Finding a lineage?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"PS - You don't entirely get what I'm saying (mostly, I think, because I have been intentionally obscure - that is, you don't entirely get what I'm not saying <g>)."
Haha! Fair enough. I could say the same thing* with advantage*.
@Jim Eshelman said
" I mention this only because you summarized my position, and I just wanted to distance myself from your summary. -- I don't agree, for example, that A.'.A.'. is a current. It's fed by a current, but it's not the current. It's an Order."
Sure, I'll definitely agree if you put it that way -- but there isn't one without the other. At least, not an Order worth having IMHO...
@Jim Eshelman said
"Now, off to the games! <vbg>"
Sounds good.
-
@Patrick Ossoski said
"Ray Eales?
"May I ask why the eye rolls?
-
-
@Patrick Ossoski said
"
@Thelemic oz said
"
@Patrick Ossoski said
"Ray Eales?"May I ask why the eye rolls?
"You may I ask, but it's probably better that I do not answer. (Nowadays, I wouldn't have made that comment, even if I still have the same opinion.)"
Lineages are only as good as their Adepts. Ray Eales was a disciple of Motta, who was a disciple of Germer, who was a disciple of Crowley.
Eales is a hell of a nice guy, Motta was a bastard to many, Germer was a hell of nice guy, Crowley was a bastard to many, Eshelman is a hell of a nice guy. Does it matter? No. What matters is contribution.
Eales doesn't publish all that much, but doesn't lack in promulgation. Eshelman does publish - and his contributions are great. Germer didn't publish anything that he wrote himself. Motta commented on pretty much every Holy Book, Book 4, etc. Crowley wrote almost too much.
To argue that any of these are better than any other, is like arguing that the liver is more important than the kidneys.
Germer was such a knowledgeable and beautiful Teacher - and part of many lineages that we enjoy many fruits from today. Indirectly, he is a contributer to this website. Interesting, hmm?
It is interesting to see how people arrive at opinions - many times it comes from people with limited information acting like they're an expert based on something they've read by others. Why do people abdicate their own authority to think for themselves so much?
Sometimes, laughing at FOX News is better than believing the slander, smear campaigns, or sensationalism.
Scribes are scribes, men are men, Adepts are Adepts...
People that point fingers at other lineages, in regard to authenticity, are absolutely hilarious. Hell, the idea of lineages is Old Aeon - the A.'.A.'. operates as a matrix - just think if only one "lineage" spoke with Its Authority. We all know what happens when media sