 1972) or Stewart Farrar's
} WHAT WITCHES DO (1971) for a full text. See Leland's ARADIA (1899)
} for one, apparently major, source text from which Gardner et al. drew.
I then gave in and retyped the whole text from Farrar's book.
So two of the three books cited were simply where to find the text of
the Charge; the third was mentioned as one (ONE) of its sources.
If we're discussing witchcraft "scriptures", ARADIA was one such, even
before Gardner "borrowed" it, and some prefer its Charge to Gardner's.
That seems to me to be one additional reason to mention this text.
Gwendolyn M Piper
: -shawn
Gwendolyn M Piper
An' it harm none,
do what thou wilt.
is a sacred duty.
Both clauses.
Harm?
That's quite a word.
magic rat
Raven
|remember historically that *among other things*, your tradition drew
|upon Thelema.
True for those who use Gardnerian rituals as given...
Just as those who adopt Qabalah (Kabbalah, whatever) are using Jewish
tradition, or others use Amerindian traditions, etc.
But Aradians, who draw from Leland's book and NOT Gardner's, can't be
fairly said to have used any of the above just because they share a
"denomination" with other people who do.
Once again, it's a fallacy to describe the superset as having all the
attributes of a particular subset.
Paul and Michele
: Hi Raven!
: Isn't it funny that I left a post stating that it is extremely funny
: that Crowley influenced Wiccan tradation considering that he was a woman
: hater, and objectified women, and no one has responded to that?? I think
: that says something about the Thelemites, who, in my opinion, tend to be
: boys concerned with childish whims instead of freedom???
Kephera,
Really, it doesn't matter what Crowley's views on women were. In order
for him to have influenced nascent Wicca, it's only necessary that his
writings should catch the attention of Gardner and others at the
beginning of the movement. Since Crowley's writings were catching the
attention of just about everybody in the occult world in those days, that
doesn't seem unlikely.
In fact, none of this is really open to doubt. In "The Rebirth of
Witchcraft" Doreen Valiente stated that Gardner's early writings (such as
the Charge of the Goddess) were laden with material drawn from Crowley.
There's little evidence to support the old rumour that Crowley actually
wrote the Gardnerian Book of Shadows, but with the textual evidence of
early Gardnerian documents and physical evidence such as Gardner's OTO
documents, there's no sense trying to deny that Crowley had an influence
early on.
--Paul (Not a Thelemite -- just a Wiccan who wants to keep our history
straight)
Shawn Clayton Knight
> wrote all of Gardner's rituals.) This position is fairly absurd; there
> are a large number of fairly easily traceable sources for Wicca and
> Paganism, and Crowley is only one of them.
I agree. One that should not be overlooked.
> Does it cause some discomfort to realize that Wiccans and Pagans are
> mostly not especially interested in this part of our roots, and (in
> many cases) have been working to remove Crowleyan influences from
> our traditions and disassociate from Thelemites ?
It causes more disgust than discomfort to think of anyone associated
with a religion without bothering to try to learn historically, not
dogmatically, how it evolved. I know, most of the world's religious
adherents don't know or care how their religions evolved. Does Wicca
want to be like the other religions and become divisive, exclusive,
intolerant, and (ultimately) dying grievously, but not before it
divides countless lives and ends others?
Just something to think about.
> Wicca and Paganism are living traditions. Most of us revise our practices
> and theories towards what feels right to us. Valiente, for example,
> didn't feel comfortable with much of the material in Gardner's rituals...
> I believe she said something like "beautiful poetry, but it doesn't suit
> what we believe"; she consequently rewrote a number of rituals with
> material that seemed more appropriate to her... and these revised
> rituals were successful, in that many people have chosen to use them,
> not Gardner's original material. As it happens, a lot of the material
> she removed appears to have been derived from Crowley's work.
Fine. Then remember Thelema as what you once were and what you no
longer wish to be. (As a Thelemite, I maintain that this is your
sacred right and privilege to distance yourself from Thelema.) But
remember historically that *among other things*, your tradition drew
upon Thelema.
> Wicca has a number of other sources. The Masonic influence is obvious,
> especially in our early rituals. Yet most Wiccans are not comfortable
> with pure Masonry, and chose to be Wiccans, but not Masons. Over time,
> also, Masonic influences appear to have been removed from our traditions...
> because they do not feel right to us. This has reached the point that
> most recent traditions show almost no sign of Masonic influence, and
> members of these traditions are unaware of the Masonic influence...
> unless they are also into Masonry, or happen to be history buffs.
Fine. But you remember Masonry as a stage and a contributor in your
evolution. That's all I ask for; I can't speak for Tim or any other
Thelemite.
> What I don't understand is why there are so many Thelemites who insist
> on discussing Wicca's historical connection with Thelema. This discussion
> seems unlikely to make Wiccans and Pagans become Thelemites; it seems much
> more likely to make people angry, and biased against Thelemites.
I don't want more Wiccans to become Thelemites (Actively. I don't
mind if they do, but in my interpretation of Liber AL, converting is
not a good idea.)
However, if it makes you angry that we mention Thelema is one of your
roots - a fact which even you don't deny - then I think you're a
little bloody thin-skinned about your religious beliefs. Even in my
most annoyed-with-Wicca moments, I don't try to deny that Wicca
derived SOME (I never said all) of its early material from Thelema. I
don't deny the relationship that exists, however tenuous.
> I suppose the motivation is similar to Pagans who insist on "correcting"
> the Thelemic "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" into
> "An it harm none, do what ye will". Whether or not one of these is
> derived from the other, these are clearly different now.
I don't care if someone goes by the Rede as opposed to the Law. But
if a Wiccan spends enough time telling me that the Rede is right and
the Law wrong, we'll see how quickly I demonstrate that the Law does
not forbid me to harm someone. ;>
> Arlie Stephens ar...@netcom.com
_In fine_ I think too much fuss is made. Wicca inherited stuff from
Thelema; now it seeks to go in a different direction. No big deal.
Both the Rede and the Law emphasize the concept of personal freedom.
No reason why they can't coexist. I just would caution Wiccans not to
forget their roots INCLUDE (not "ARE") Thelema, whether they accept
those roots or not - just like Christians should never forget their
Pagan roots, accepted or not. That's all.
Tim Maroney
>Aradians, who draw from Leland's book and NOT Gardner's, can't be
>fairly said to have used any of the above just because they share a
>"denomination" with other people who do.
Could you provide some references to practicing non-Gardnerian
Aradians? Thanks!
Shawn Clayton Knight
I want to go down in the annals of magick as an open-minded Thelemite.
Here we go.
kep...@hollywood.cinenet.net (kephra) writes:
> Hi Raven!
> Isn't it funny that I left a post stating that it is extremely funny
> that Crowley influenced Wiccan tradation considering that he was a woman
> hater, and objectified women, and no one has responded to that?? I think
> that says something about the Thelemites, who, in my opinion, tend to be
> boys concerned with childish whims instead of freedom???
I wouldn't say a woman-hater, but he certainly did bitch about women
enough. He didn't know what he really wanted from women, I think, and
thus he was always having mistresses, etc. There's nothing inherently
wrong with this, but the women didn't always seem to like it (Leah
Hirsig, apparently, for example, was quite upset about it).
Objectifying women? Again, depends on how you look at it. I think
90% of Crowley's gynophobia/misogyny stems from his mother. Not that
that's an excuse, but there it is.
Boys concerned with childish whims? I would take strong exception to
that. Although when I saw the Enterprise NCC-1701-B toy in Spencer's
a month ago I HAD TO BUY IT. ;>
I really think that Thelemites have two broad types - "real"
Thelemites who are concerned with freedom and discovering their true
Will, and pseudo-Thelemites who use Thelema as an excuse for being
depraved, sex-addicted, drug-addicted, generally immature, and
otherwise one of the "slaves who serve".
Similarly, a number of Wiccans (whom I have great respect for) try to
eschew the "fluffy-bunny happiness and light" image of Wicca (often
associated with Llewellyn publications).
Every religion has some bad examples; Crowley himself told Grady
McMurtry something to the effect of "I'll probably never be a good
Thelemite because I was born too early before _AL_ was written".
If you wanted a Thelemite to admit that Thelema is not perfect, all
you had to do was ask.
Love is the law, love under will.
-shawn
Peggy Brown
>kephra (kep...@hollywood.cinenet.net) wrote:
>: Hi Raven!
>: Isn't it funny that I left a post stating that it is extremely funny
>: that Crowley influenced Wiccan tradation considering that he was a woman
>: hater, and objectified women, and no one has responded to that??
It has been discussed to death before, in alt.magick. You didn't say
anything new or interesting.
>I think
>: that says something about the Thelemites, who, in my opinion, tend to be
>: boys concerned with childish whims instead of freedom???
>
>Kephera,
I am a woman and a Thelemite. I borrow what I like from wherever I find
it. I certainly do not accept all that Crowley (or anyone else) had to
say.
- Peggy -
Peggy Brown
>: Hi Raven!
>: Isn't it funny that I left a post stating that it is extremely funny
>: that Crowley influenced Wiccan tradation considering that he was a woman
>: hater, and objectified women, and no one has responded to that?? I think
>: that says something about the Thelemites, who, in my opinion, tend to be
>: boys concerned with childish whims instead of freedom???
>
>Kephera,
One more thing.... Isn't it funny that so many women flap endlessly about
the Goddess and they haven't the foggiest knowledge of reproducing -- which
is the main defining characteristic of the Goddess?
Might as well be men.
- Peggy -
Bill Heidrick
>Isn't it funny that I left a post stating that it is extremely funny
>that Crowley influenced Wiccan tradation considering that he was a woman
>hater, and objectified women, and no one has responded to that?? I think
>that says something about the Thelemites, who, in my opinion, tend to be
>boys concerned with childish whims instead of freedom???
Gardner started with whips on the altar, didn't he? ;-)
More to the point, Crowley's misogynist tendencies, derived apparently
from Plymouth Brethren childhood complicated by being raised by ladies
exclusively after the death of his father, amount to a note in his life and
works, not a theme. All this has been quite thoroughly beaten to death
in multiple posts. Crowley was wrong in his demeaning of women, however
he may have been helpless in his anger at childhood perceptions and
Victorian prejudices. He was ahead of his time in advancing women's rights.
The reforming radicals of the past are the screaming conservatives
of today. In any event, few of A.C.'s scarlet women tolerated this sort
of thing for long. He was regularly paved near the end of most of his
relationships.
Incidentally, the Masonic content in Gardner's BoS is overwhelmingly
taken from O.T.O., including whole paragraphs of O.T.O. initiation
ritual lifted verbatim and cut into the old cord rituals. "So mote
it be" is a Masonic element not from O.T.O., as much; but it is found
in other Crowley text mined by Gardner. "Do what thou wilt shall be
the whole of the Law." can be found in precursor in Rabelais, centuries
before Aradia and Liber AL --- a point noted by Crowley in his comment
to Liber AL.
Wicca, like Freemasonry and many other things, is an emergent from the
flow of European cultural heritage. It came wearing the clothing of the
day, picked up from the place of it's latter rebirth. More fit garments
have been crafted, and the latent ghosts of mystery have come to stronger
light. In the process, Wicca has become more Christianized and forgetful of
other survivals of it's intact past. Herbal concoctions like "A powder
to use when a man of a horse is bewitched" (from my great grandmother's
collection of remedies, including in this case cinquefoil and human bone)
have been displaced by pretty rocks on sticks and plaster curios. Media
has become more tolerant, polluting as it goes by preferring over-weight
ladies with too much dark eye-shaddow and simple minded patter. All this
is normal. Strive to be what you are, less by hiding crazy auntie
Alice in the attic and more by crafting the art of the wise.
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick (whose great grandmother was Augusta (Sodie) Heidrick
from Stedfeld, wed in 1828 e.v. to Adam the philanderer.)
Arlie Stephens
Bill Heidrick <heid...@well.sf.ca.us> wrote:
[snip]
> Incidentally, the Masonic content in Gardner's BoS is overwhelmingly
>taken from O.T.O., including whole paragraphs of O.T.O. initiation
>ritual lifted verbatim and cut into the old cord rituals. "So mote
>it be" is a Masonic element not from O.T.O., as much; but it is found
>in other Crowley text mined by Gardner. "Do what thou wilt shall be
>the whole of the Law." can be found in precursor in Rabelais, centuries
>before Aradia and Liber AL --- a point noted by Crowley in his comment
>to Liber AL.
Neat. I had wondered about that, but don't have access to the O.T.O.
rituals. (I'm too cheap to buy Francis King's expose.) You obviously
do have this access; I presume you also have access to standard
Masonic rituals to compare. Also, given your role in the O.T.O., you
probably have access to the O.T.O. rituals as they existed at the time
when Gardner might have been exposed to them.
Do you have evidence that Gardner was ever a member of the O.T.O. ?
I believe that it is fairly well established that he, and other members
of his original group, were Co-Masons.
When I read Duncan's Masonic ritual expose (I am not a Mason), many points
were reminiscent of Alexandrian initiation rituals. (Gardnerian and
Alexandrian are very similar.)
However, I have also encountered at least one oddity in Gardner's unpublished
writings that seemed very similar to something an O.T.O. member once told
me about some O.T.O. initiation; I have not seen any parallel to this in
any other literature, and I do not believe it became part of the Gardnerian
tradition. (I was reading an initiation from one of Gardner's early Books
of Shadows, believed to have been written before Gardnerianism became
standardized.)
I interpret from the above that you, with access to both Masonic and OTO
materials, and to (at least) the published Gardnerian materials, believe
that the Gardnerian materials are more similar to the O.T.O. than to
Masonry.
I do not know anything about the differences between Co-Masonry and
standard Masonry, other than the fact that the former group of Masons
admits women. Is it possible that the O.T.O. is more similar to the
Co-Masons than to the Masons ? (I have vague memories of reading
somewhere that some of the Golden Dawn founders were Co-Masons.
Since the GD admitted women, this seems somewhat more plausible
than that they were ordinary Masons ... but my only evidence is
a vague memory that is quite likely wrong.)
Also, would you be breaking any oaths to point out *which* parts of
Gardner's BOS appear to be verbatim copies of OTO materials ?
(Hopefully these are OTO materials that have already been published
by Francis King... i.e. you wouldn't be revealing anything new,
unless you told me about errors in King's expose.)
>93 93/93
>Bill Heidrick (whose great grandmother was Augusta (Sodie) Heidrick
>from Stedfeld, wed in 1828 e.v. to Adam the philanderer.)
Disclaimer: I am *not* trying to say that Gardner did not get some
of his material from Crowley. That is fairly obvious, and uncontested.
I am merely curious about the amount of specifically O.T.O. influence...
especially as contrasted with direct Masonic influence. I could easily
imagine Gardner copying O.T.O. rituals if he had access to them; he
appears to have copied everything he could get his hands on.
----
Arlie Stephens (ar...@netcom.com)
Tim Maroney
>> Incidentally, the Masonic content in Gardner's BoS is overwhelmingly
>>taken from O.T.O., including whole paragraphs of O.T.O. initiation
>>ritual lifted verbatim and cut into the old cord rituals.
Hi, Bill! I never sawe this message, only the response. In fact, I
haven't seen a message from you here in a long time, unfortunately.
Anyway, I disagree about the O.T.O. sources. I've read Masonic
exposes, Gardnerian exposes, and the main O.T.O. expose, and there's no
doubt in my mind that both in structure and word count there are far
more influences from the Craft degrees in Gardner's tradition than from
O.T.O. degrees.
Naturally, we're both a bit inhibited on the subject by our vows, but I
can say this. There are direct textual borrowings from the Craft
degrees in the Gardnerian degrees for which the same text does not
appear in the O.T.O. degrees. I have just gone back over the versions
given by the Farrars. I noted several borrowings from the Craft
degrees, and none from the O.T.O. degrees. The only Thelemic materials
as such appear in the third degree ritual, and those are taken not from
O.T.O. degrees but from the Gnostic Mass. It would appear that
Gardner took the Craft degrees, mixed in a lot of flagellation a la
classic modes of British pornography, some of his usual Key of Solomon
stuff, and a few passages from the Gnostic Mass, but I don't see
anything that shouts of being taken from the O.T.O. initiations.
ar...@netcom.com (Arlie Stephens) writes:
>Do you have evidence that Gardner was ever a member of the O.T.O. ?
He said he was on the title page of _High_Magic's_Aid. Some journal
entries which have been cited as evidence that Crowley gave Gardner
O.T.O. degrees actually don't demonstrate that very well. It is
known that Crowley and Gardner met.
>When I read Duncan's Masonic ritual expose (I am not a Mason), many points
>were reminiscent of Alexandrian initiation rituals.
Yes indeed!
>However, I have also encountered at least one oddity in Gardner's unpublished
>writings that seemed very similar to something an O.T.O. member once told
>me about some O.T.O. initiation; I have not seen any parallel to this in
>any other literature, and I do not believe it became part of the Gardnerian
>tradition. (I was reading an initiation from one of Gardner's early Books
>of Shadows, believed to have been written before Gardnerianism became
>standardized.)
Don't tease! What is it?
>I do not know anything about the differences between Co-Masonry and
>standard Masonry, other than the fact that the former group of Masons
>admits women. Is it possible that the O.T.O. is more similar to the
>Co-Masons than to the Masons ?
Co-Masonry uses rituals which are very similar to that of mainstream
Masonry -- more similar than the O.T.O.
Daniel B. Holzman
Peggy Brown <oisp...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
>One more thing.... Isn't it funny that so many women flap endlessly about
>the Goddess and they haven't the foggiest knowledge of reproducing -- which
>is the main defining characteristic of the Goddess?
>
>Might as well be men.
>
>- Peggy -
>
I don't recall either the Maiden or the Crone doing much reproducing...
--
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiples. -- All acts of love
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.
Sherry Michael
: In article <besnodeD...@netcom.com>, bes...@netcom.com (Paul and Michele) writes...
: >kephra (kep...@hollywood.cinenet.net) wrote:
[senseless stereotyping deleted]
: One more thing.... Isn't it funny that so many women flap endlessly about
: the Goddess and they haven't the foggiest knowledge of reproducing -- which
: is the main defining characteristic of the Goddess?
: Might as well be men.
: - Peggy -
*snicker* Hum, if I prefer the Goddess in the reclaimer/Crone form, should
I become an undertaker? :)
-moonowl
--
kephra
<knigh...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
>
> I really think that Thelemites have two broad types - "real"
> Thelemites who are concerned with freedom and discovering their true
> Will, and pseudo-Thelemites who use Thelema as an excuse for being
> depraved, sex-addicted, drug-addicted, generally immature, and
> otherwise one of the "slaves who serve".
agreed.
>
> Similarly, a number of Wiccans (whom I have great respect for) try to
> eschew the "fluffy-bunny happiness and light" image of Wicca (often
> associated with Llewellyn publications).
I would know about the Llewelyn books, but most pagans I know are
definitely more earthy types. Can't say I know the "fluffy-bunny" kind,
though I have read their posts.
--
kephra
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><)))(((><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"I thought of a pork pie, and I tell you, it was like a fuckin' BRAIN WAVE!"
Richard E. Grant, How to Get Ahead in Advertising
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Raven
| Isn't it funny that I left a post stating that it is extremely funny
|that Crowley influenced Wiccan tradation considering that he was a woman
|hater, and objectified women, and no one has responded to that?? I think
|that says something about the Thelemites, who, in my opinion, tend to be
|boys concerned with childish whims instead of freedom???
I don't think Gardner was entirely innocent of this, either.
The High Priestess must step down for a younger replacement...
while her counterpart the High Priest [e.g. Gardner himself]
can be an old geezer? Taken together with the nudity -- and
the Great Rite -- it sounds to me like he had ulterior motives.
Bill Heidrick
>Do you have evidence that Gardner was ever a member of the O.T.O. ?
Yes.
A. Gardner's initiation to the middle OTO degrees is noted in Crowley's
diary.
B. Gardner wrote in 1948 e.v. that he believed himself to be the head
of O.T.O. in Europe (Letter is in the Harry Ransome Humanities Research
Center collection at the U.of Texas, Austin).
C. Many other contemporaries of Crowley c. 1947-8 e.v. mention Gardner's
being a member of O.T.O., in correspondence.
D. Gardner's charter to operate an O.T.O. body exists, apparently in
Gardner's hand but signed by Crowley (A.Greenfield has it in GA).
>I interpret from the above that you, with access to both Masonic and OTO
>materials, and to (at least) the published Gardnerian materials, believe
>that the Gardnerian materials are more similar to the O.T.O. than to
>Masonry.
Identical, rather than more similar, in some parts -- based on the unpublished
Gardnarian rituals in Kelly's 1970's master's thesis, not to be confused with
his more recent and strange book on the subject. O.T.O. verbatim, not the
same as the language in 19th century AASR published version of ritual.
>Is it possible that the O.T.O. is more similar to the
>Co-Masons than to the Masons ?
Until about 1920 e.v., O.T.O. claimed to be a co-Masonic version of AASR.
We don't make that claim now, to avoid profitless and pointless difficulty
with regular Craft Masonry and AASR. During that earlier time, AASR degrees
were recognized in O.T.O. as granting O.T.O. equivalent degrees, no further
initiation necessary.
>Also, would you be breaking any oaths to point out *which* parts of
>Gardner's BOS appear to be verbatim copies of OTO materials ?
To say that would be to break my oaths. Bend 'em I do, but so far no "snap."
Anyone with an old set of the three cord rituals and Francis King's book
can find it for themselves. I can say it is there, but I may not say
exactly where or even confirm the accuracy or inaccuracy of parts of King's
book --- it's close enough to the old drafts of the O.T.O. rituals to
serve this purpose.
>I could easily
>imagine Gardner copying O.T.O. rituals if he had access to them;
He had access. Crowley sent him over to study the rituals with Gerald
Yorke -- again noted in abbreviated form in Crowley's last diary.
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick
CERN...@news.delphi.com
>Identical, rather than more similar, in some parts -- based on the unpublished
>Gardnarian rituals in Kelly's 1970's master's thesis, not to be confused with
>his more recent and strange book on the subject.
When you say "strange book", are you referring to _Crafting the Art of
Magic: A History of Modern Witchcraft_? If so, what did you find strange
about it? It seemed pretty "normal" to me.
By the way, when you say AASR, are you referring to A*A, or to something
else and if so, what?
Peggy Brown
>In article <D1y2u...@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
>Peggy Brown <oisp...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>
>>One more thing.... Isn't it funny that so many women flap endlessly about
>>the Goddess and they haven't the foggiest knowledge of reproducing -- which
>>is the main defining characteristic of the Goddess?
>>
>>Might as well be men.
>>
>>- Peggy -
>>
>
>I don't recall either the Maiden or the Crone doing much reproducing...
>--
>Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiples. -- All acts of love
How about the aspect in-between?
- Peggy -
Peggy Brown
>Peggy Brown (oisp...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu) wrote:
>: In article <besnodeD...@netcom.com>, bes...@netcom.com (Paul and Michele) writes...
>: >kephra (kep...@hollywood.cinenet.net) wrote:
>
>[senseless stereotyping deleted]
>
>: One more thing.... Isn't it funny that so many women flap endlessly about
>: the Goddess and they haven't the foggiest knowledge of reproducing -- which
>: is the main defining characteristic of the Goddess?
>
>: Might as well be men.
>
>: - Peggy -
>
>*snicker* Hum, if I prefer the Goddess in the reclaimer/Crone form, should
>I become an undertaker? :)
>
>-moonowl
Only if you've forgotten the lessons learned in the 2 previous aspects.
- Peggy -
Paul and Michele
: By the way, when you say AASR, are you referring to A*A, or to something
: else and if so, what?
AASR= Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite -- it's one of the "appendant"
orders of Masonry, along with the York Rite. Masonry "proper" has only
three degrees (another similarity to Wicca). THe higher degrees, such as
the "33rd degree" that you may have heard of come from the "appendant"
groups. The Scottish Rite takes the total to 32, and the York Rite
goes up to nine. The 33rd Degree is an honorary degree sometimes
conferred by the Shriners (another appendant order).
--Paul
Daniel B. Holzman
Peggy Brown <oisp...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>In article <3ehnf4$j...@Mars.mcs.com>, hol...@MCS.COM (Daniel B. Holzman) writes...
>>In article <D1y2u...@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
>>Peggy Brown <oisp...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>One more thing.... Isn't it funny that so many women flap endlessly about
>>>the Goddess and they haven't the foggiest knowledge of reproducing -- which
>>>is the main defining characteristic of the Goddess?
>>>
>>>Might as well be men.
>>>
>>>- Peggy -
>>>
>>
>>I don't recall either the Maiden or the Crone doing much reproducing...
>>--
>>Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiples. -- All acts of love
>
>How about the aspect in-between?
>
>- Peggy -
>
The Mother does plenty of reproducing, but given that 2/3 of the
Goddesses aspects don't, I don't think that reproducing can be said to be
THE MAIN defininf characteristic of the Goddess. Of the Mother perhaps,
but that is a different statement.
--
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiples. -- All acts of love
Peggy Brown
>In article <D1zLy...@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
>Peggy Brown <oisp...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3ehnf4$j...@Mars.mcs.com>, hol...@MCS.COM (Daniel B. Holzman) writes...
>>>In article <D1y2u...@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
>>>Peggy Brown <oisp...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>One more thing.... Isn't it funny that so many women flap endlessly about
>>>>the Goddess and they haven't the foggiest knowledge of reproducing -- which
>>>>is the main defining characteristic of the Goddess?
>>>>
>>>>Might as well be men.
>>>>
>>>>- Peggy -
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't recall either the Maiden or the Crone doing much reproducing...
>>>--
>>>Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiples. -- All acts of love
>>
>>How about the aspect in-between?
>>
>>- Peggy -
>>
>
>The Mother does plenty of reproducing, but given that 2/3 of the
>Goddesses aspects don't, I don't think that reproducing can be said to be
>THE MAIN defininf characteristic of the Goddess. Of the Mother perhaps,
>but that is a different statement.
>
>--
>Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiples. -- All acts of love
Since the goddess goes through the reproducing aspect in order become
a crone then 2/3 of the goddess aspects *do* reflect that experience.
(Plus its all virgins think of anyway.)
Since motherhood is the most guilt-provoking icon in western civilization,
it must make for an interesting religion.:)
- Peggy -
Rae Donohue
: Shawn Clayton Knight (knigh...@CMU.EDU) wrote:
: : Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
: : Some people (certain Wiccans and Christians, generally) react with the
: : "Oh, you're one of *them*" attitude. In those cases, it lets the
: : person know where I'm coming from, religiously, up-front, and if
: : they're a Crowleyphobe or a Thelemaphobe, I figure I'm doing them a
: : service by helping them stear clear of me right away. :)
: Maybe I can explain some of this. *sigh* I'd suppose it would be worthless to
: mention the very annoying tendancy of many Thelemites to "fluffy bunny"
: Wicca? Honest, there ARE Wiccans who read and understand more then
: Llewellyn philosophy. I guess if Wicca is fluffy-bunny, hollow and watered
: down Crowley, then Thelema is the "One True Way?" My point: maybe the, 'you
: are one of *them*' is a reaction of being constantly belittled.
I am quite pleased to find another person <Wiccan or not> who tries to
see beyond the "Llewellyn Philosophy". I do find use of that type of
philosophy, however, I certainly realise that all is not "Higher
Thoughts". I have been walking this path alone for so long. It is not all
that hard for me to continue doing just that. Not because there aren't
any groups I identify with, but rather because I dislike being pegged
as one of the aforementioned fluffy-bunny Wiccans.
: [zap]
: : See above re "redundancies"; I don't feel that the Rede is redundant,
: : given the fact that you're not supposed to unduly or unjustly harm
: : someone/thing. (When I say "unduly or unjustly" I mean that,
: : according to my understanding of Wicca, it is acceptable to eat
: : animals for food (according to most Wiccans) but not kill for sport;
: : it's acceptable to harvest branches, leaves, etc. from a plant, but
: : not to wantonly destroy a plant, etc.)
These things arent redundant. I am in total agreement. To cause harm by
choice (which is *not* always the case..) is unjust. Oddly enough, I
haven't met a lot of people, pagan, wiccan, or otherwise that *see* the
hunting of animals for food acceptable. I am perhaps influenced by my
upbringing, my family has always hunted. But it *is* important to be
respectful of the animals life/death. <Not Llewllyn Philosophy..just a
honest opinion.> It seems hypocritical to say 'Oh Gross!" to hunting and
then go to the grocery store and buy a steak... At least one is forced
to acknowledge the death of the animal.
: : In Thelema, we accept the principle that it might happen to be
: : necessary to harm someone. The fact is that "what thou wilt" is
: : usually interpreted by students of Crowley to mean - "OK, harm
: : someone, but there better be a good reason and you must accept the
: : consequences".
: : An example which I'm sure Wednesday will grok is being cruel to
: : someone to get a point across, not for the sake of the cruelty.
: : Now when you look at my above comment on Thelemically harming someone
: : ("there better be a good reason") and put it side by side with my
: : comments about harming something according to the Rede (harvesting,
: : food, medicine, etc.) ---- THERE is where you can find the roots of
: : Wednesday's identity between Thelema and Wicca.
: : Too often I see Wiccans accuse Thelemites of being irresponsible or
: : uncaring about others. Too often I see Thelemites accuse Wiccans of
: : being "wusses who are afraid to harm someone even when necessary". I
: : myself have been known to do the latter.
Defending oneself is not "harming none", to let yourself be harmed is
just silly. Of course, I have had times when protecting myself was not
the motivating factor. But it *does* require being ready to reap the
harvest of your actions.
: I think you have some very interesting points. However, I think we may be
: looking at individual interpretations of the law and the rede. A Wiccan,
: such as I, realize that sometimes harming something will cause it the least
: harm in the end. The example being cruel to get a point across. Sometimes
: people need to be slapped around by a 2x4...but the results of awareness
: may overwelm the harm inflicted. Making the rede or law absolute
: commandments instead of guidelines is were the error may lie.
It is a choice I make by stepping back and listening to myself. If I feel
that "Amberli, you are doing this for the *wrong* reason!!" I try to let
whatever the problem is go. But if I know that the 2x4 is the way to go..
then I swing with as much accuracy as I can. (Nice touch, BTW.. the 2x4
analogy that is! :)
You are actually agreeing with each other.. You do understand that,
right?!?!
Shine One,
-=Amberli=-
Raven
|Bill Heidrick <heid...@well.sf.ca.us> wrote:
|[snip]
|> Incidentally, the Masonic content in Gardner's BoS is overwhelmingly
|>taken from O.T.O., including whole paragraphs of O.T.O. initiation
|>ritual lifted verbatim and cut into the old cord rituals. "So mote
|>it be" is a Masonic element not from O.T.O., as much; but it is found
|>in other Crowley text mined by Gardner. "Do what thou wilt shall be
|>the whole of the Law." can be found in precursor in Rabelais, centuries
|>before Aradia and Liber AL --- a point noted by Crowley in his comment
|>to Liber AL.
|
|Neat. I had wondered about that, but don't have access to the O.T.O.
|rituals. (I'm too cheap to buy Francis King's expose.) You obviously
|do have this access; I presume you also have access to standard
|Masonic rituals to compare. Also, given your role in the O.T.O., you
|probably have access to the O.T.O. rituals as they existed at the time
|when Gardner might have been exposed to them.
|
|Do you have evidence that Gardner was ever a member of the O.T.O. ?
|I believe that it is fairly well established that he, and other members
|of his original group, were Co-Masons.
|
|When I read Duncan's Masonic ritual expose (I am not a Mason), many points
|were reminiscent of Alexandrian initiation rituals. (Gardnerian and
|Alexandrian are very similar.)
Well, as Janet and Stewart Farrar (who were taught by Alex Sanders) have
since researched and publicly concluded, Alexandrian is a direct steal
from Gardnerian, with some wrinkles thrown in by Sanders, so their being
very similar is hardly surprising.
As to Gardner... he was a member of the Rosicrucian Theatre, an aspect
of the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia, the Masonic offshoot of which
the founders of the Order of the Golden Dawn were also members. In turn
Crowley joined and learned from the Golden Dawn, before striking off on
his own. There are enough different connections running through there
to confuse the trails a bit. Stating flatly that a resemblance between
Crowley's and Gardner's rituals means that Gardner stole from Crowley
ignores the possibility that they both used ideas from their common
background or pool of resources. Mind you, I lean toward the idea that
Crowley WAS an influence on Gardner -- but I won't be dogmatic about it.
Karen Davidson
>>>One more thing.... Isn't it funny that so many women flap endlessly about
>>>the Goddess and they haven't the foggiest knowledge of reproducing -- which
>>>is the main defining characteristic of the Goddess?
>>>
>>I don't recall either the Maiden or the Crone doing much reproducing...
>>--
>>Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiples. -- All acts of love
>
>How about the aspect in-between?
>
>- Peggy -
>
Mother of Ideas, Mothering of Plants and animals, Adoptive Mothering,
Mother of a political/spiritual movement, Mother of community,.....you
get the idea....I hope.
I'm pretty defensive on this one 'cause I've heard it a few too many
times. I too, have no intention of having kids. Fertility, and Mothering
have so many more *meanings* that simply pushing a baby out of one's body.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Karen Dark ...when you open up your life to the living
kdav...@library.uwaterloo.ca all things come spilling in on you
and you're flowing like a river
the Changer and the Changed...
Chris Williamson
Bill Heidrick
>Anyway, I disagree about the O.T.O. sources. I've read Masonic
>exposes, Gardnerian exposes, and the main O.T.O. expose, and there's no
>doubt in my mind that both in structure and word count there are far
>more influences from the Craft degrees in Gardner's tradition than from
>O.T.O. degrees.
We disagree indeed.
>I have just gone back over the versions
>given by the Farrars. I noted several borrowings from the Craft
>degrees, and none from the O.T.O. degrees. The only Thelemic materials
>as such appear in the third degree ritual, and those are taken not from
>O.T.O. degrees but from the Gnostic Mass.
Use Kelly's thesis with the older facsimiles, not the later Farrar material.
If you bring along your copy of King's Secret Rituals..., you will see it.
Actually, I am amazed that you can find no other Thelemic material.
We sat down together not long ago and went over some of this on the
page and in person. Do you recall the V.V.V.V.V. passage? What of
the Rede? What of "Hail Arradia..."?
>Some journal
>entries which have been cited as evidence that Crowley gave Gardner
>O.T.O. degrees actually don't demonstrate that very well.
Here, I think it's more than a difference of opinion. The abbreviated
entries are clear enough, given knowledge of similar references in
Crowley's diaries and the technical language of referencing degrees
in O.T.O. True, it's not at length; but Crowley rarely expresses
anything at length along these lines in his Royal Court Diaries.
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick
Bill Heidrick
CERN...@news.delphi.com (CERN...@DELPHI.COM) writes:
>heid...@well.sf.ca.us (Bill Heidrick) writes:
>>Identical, rather than more similar, in some parts -- based on the unpublished
>>Gardnarian rituals in Kelly's 1970's master's thesis, not to be confused with
>>his more recent and strange book on the subject.
>When you say "strange book", are you referring to _Crafting the Art of
>Magic: A History of Modern Witchcraft_? If so, what did you find strange
>about it? It seemed pretty "normal" to me.
What I find to be strange about that book (Crafting ...) is how an author
with Kelly's evident skills could write such a mass of unsupportable
and grossly under-graduate blunder-all. He can't find things in Crowley
that can be grabbed off the shelf in five minutes, misses nearly 100
references to Whip and Scourge in Crowley text he lists as read, argues
for dislexia in Gardner without evidence, hallucinates that the ancient
Greeks had no belief in reincarnation, bases theory on a quality of
philology that would gag Allegro .... and on and on.
>By the way, when you say AASR, are you referring to A*A, or to something
>else and if so, what?
AASR = Scottish Rite Freemasonry
>B.B.
>cern...@delphi.com
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick
Tina Sikorski
[I've always wondered; what if what I will is to be restricted from doing
what I want to? Does that still fall within the provence of Do what thou
wilt?]
>See above re "redundancies"; I don't feel that the Rede is redundant,
>given the fact that you're not supposed to unduly or unjustly harm
>someone/thing. (When I say "unduly or unjustly" I mean that,
>according to my understanding of Wicca, it is acceptable to eat
>animals for food (according to most Wiccans) but not kill for sport;
>it's acceptable to harvest branches, leaves, etc. from a plant, but
>not to wantonly destroy a plant, etc.)
I would say you were correct. But, there are those who would disagree
with me. Of course.
>In Thelema, we accept the principle that it might happen to be
>necessary to harm someone. The fact is that "what thou wilt" is
>usually interpreted by students of Crowley to mean - "OK, harm
>someone, but there better be a good reason and you must accept the
>consequences".
I'm not even a 'student of Crowley', and this is how I manage to mesh the
two...."do what thou wilt" is NOT incompatible with "an it harm none".
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to quote more than I said. But I wanted to throw
in my agreement with these quoted sections, from the standpoint of
someone who does NOT do the Thelema thing, although I'm not precisely a
Wiccan, either.
Raven
|Raven <JSI...@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU> writes:
|>Aradians, who draw from Leland's book and NOT Gardner's, can't be
|>fairly said to have used any of the above just because they share a
|>"denomination" with other people who do.
|
|Could you provide some references to practicing non-Gardnerian
|Aradians? Thanks!
For one quick citation, offhand, see the "Dianic" traditions
section in chapter 5 of Margot Addler's DRAWING DOWN THE MOON.
Raven
|Actually, I am amazed that you can find no other Thelemic material.
|We sat down together not long ago and went over some of this on the
|page and in person. Do you recall the V.V.V.V.V. passage? What of
|the Rede? What of "Hail Arradia..."?
Are you suggesting that ARADIA comes from the Thelemic tradition????
Tina Sikorski
>> Does it cause some discomfort to realize that Wiccans and Pagans are
>> mostly not especially interested in this part of our roots, and (in
>> many cases) have been working to remove Crowleyan influences from
>> our traditions and disassociate from Thelemites ?
>
>It causes more disgust than discomfort to think of anyone associated
>with a religion without bothering to try to learn historically, not
>dogmatically, how it evolved. I know, most of the world's religious
>adherents don't know or care how their religions evolved. Does Wicca
>want to be like the other religions and become divisive, exclusive,
>intolerant, and (ultimately) dying grievously, but not before it
>divides countless lives and ends others?
Umm.
I really don't care how any religion evolved. What I care about is how it
is practiced NOW, or rather, how _I_ practice it now, which really very
rarely has a whole lot to do with how _other_ people practice it now.
For me, at least. I'm rather eclectic.
I don't think that knowing or not knowing where a particular ritual or
belief came from has anything to do with practicing a religion. Nor do I
think not knowing where these things came from is going to have a
significant impact on the religion's survival.
This isn't to say that I don't know about <insert some religion I borrow
from>'s history, because, as it happens, from an entirely different angle
I AM interested in such things. I'm just not interested in them for the
sake of religious PRACTICE; rather, I'm interested in such history for
the sake of knowing history in general....I don't feel one can learn
about the past without examining as many aspects of it as possible, and
religious and philosophical belief have always been a very important
factor in why people have done what they have done.
It may well be that I'm wrong and that the fact that I hold this
tangential view on the history of religion IS important to my practice of
what I call my religion, but from this viewpoint it seems as if they are
completely seperate issues.
An analogy for you:
I have absolutely no idea how Windoze works. I mean, I have a really
basic idea, but I'm really bad at GUIs (this is why I like Unix. I
actually think curses is easier to understand). Yet, I still can and do
use Windoze without difficulty. It's a simple fact of life that it is
easier for me to use Windoze at work than not; I just do too many things
at once to be using a single character terminal with ease (screen or no).
I don't understand Windoze. I don't understand how anyone even thought UP
the idea of point and click. When I program things resembling games, I
have to get someone else to do the joystick and/or mouse functions. I
just don't get it. Does that mean that I should not use Windows?
>Fine. Then remember Thelema as what you once were and what you no
>longer wish to be. (As a Thelemite, I maintain that this is your
>sacred right and privilege to distance yourself from Thelema.) But
>remember historically that *among other things*, your tradition drew
>upon Thelema.
I really don't see why it matters.
I mean, I don't get it from EITHER angle.
OK, fine, Crowley and his writings had an influence on the earlier forms
of Wicca. At this point, many many Wiccans are removing bits and pieces
from the "original" Wicca, and adding bits and pieces of their own thang.
If, in excising old traditions, they remove that which was Thelema, it
does not seem to be particularly important that those things were once
there. They are not there now. If they don't, then it doesn't seem like
there should be any difficulty in acknowledging the source.
Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't get either the insistence (by some
Wiccans) that Crowley was insigificant (because, well, he wasn't,
although he may be NOW in some newer traditions), or the insistence (by
some Thelemites) that all Wiccans need to acknowledge Crowley (because,
ok, there was an influence...but alot of times now, that influence is
barely there, if there at all).
>> most recent traditions show almost no sign of Masonic influence, and
>> members of these traditions are unaware of the Masonic influence...
>> unless they are also into Masonry, or happen to be history buffs.
>
>Fine. But you remember Masonry as a stage and a contributor in your
>evolution. That's all I ask for; I can't speak for Tim or any other
>Thelemite.
Umm. Except that if you re-read the part about "members of these
traditions are unaware of the Masonic influence", you'll note that some
people DON'T remember Masonry as a contributor to the evolution of their
religion.
I happen to agree with something in the end of your note (which I've
deleted). I don't get what all the fuss is about.
Usually I stay out of these discussions for that reason.
I just happen to have been thinking about religion today.
*shrug*
=========================================================================
t i n a @ t e z c a t . c o m * * * * * * * e r i s @ i o . c o m
zendiscordianwiccanchristianjewoynotreallychaosorderneutralitywhocares???
"My mind has wandered from the flock you see, || "God is dead, and no one
and the flock has wandered away from me." || cares." -- NIN.
====================== http://tezcat.com/~tina/home.html ================
Shawn Clayton Knight
> >Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
> [I've always wondered; what if what I will is to be restricted from doing
> what I want to? Does that still fall within the provence of Do what thou
> wilt?]
I would say it was your will to be "of the slaves who serve", but I
believe there's a difference between Random Foo You Want To Do and
True Will. I would say that Random Foo is allowed if it doesn't
conflict with yours, or anyone else's, True Will. But if you will to
be further restricted, ... I suppose you could.
> I would say you were correct. But, there are those who would disagree
> with me. Of course.
"But, after all that, it is open to any one to have any opinion that
he likes open the subject, or any other subject, thank God!" - Uncle
Al
> I'm not even a 'student of Crowley', and this is how I manage to mesh the
> two...."do what thou wilt" is NOT incompatible with "an it harm none".
>
> I'm sorry. I didn't mean to quote more than I said. But I wanted to throw
> in my agreement with these quoted sections, from the standpoint of
> someone who does NOT do the Thelema thing, although I'm not precisely a
> Wiccan, either.
Hehe. Thanks for the input, Tina. (Just because you're neither
Wiccan nor Thelemite certainly doesn't invalidate your views!)
-shawn
Shawn C. Knight/knigh...@cmu.edu | "The nights of love ... We loved so
2010 Wendover Street Apartment No.5 | hard, we shook the stars above ..."
Pittsburgh, PA 15217 (412) 422-2842 | - Emerson, Lake, and Palmer
Bill Heidrick
>heid...@well.sf.ca.us (Bill Heidrick) writes:
>|Actually, I am amazed that you can find no other Thelemic material.
>|We sat down together not long ago and went over some of this on the
>|page and in person. Do you recall the V.V.V.V.V. passage? What of
>|the Rede? What of "Hail Arradia..."?
>Are you suggesting that ARADIA comes from the Thelemic tradition????
"Hail Aradia! From the Amalthean horn" is the first line of
a poem introduced by Gardner into the Wiccan corpus of ritual.
It is a near verbatim copy of Crowley's "La Fortune", with the name
"Tyche" replaced by "Aradia". (See p. 120, _The Works of Aleister
Crowley, Vol. III, "Rodin in Rime", 1907 e.v.).
The Book _Aradia: the Gospel of the Witches_ was edited by Charles Leland
from the manuscripts of an educated Italian woman called "Maddalena"
by Leland. It is not clear whether her work was fiction or a
a fictionalized adaptation of a folk tradition. Leland apparently
contributed little of significance in the book, other than obscuration
of the actual author and diminution of her credentials. I consider
this book to be a theft of another author's work. Does it have any
derivation from Thelema? Not Crowley's Thelema, that's clear given
the 1880's e.v. date of origin of the material. Did Rabelaisian Thelema
contribute? --- probably; but not in any direct way. Rabelaisian Thelema
had entered the European literary milieu by the end of the 16th century.
It is ubiquitous in many places, as untraceable in some as an molecule
of water once imbibed and eliminated by Attila the Hun and now in a
modern popsicle. I'd as soon try to trace the Medieval Latin of
the Archpoet in _Aradia..._, as Thelema.
Translated fragments of the Archpoet (died c. 1165 e.v.):
"Since the soul in me is dead,
Better save the skin!"
"Wounded to the quick am I
By a young girl's beauty:
She's beyond my touching? Well,
Can't the mind do duty?"
(Worth reading and containing the above: _Mediaeval Latin Lyrics_,
translated by Helen Waddell, Penguin, 1962 and later.)
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick
Tim Maroney
>>Anyway, I disagree about the O.T.O. sources. I've read Masonic
>>exposes, Gardnerian exposes, and the main O.T.O. expose, and there's no
>>doubt in my mind that both in structure and word count there are far
>>more influences from the Craft degrees in Gardner's tradition than from
>>O.T.O. degrees.
heid...@well.sf.ca.us (Bill Heidrick) writes:
>We disagree indeed.
It's not the first time, and I hope it won't be the last!
>>I have just gone back over the versions
>>given by the Farrars. I noted several borrowings from the Craft
>>degrees, and none from the O.T.O. degrees. The only Thelemic materials
>>as such appear in the third degree ritual, and those are taken not from
>>O.T.O. degrees but from the Gnostic Mass.
>Use Kelly's thesis with the older facsimiles, not the later Farrar material.
>If you bring along your copy of King's Secret Rituals..., you will see it.
I just now have read back over the Kelly material you kindly allowed me
to photocopy, and I don't see any text that I recognize from the
O.T.O. initiation rituals. Some clear borrowings from the Gnostic
Mass; Kelly even flags most of them himself; but everything else which
is similar to the O.T.O. initiations seems to be derived directly from
the Craft degrees in Freemasonry. I do not see any text or directions
which could not have come directly from the Craft degrees, and I see
some which clearly derives from the Craft degrees rather than O.T.O.
For instance, the presentation of working tools is structurally more
similar to the presentation of multiple symbolic tools in the Craft
degrees than to any act of single presentation of a symbolic object in
O.T.O degrees.
Could you give me some more specific reference to an apparent borrowing
from the O.T.O. initiations into the Gardnerian initiations? If a
quote would violate your oaths, a page and line number from the Kelly
ms., and/or from King, would be more than enough. You previously
documented some borrowing from the Gnostic Mass, and from some source
for the name V.V.V.V.V., but that was all your quote showed.
>Actually, I am amazed that you can find no other Thelemic material.
>We sat down together not long ago and went over some of this on the
>page and in person. Do you recall the V.V.V.V.V. passage? What of
>the Rede? What of "Hail Arradia..."?
I was responding specifically to the idea that Gardner's initiation
rituals borrowed to a significant extent from those of the O.T.O. The
five V's, the Amalthean Horn, the Wiccan Rede -- those aren't from the
O.T.O. initiations but from other sources, and (except for V.V.V.V.V.)
they aren't in the Gardnerian initiations. Yes, they are borrowings
from Crowley, without doubt, but not of the type I was questioning.
>>Some journal
>>entries which have been cited as evidence that Crowley gave Gardner
>>O.T.O. degrees actually don't demonstrate that very well.
>Here, I think it's more than a difference of opinion. The abbreviated
>entries are clear enough, given knowledge of similar references in
>Crowley's diaries and the technical language of referencing degrees
>in O.T.O. True, it's not at length; but Crowley rarely expresses
>anything at length along these lines in his Royal Court Diaries.
My friend DF went to our mutual friend JC over at PG Lodge and asked
some questions about the journal entry you cited in an earlier message.
"May [1947]
"Thur 1 Miss Eva Collins. Dr. G.B.Gardner Ph.D Singapore. Arnold
Crowther prof. G. a Magician to tea. Dr. G.R.Arch"]
According to JC (as per DF's account), it does not occur elsewhere in
his journals that Crowley gave an O.T.O. degree without using the word
"gave" and stating a specific O.T.O. title. The word "Magician" is
vague and certainly describes Gardner at that time. It is not
necessarily a reference to the II. Nor does having someone "to tea"
ordinarily signify granting them an initiatory title. As for the
"R[oyal] Arch", that is not usually an O.T.O. title, though a parallel
could be drawn. It most likely refers to Gardner's pre-existing
Masonic or Co-Masonic degree.
I can't agree with your earlier statement that this entry "can be taken
with considerable confidence as a note of initiation up to IVth degree
for Gardner, apparently from IInd degree O.T.O." So far as I know the
only direct evidence for Gardner's O.T.O. initiation remains the title
page of _High_Magic's_Aid_, on which he refers to himself (confusingly)
as "SCRIRE. O.T.O. 4 = 7", a conflation of the O.T.O. and the
A.'.A.'. -- which, from other sources, was apparently fairly common in
the Thelemic community at the time. Gardner is not a very reliable
source, so the issue of his O.T.O. membership remains unsettled, though
it seems probable based on circumstances and his own claim.
Andrew Haigh
: I do not know anything about the differences between Co-Masonry and
: standard Masonry, other than the fact that the former group of Masons
: admits women. Is it possible that the O.T.O. is more similar to the
: Co-Masons than to the Masons ?
No. Co-Masonry uses the same Work as `regular' Masonry with a few
differences. Co-Masonry is far closer to the regular Masonic bodies than
it is to the OTO.
@:|----
Andrew Haigh
: To say that would be to break my oaths. Bend 'em I do, but so far no "snap."
Bend `em, heh... Bill, you make a damn good pretzel ;)
@:|----
Andrew Haigh
: By the way, when you say AASR, are you referring to A*A, or to something
: else and if so, what?
Ancient and Accepted Scotch Rite, and appendant and concordant
body of Freemasonry.
@:|----
harl...@philaonline.com
IH>In article <D1y2u...@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
IH>Peggy Brown <oisp...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> wrote:
IH>>
IH>>One more thing.... Isn't it funny that so many women flap endlessly about
IH>>the Goddess and they haven't the foggiest knowledge of reproducing -- which
IH>>is the main defining characteristic of the Goddess?
IH>>
IH>>Might as well be men.
IH>>
IH>>- Peggy -
IH>>
IH>I don't recall either the Maiden or the Crone doing much reproducing...
IH>--
IH>Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiples. -- All acts of lo
IH>and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
IH>took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
IH>word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.
The Crone would have done all her reproducing while she was in the
Mother stage, these are not SEPARATE entities.
Harlequin
Message sent via Philadelphia Online Information Services
(610) 896-3612
Bill Heidrick
>heid...@well.sf.ca.us (Bill Heidrick) writes:
>>We disagree indeed.
>It's not the first time, and I hope it won't be the last!
Certainty, not faith :-)
>I don't see any text that I recognize from the
>O.T.O. initiation rituals.
You haven't received those degrees. Consider pp. 112, 201 and 202
of Kelly's TS. Not everything there is a rip of the Gnostic Mass.
I will not go further in pointing, but you should find enough between
those references and Francis King to think about.
>everything else which is similar to the O.T.O. initiations seems
>to be derived directly from the Craft degrees in Freemasonry.
Most of the initiation ritual of O.T.O. could be described as derived
directly from the Craft and AASR degrees in Freemasonry. My observation
is that the older Gardnarian rituals contain passages that are verbatim
from O.T.O., albeit also derivable from Masonry.
>some which clearly derives from the Craft degrees rather than O.T.O.
>For instance, the presentation of working tools is structurally more
>similar to the presentation of multiple symbolic tools in the Craft
>degrees than to any act of single presentation of a symbolic object in
>O.T.O degrees.
Here I am hampered regarding older versions of the O.T.O. rituals.
I may not reveal the language, and therefore cannot expect you to take
my word. Gardner would have had the opportunity to review those
older rituals (Kings's pirate publication was of a middle set, not
the oldest and not the latest versions in Crowley's last years). They
are close indeed.
>Could you give me some more specific reference to an apparent borrowing
>from the O.T.O. initiations into the Gardnerian initiations? If a
>quote would violate your oaths, a page and line number from the Kelly
>ms., and/or from King, would be more than enough. You previously
>documented some borrowing from the Gnostic Mass, and from some source
>for the name V.V.V.V.V., but that was all your quote showed.
Vid. Sup.
>According to JC (as per DF's account), it does not occur elsewhere in
>his journals that Crowley gave an O.T.O. degree without using the word
>"gave" and stating a specific O.T.O. title. The word "Magician" is
>vague and certainly describes Gardner at that time. It is not
>necessarily a reference to the II. Nor does having someone "to tea"
>ordinarily signify granting them an initiatory title. As for the
>"R[oyal] Arch", that is not usually an O.T.O. title, though a parallel
>could be drawn. It most likely refers to Gardner's pre-existing
>Masonic or Co-Masonic degree.
Jerry isn't always right. Neither am I. However, a dying man (A.C.
died 7 months later) is hardly likely to be sufficiently impressed by
AASR 4th degree to remark it in a journal. "Royal Arch of Enoch" is in
fact an O.T.O. title, as well as appellate masonic --- in O.T.O. it is
hardly used but in the rite & description itself, hence the strength of
this point. "Magician" to tea? If it were not for standing initiation,
Crowley would have more likely written "idiot" or "ass" if he intended
to describe such an one.
>I can't agree with your earlier statement that this entry "can be taken
>with considerable confidence as a note of initiation up to IVth degree
>for Gardner, apparently from IInd degree O.T.O."
Confirmed by Gardner's charter from A.C. and by the succident diary
entries (construction on the point) of diverting Gardner to Yorke
(indicated by Yorke's phone number in the text) in the pattern always
employed by Crowley when the new read-in was more available to
London than Crowley's current residence. The charter mentions the
degree.
>the title
>page of _High_Magic's_Aid_, on which he refers to himself (confusingly)
>as "SCRIRE. O.T.O. 4 = 7", a conflation of the O.T.O. and the
>A.'.A.'. -- which, from other sources, was apparently fairly common in
>the Thelemic community at the time.
It is possible that Gardner confounded OTO and A.'.A.'. degree/grade
notation, but that is still a common enough event. From time to time
I have to advise O.T.O. initiators of the difference, embarrassing as
that is. On the other hand, Yorke was more A.'.A.'. than O.T.O. It
is too slight a bit of evidence to support the conclusion, but Gardner
may have been citing both O.T.O. and A.'.A.'. membership, a combination
that was more common in the last several years of Crowley's life than
before and after. 4=7 is not unreasonable by the time of publication
of _High_Magic's_Aid_, especially after the death of Crowley and that
late. Had he said 7=4, the former observation would not fly and the
latter would be better phrased as "hubris" than "not unreasonable".
>the issue of his O.T.O. membership remains unsettled, though
>it seems probable based on circumstances and his own claim.
Speaking as an expert witness with credentials of being the principal
recorder of O.T.O. initiations for the last 17 years as well as the
fellow who ASCII'd in the minutes of Agape Lodge II initiations &
meetings (1935-1948) and an archivist of the Agape Lodge I initiation
data (WWI until 1930's): The combined weight of evidence for Gardner's
O.T.O. membership at an inclusive point between IVth and VIIth degree
exceeds both "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standards. I offer that it may meet the "clear and convincing"
standard. This is based not only on A.C.'s diary and Gardner's
statements in public press, but correspondence and charter evidence
already mentioned. The actual record of his membership would be buried
in unrecovered papers from either the Yorke or Wilkinson estates.
It may also be memorialized in unrecovered correspondence between
Gardner, Crowley and others --- this I have not seen, but the secondary
citations in correspondence do exist, both in the hands of Gardner and
Frieda Harris. Germer apparently accepted it as well.
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick
Wednesday
*grins*
In article <8j2gISW00...@andrew.cmu.edu>,
Shawn Clayton Knight <knigh...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
>A pal here at CMU knows all he has to do to p*** me off is say "Say,
>Aleister Crowley ... wasn't he one of those fluffy-bunny Wiccans? :)"
Like, you KNOW the Scarlet Woman is really just looking to be loved... :)
>I have to admit that reciting the Thelemic Law at the beginning and
>end of posts can actually be tiresome. Crowley insists we should be
>joyful, knowing that we are free, but I sometimes get weary stating
>what is to me, by now, self-evident. I really say it for the sake of
>others - some folks stop and ask "Do what *what*??" and then I explain
>Thelema to them and they say, "Oh, cool."
Mm, I dunno, honey; it's possible to be rather free and joyful and
weary at the same time -- and if you doubt, you didn't see me passed
out at a friend's house after much bacon last week. :)
>Some people (certain Wiccans and Christians, generally) react with the
>"Oh, you're one of *them*" attitude. In those cases, it lets the
>person know where I'm coming from, religiously, up-front, and if
>they're a Crowleyphobe or a Thelemaphobe, I figure I'm doing them a
>service by helping them stear clear of me right away. :)
Heh, 'cept I bet that gets you into serious flambations with the
more confrontational phobes...
>> It frequently gets down to my trying to explain how I regard 93ness
>> as *identical* to "An ye doo-wah" and that the Wiccan version is
>> largely *redundant*, and potentially dangerous when lived out on the most
>> superficial level. (Of course, they both are, but I think 93ness is
>> probably the one least likely to cause self-destruction on its
>> most superficial interpretation).
>
>You've explained this to me. The thing is I actually think the Wiccan
>Rede is safer if you use a superficial interpretation - at least to
>others. It can be crippling to self ("Oh goddess, what if I hurt
>something?"), which cannot be said of a superficial interpretation of
>Thelema ("F*** everyone else!").
Hmmm. I can see both sides of this issue. I can think of one pern who
seems to live under the MOST superficial possible interpretation of
93ness, and it's causing her world around her to pretty much degenerate
into a lot of people who Aren't Happy With Her In The Slightest (can
we say dysfunction, folks?) On the other hand,his actually *stems*
from the paralysis caused by superficial "An ye harm none..."
...well, I think so at least, I could be wrong.
>I don't think that the Rede's
>injunction against harm is redundant vis-a-vis the Law of Thelema,
>until you get down to a really serious (possible) interpretation of
>each.
On first glance, possibly not, depending on how you've decided to view
the True Will shazbat.
>(Or maybe my attempt to deny the identity of the Rede and the Law is
>my hypocritical equivalent of Wiccans who deny the influence of
>Thelema on their religion. Still, I don't think so.)
I doubt it, but then again, I keep thinking that Thelema, Wicca and
Scientology sprang out of a drunken bet at a party..
(Crowley: "Oh yeah?" *hic* "I bet I can confuse more people!"
Gardner: "Yeeeeaaaah unkieal" <badly slurring> "but I can be more
pretentious..."
Hubbard: "Iiiii gotcha ALL beat." *raspberries* "I'll make more MONEY.")
Historically inaccurate. And? So is most of this stuff. :)
>> This, however, does not always translate. It amazes me how two
>> people who consider themselves to be of basically the same spiritual
>> lineage to some extent or another can speak such radically different
>> languages. How do you convey matters to someone when you don't
>> fall into the redundancies of Wiccaspeak?
>
>See above re "redundancies"; I don't feel that the Rede is redundant,
>given the fact that you're not supposed to unduly or unjustly harm
>someone/thing. (When I say "unduly or unjustly" I mean that,
>according to my understanding of Wicca, it is acceptable to eat
>animals for food (according to most Wiccans) but not kill for sport;
>it's acceptable to harvest branches, leaves, etc. from a plant, but
>not to wantonly destroy a plant, etc.)
Right, but that gets down to defining "harm," which laces back into
Will (you'd call it True Will, my roommate would call it Cosmic/Divine
Will, and I'd call it Billy).
>In Thelema, we accept the principle that it might happen to be
>necessary to harm someone. The fact is that "what thou wilt" is
>usually interpreted by students of Crowley to mean - "OK, harm
>someone, but there better be a good reason and you must accept the
>consequences".
Perhaps I'm nonusual. This interpretation does appeal, though.
>An example which I'm sure Wednesday will grok is being cruel to
>someone to get a point across, not for the sake of the cruelty.
Oh, I'd never understand anything like that. ;>
>Now when you look at my above comment on Thelemically harming someone
>("there better be a good reason") and put it side by side with my
>comments about harming something according to the Rede (harvesting,
>food, medicine, etc.) ---- THERE is where you can find the roots of
>Wednesday's identity between Thelema and Wicca.
There was a farmer had a dog, and Bingo...
>Too often I see Wiccans accuse Thelemites of being irresponsible or
>uncaring about others. Too often I see Thelemites accuse Wiccans of
>being "wusses who are afraid to harm someone even when necessary". I
>myself have been known to do the latter.
Mmmm. I dunno -- a goodly number of the local Thelemites are as the
Wiccans accuse, but I know too many Wiccawussies.
Not like Wednesday maintains much pretense of Digging It, but it seems
the bulk of either population Doesn't Dig It. Dig me?
>Well, this little babble should plant the seeds of further discussion,
>which is what both these newsgroups are for.
Everybody! Join hands! It's a folk concert! (--Patty Larkin)
let us join in grief and rejoice in despair - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
w e d n e s d a y * w e d n s d a y @ t e z c a t . c o m
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - woe to the republic
Hsi Wang Mu
Shawn Clayton Knight <knigh...@CMU.EDU| quotes Tina and writes:
|> [I've always wondered; what if what I will is to be restricted from doing
|> what I want to? Does that still fall within the provence of Do what thou
|> wilt?]
|I would say it was your will to be "of the slaves who serve", but I
|believe there's a difference between Random Foo You Want To Do and
|True Will. I would say that Random Foo is allowed if it doesn't
|conflict with yours, or anyone else's, True Will. But if you will to
|be further restricted, ... I suppose you could.
'Restricton' has a rather particular meaning within Thelemic lore.
If it is your true will to remain within certain behavior standards,
then you shall do so and it will be the entirety of your 'orbit'.
If you are restricting yourself, then it is not your true will at all,
but sin, for 'the word of Sin is Restriction' and we are ever encouraged
to 'Exceed! Exceed!' by the Prophet who art glorious in Our sight.
Mu
Peggy Brown
>Tina Sikorski (ti...@tezcat.com) wrote:
>: In article <Aj2qI3i00...@andrew.cmu.edu>,>: >ar...@netcom.com (Arlie Stephens) writes:
>The very idea that one could succesfully create ones own religion may be
>one of the most Thelemic ideas of all, and one of the most characteristic
>quailites of Neopaganism.
>
>Robin
Except for the wee problem that the icon you use, the goddess, is the
most guilt-provoking icon in western civilization! How can you create
a thelemic religion with that?
You could at least choose a an icon free from such doo-doo. How about
worshinging the Penguin instead? The jolly, trickster of the north.
Part bird, part fish, partly man in formal dress. Warming its young on
its feet. Hardy enough to jump into water swirling with ice. Much
better choice that the GOOOOODDDDEEEEESSSSSSS. Blick!
Or else the otter? Or the tucan? Or the trumpeter swan? Each with
more thelemic qualities than the goddess.
Better yet, if you need a religion, use thelema straight with no mixer.
- Peggy -
PS: Still waiting for someone to explain why such a demented icon as
the goddess was used?
Raven
|As you might expect Thelemites often disagree about what is and what isn't
|Thelemic. I suspect one of the reasons that some Thelemites seem so
|insistent on mentioning the Thelemic influence on Wicca, is that in a
|religious sense Wicca has evolved into quite a modern expression of the
|New Aeonic principals. Much as a shaft of light refracting through a
|prism cast many colored rays. Whether or not Witches still quote passages
|from Liber AL is not really the point. The underlying urge or power which
|compels Neopaganism to take it's place in the rainbow is.
|
|There is more to the Neopagan movement than a trendy nostalgic recreation
|of old ways. Modern Witches and Neopagans almost always point out that
|they are creating a new religion. One which often includes concepts like
|Will, the Higher Self, Personal Union with Divinity, Self Guidance,
|Eclecticism, Goddess inclusive religion, all of these could be seen as
|ideas expressing Thelema.
|
|The very idea that one could succesfully create ones own religion may be
|one of the most Thelemic ideas of all, and one of the most characteristic
|quailites of Neopaganism.
So anybody who (like Gardner) creates a new religion owes something to
Crowley, even if (UNlike Gardner) they'd never heard of the man, never
saw his writings, and never used any of his phrasing or expression?
Has anyone considered that they were BOTH purported to have learned,
not only from the sundry Masonic offshoots, but also from some folks
in the New Forest, who in turn were purported to have been practicing
SOME kind of religion before either man came around?
Take those "purported" items with salt added to your taste, but I'd
like to see the conclusive argument that proved those two men could
NOT have gotten their similar ideas from a common source, rather than
one from the other.
Of the source books cited, Leland's surely predated Crowley's far enough
that, if "creating a religion of Witchcraft" is the deed to be credited,
Leland has the earlier claim.
If Gardner was aware of Leland's book (which he was), how likely is it
that Crowley was NOT?
Raven
|You could at least choose a an icon free from such doo-doo. How about
|worshinging the Penguin instead? The jolly, trickster of the north.
?????
I didn't realize you were posting from the South Pole!
one star in sight
: ro...@winternet.com (one star in sight) writes:
: |As you might expect Thelemites often disagree about what is and what isn't
: |Thelemic. I suspect one of the reasons that some Thelemites seem so
: |insistent on mentioning the Thelemic influence on Wicca, is that in a
: |religious sense Wicca has evolved into quite a modern expression of the
: |New Aeonic principals. Much as a shaft of light refracting through a
: |prism cast many colored rays. Whether or not Witches still quote passages
: |from Liber AL is not really the point. The underlying urge or power which
: |compels Neopaganism to take it's place in the rainbow is.
: |
: |There is more to the Neopagan movement than a trendy nostalgic recreation
: |of old ways. Modern Witches and Neopagans almost always point out that
: |they are creating a new religion. One which often includes concepts like
: |Will, the Higher Self, Personal Union with Divinity, Self Guidance,
: |Eclecticism, Goddess inclusive religion, all of these could be seen as
: |ideas expressing Thelema.
: |
: |The very idea that one could succesfully create ones own religion may be
: |one of the most Thelemic ideas of all, and one of the most characteristic
: |quailites of Neopaganism.
: So anybody who (like Gardner) creates a new religion owes something to
: Crowley, even if (UNlike Gardner) they'd never heard of the man, never
: saw his writings, and never used any of his phrasing or expression?
Again opinions vary, but what I'm suggesting is not that Crowley was
responsible for the New Aeon, but that he was a prophet of the New Aeon,
and not the only one, although a primary one. maybe Gardner was too.
I'm thinking of Thelema as something more like a change in climate that is
now encouraging growth along certain avenues that might have previously
been unproductive. Now, in these times, expressions that exhibit
qualities in harmony with the new climate prosper, those that do not, will
not.
: Has anyone considered that they were BOTH purported to have learned,
: not only from the sundry Masonic offshoots, but also from some folks
: in the New Forest, who in turn were purported to have been practicing
: SOME kind of religion before either man came around?
: Take those "purported" items with salt added to your taste, but I'd
: like to see the conclusive argument that proved those two men could
: NOT have gotten their similar ideas from a common source, rather than
: one from the other.
Here I can only reiterate that I believe that Neopaganism is a new
religion, as opposed to a revivial of old ways. I'm not arguing this in
literary terms, maybe some of the other people were, but I'm trying to
focus on metaphysical and philosophical commonalities.
It is probably true that from a liturgical point of view an awful lot of
ritual is made up of borrowed fragments, this is for a variety of reasons,
not the least of which is that real inspiration seems to carry a certain
hint of 'rightness.' You hear some of these words and a part of your brain
says 'yep.' I'm not even going to go any further than that, except to say
see my previous comments, or I end up sounding like a nut. (I'm not
saying I'm _not_ a nut, I'm just saying if I go any further along that
line of reasoning I will _sound_ like a nut.)
: Of the source books cited, Leland's surely predated Crowley's far enough
: that, if "creating a religion of Witchcraft" is the deed to be credited,
: Leland has the earlier claim.
: If Gardner was aware of Leland's book (which he was), how likely is it
: that Crowley was NOT?
How did Gardner decide what bits belonged in his New Religion? How do
you decide? How do you recognise what belongs in your Wicca and what
doesn't? This is what I'm talking about.
: -- Raven (JSi...@Music.Lib.MATC.Edu). [All standard disclaimers apply]
Love is the law,
Robin (ro...@winternet.com)
LeGrand Cinq-Mars
Peggy Brown <oisp...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> wrote:
. . . .
>
>Except for the wee problem that the icon you use, the goddess, is the
>most guilt-provoking icon in western civilization! How can you create
>a thelemic religion with that?
>
>You could at least choose a an icon free from such doo-doo. How about
>worshinging the Penguin instead? The jolly, trickster of the north.
>Part bird, part fish, partly man in formal dress. Warming its young on
>its feet. Hardy enough to jump into water swirling with ice. Much
>better choice that the GOOOOODDDDEEEEESSSSSSS. Blick!
>
>Or else the otter? Or the tucan? Or the trumpeter swan? Each with
>more thelemic qualities than the goddess.
>
>Better yet, if you need a religion, use thelema straight with no mixer.
>
>- Peggy -
>
>PS: Still waiting for someone to explain why such a demented icon as
>the goddess was used?
But isn't it true that Gardner followed Margaret Murray fairly closely
at first (pre-Valiente), which meant that the focus was on the Craft
as a religion of the God of the Witches?
I could easily be mis-remembering here. Corrections please?
LeGrand
>
>
Hendy
Haigh) wrote:
> Ancient and Accepted Scotch Rite, and appendant and concordant
^^^^^^
> body of Freemasonry.
Scotch Rite? Well, I know I drink certain single malts with reverence and
something akin to worship, but I don't have any rites for them...
(And now for the pedantic portion of our show...)
- Hendy, who's of SCOTTISH descent and loves good SCOTCH!
*********************************************************************
Hendy Lund he...@cisco.com
"To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is
for monks" - L. Long
*********************************************************************
Sharon A. Steiner
(Peggy Brown) wrote:
>In article <3epqfq$7...@blackice.winternet.com>, ro...@winternet.com (one star
in sight) writes...
>>Tina Sikorski (ti...@tezcat.com) wrote:
>>: In article <Aj2qI3i00...@andrew.cmu.edu>,
>>: Shawn Clayton Knight <knigh...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
>>: >ar...@netcom.com (Arlie Stephens) writes:
>
>>The very idea that one could succesfully create ones own religion may be
>>one of the most Thelemic ideas of all, and one of the most characteristic
>>quailites of Neopaganism.
>>
>>Robin
>
>Except for the wee problem that the icon you use, the goddess, is the
>most guilt-provoking icon in western civilization! How can you create
>a thelemic religion with that?
>
I find the Goddess to be liberating, God on the other hand I find much more
guilt-provoking, as he is the one who judges.( and usually one of the
hanging type). this is a quest for information.
Sharon
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sharon A. Steiner | We're all myths. |
| sha...@best.com | |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Raven
|Here I can only reiterate that I believe that Neopaganism is a new
|religion, as opposed to a revivial of old ways. I'm not arguing this in
|literary terms, maybe some of the other people were, but I'm trying to
|focus on metaphysical and philosophical commonalities.
Interesting. I would have put it the other way around, if I were
willing to lump all Neopagans together for such a broad statement
(and I'm not). Neopaganism is specifically "New-Paganism" in the
letter of its contents, the literary terms, but ranges in its
"metaphysical and philosophical" elements from fresh "New Age" to
a very earnest "revival of old ways" -- although I think the latter
describes a very small subset, and I don't include Wicca in that.
|It is probably true that from a liturgical point of view an awful lot of
|ritual is made up of borrowed fragments, this is for a variety of reasons,
|not the least of which is that real inspiration seems to carry a certain
|hint of 'rightness.' You hear some of these words and a part of your brain
|says 'yep.'
"I've recited rhymes to order, chimes that echoed in the brain,
That incited love and joy -- or hate and sorrow, fear and pain."
We're discussing poetry and its fraternal twin, rhetoric. Given the
clunkish prose that resulted from Gardner's own creative efforts, such
as the Laws/Ordains (if those can be fairly blamed on him), I shudder
to think what his liturgy would have been like if he HADN'T borrowed.
|How did Gardner decide what bits belonged in his New Religion? How do
|you decide? How do you recognise what belongs in your Wicca and what
|doesn't? This is what I'm talking about.
You'd have to ask a Wiccan that question.
I've both studied and written too much poetry AND rhetoric not to know
the techniques of "chimes that echo in the brain". This results in a
different mindset when listening to others' efforts; "swell tones" may
get my attention and professional admiration, but aren't a factor in my
=belief=. For me, the idea precedes the words used to express it.
One of those ideas is "factual truth". I have good friends who are
Mormons, and I admire the character of many other Mormons, yet I could
never join their church, for one simple reason first of all: I don't
believe in the pre-existence of the Book of Mormon before Joseph Smith.
I've read and enjoyed many of his writings, he was very persuasive, but
I don't believe his story of that book's origins is factually true.
Despite all the other fine qualities of the Latter-Day Saints, for me
to join that church would (FOR ME) involve uttering a falsehood, the
expression of a belief I do not hold, and therefore I will not join,
although I continue to keep friends who are members and do believe.
For exactly the same first reason, I have never been, and could never
be, a follower of Gardner's religion. I can't make myself believe in
something I know to be false history. It doesn't stop me from being
friends with other people who do believe it. But if you have been here
for a while, you have seen me point out some of the falsehoods... and
you have seen others who ARE Wiccans do the same, adding that they omit
the things they know to be false from the list of things they believe.
Clearly, how well something is written is not THEIR criterion of belief.
Michael Freedman
Ra> If Gardner was aware of Leland's book (which he was), how likely is it
Ra> that Crowley was NOT?
The following is not a comment on Raven's very sensible contribution to
this thread, but is offered as information on the relationship between
Crowley and Gardner from people who have close personal connections with
original members of the groups of both Gardner and Crowley .
See how impartially I give first place to one and then the other :-)
From Magic pentacle, Winter, 1991.
PROMINENT ENGLISH PAGANS WRITE LETTERS ABOUT CROWLEY AND GARDNER:
Dear Editor,
In the piece about Witchcraft and Magic, you state that Crowley
was paid by Gardner to write the ritual - this is not true.
Crowley and Gardner were not involved in this process; it was
Doreen Valiente who actually wrote most of the rituals which
have become 'traditional Gardnerian craft.' Her book "The
Rebirth of Witchcraft" [Robert Hale, London] gives the full
story.
Marian Green,
Editor, Quest Magazine, London.
[Personal note: Quest celebrates its 25th anniversary this year [1995]
Dear Editor,
I would like to refer to the editorial comment that Gardner paid
Crowley to produce the Wiccan rituals. Although widely
dispersed, this rumour has no substance in fact. The sources of
the rituals are too well known today for any modern Wiccan to
believe the story, no matter how romantic it may be !
Gardner had an extensive library of published and unpublished
works on magic, religion, folklore and mythology. This library
passed in 1987 to Richard and Tamarra James, who purchased it
from Ripleys [USA]. Sources of the Gardnerian rituals can be
found in Kipling; the Carmina Gadelica; Aradia: Gospel of the
Witches; the works of Murray and Graves amongst many others,
including, of course, our old friend Aleister Crowley.
However, it should be stressed that Crowley's influence was
through his published works, which were readily available when
the Gardnerian rituals were forma- lised. Doreen Valiente later
removed much of Crowley's poetry from the rituals, feeling them
to be inconsistent with the religion, but sufficient remains for
their source to be easily identified.
Gardner also drew heavily on Mathers' translation of The Key of
Solomon [witness Gardner's novel, "High Magic's Aid", Michael
Houghton, 1949] and upon other standard ceremonial magic
techniques, as well as Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism.
Although Gardner was certainly given an O.T.O. degree and
Charter by Aleister Crowley, to whom he was introduced in 1946
by Arnold Crowther, there is no suggestion that he ever actually
exercised his right to either. Gerald Yorke claims that Gardner
paid Crowley 300 pounds for the Charter. In "The Rebirth of
Witchcraft", Robert Hale, 1989, Doreen Valiente wonders if this
could be the origin of the legend that Crowley was paid to
write the Wiccan rituals.
As Crowley was suffering from ill-health in 1946 and died in
1947, his association with Gardner was not lengthy and seems
unlikely to have been sufficiently extensive to prepare [or
"magically remember", as one part of the legend has it !] and
write a set of rituals.
Further, those occasional pieces of Crowley's work that remain
in Wiccan rituals certainly pre-date this period, being entirely
from his earlier published works. Modern Wiccans and magicians
do indeed owe a great debt to the work of Aleister Crowley
[which many of them are regrettably unaware of], but he cannot
be held solely responsible for the Wiccan Book of Shadows.
Bright blessings,
Julia Phillips,
Editor: "Web of Wyrd" magazine [about 7 years in pubication.]
Dear Marian and Julia,
My information came from Francis King's "Ritual Magic in England:
1887 to the present day [1970]."
I notice that, in his later "The Rebirth of Magic" [1982], King
repeats the story, but changes the words
"he actually hired Crowley at a generous fee"
to "One of us has heard reports that Aleister Crowley
had a hand in it, receiving a fee from Gardner."
It appears that Francis King has had second thoughts about the
validity of this story, although, in The Rebirth of Magic, he
does give his reasons for his personal belief in the story.
Michael Freedman, Editor, Magic Pentacle.
... "The work of a magician is to change his\her mind." - S.G.
~~~ ReneWave v1.00.wb1 (unregistered)
Discord
>>one of the most Thelemic ideas of all, and one of the most characteristic
>>quailites of Neopaganism.
>most guilt-provoking icon in western civilization! How can you create
>a thelemic religion with that?
Umm.
Firstly, "neopagan" includes alot more than Wicca.
Secondly, Wicca includes both a God and a Goddess, something that even
some Wiccans seem to forget sometimes.
Thirdly, I find nothing guilt-provoking about Eris, the aspect of the
Goddess I am most likely to use in any Wiccan ritual I use.
Except for when I'm using Artemis, Kali, or...well, whatever I DO choose
for the rite I wish to perform.
>You could at least choose a an icon free from such doo-doo. How about
>worshinging the Penguin instead? The jolly, trickster of the north.
*blink* If I'm going to choose a trickster, I'll remember that for when
Coyote doesn't seem appropriate.
>Better yet, if you need a religion, use thelema straight with no mixer.
"Anything that requires me to drink blood and semen mixed shall be Right
Out. I'll live with the lowered magickal ability."
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
*************************************************************************
t i n a @ t e z c a t . c o m * * * * * * * e r i s @ i o . c o m
"God is dead / and no one cares! If there is a Hell, I'll see you there!"
zendiscordianwiccanchristianjewoynotreallychaosorderneutralitywhocares???
If there is a difference between religions that cannot be explained by
societal pressure and language, I've yet to see it.
====================== http://tezcat.com/~tina/home.html ================
Peggy Brown
>>Better yet, if you need a religion, use thelema straight with no mixer.
>
>"Anything that requires me to drink blood and semen mixed shall be Right
>Out. I'll live with the lowered magickal ability."
>
>That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
>
>*************************************************************************
>t i n a @ t e z c a t . c o m * * * * * * * e r i s @ i o . c o m
You seem to be confusing Thelema with the OTO. I am a Thelemite but
do not belong to the OTO or any other order.
Re: the concoction you mention. I don't drink that either, though of,
course there is nothing wrong with it. :)
To each their own. I eat chocolate and drink tea.
- Peggy -
Master of mystery
: In article <3eo86f$c...@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca>, aha...@unixg.ubc.ca (Andrew
: Haigh) wrote:
: > Ancient and Accepted Scotch Rite, and appendant and concordant
: ^^^^^^
: > body of Freemasonry.
Tell me, how many rolls does it take to finish the rite? And
afterwards, do you have any tips as to how one removes all of that tape
from his hair?
-Rich
--
__ ___________________________________________________________
\ \\ / /________________________________________________________/
\ \\ / // /\ ------ ________ ---------- -----------
\ \\ / // //\\ \ ---\\ / _____ // // /______/ // /______/
\ \\ / // /// \\ \\ // / /// // / // / Master
\ \\ / // //____\\ \\ // / /// // /________ // / Of
\ \/ // //_____// // // / /// /-----------/ // /__________ Mystery
\ // /// // // / -----/// ___________// //_________ /
\// //// // /// /_______// /___________/ // /
/----------------------------------------------------------------/
________________________________________________________________/
@Netaxs.com...Philly's live line to the internet.
BBS,Unix shell accounts, and much more, like ME!
Finger for more confusion......
Hsi Wang Mu
Shawn Clayton Knight <knigh...@CMU.EDU> writes:
|Does Wicca want to be like the other religions and become divisive,
|exclusive, intolerant, and (ultimately) dying grievously, but not
|before it divides countless lives and ends others?
Do *Wiccans* want this? I think that we are resoundingly answering
this question with a definite YES. We get what we deserve. The
dissolution of personal power and integrity within an increasingly
fortified and structured establishment is the death-knoll of the
goddess and Her paths.
|I don't care if someone goes by the Rede as opposed to the Law. But
|if a Wiccan spends enough time telling me that the Rede is right and
|the Law wrong, we'll see how quickly I demonstrate that the Law does
|not forbid me to harm someone. ;>
Redes are never 'right'. They only help me across the river. The Law
does forbid you to harm someone (stepping outside your orbit). Those
whom you trounce deserved it and are not truly 'harmed'.
|Both the Rede and the Law emphasize the concept of personal freedom.
The Rede does not do this. It places limits upon freedom based upon
a seldom understood term ('harm').
|No reason why they can't coexist.
The Law is half of the Rede. They must coexist, though the proponents
that the Rede become the Law will kill both dead, sacrificing the goddess
at the altar of Righteousness.
Mu
LeGrand Cinq-Mars
Hendy <he...@cisco.com> wrote:
>In article <D26zE...@acsu.buffalo.edu>, oisp...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
>(Peggy Brown) wrote:
>
>> Leave it to a philosopher to go for the juggler and reveal the major
>> mysteries.
And which one of the Flying Karamazov Brothers is the Hierophant?
LeGrand
Eric R. Ostraat
: Hendy (he...@cisco.com) wrote:
: : > Ancient and Accepted Scotch Rite, and appendant and concordant
: : ^^^^^^
: : > body of Freemasonry.
: Tell me, how many rolls does it take to finish the rite? And
: afterwards, do you have any tips as to how one removes all of that tape
: from his hair?
No doubt! Prythee, what is the Scotch Rite? Perhaps a drink of
some sorts? Reminds me of a Boston Dirty Sock in flavor. Oh! Perhaps you
are attempting to refer to the Brotherhood of the Scottish Rite? I don't
know. But methinks yyou should read up a bit more on the topic before
bringing to this table.
Sic Semper Zealots,
--
___________________________________
| "To strive, to seek, to find,|
| And not to yield." |
| |
| Eric R. Ostraat |
| A.E.K.D.B. |
| |
-----------------------------------
Jazzn2day
10,000 posts but this one caught my attention.
Being both a Mason ( a fraternal organiztion ) and a pagan ( a religion) i
know a small bit about both. Scottish Rite is a "sub -group" of Masons.
Also referred to as "advanced degrees". They are a series of "morality
plays" designed to teach certain basic lessons that promote the "Masonic
Concepts" (we didn't corner the market on them mind you) of Friendship,
Morality and Brotherly love. Being a "sub-group" they elect their
officials like any other seperate club and have a dues structure seperate
from "Blue Lodge" Masons. Other Masonic "sub-groups" include : York Rite,
Shriners, Tall Cedars, Order Of the Eastern Star, Demolay, Rainbow.... the
list goes on.
Jazz...@aol.com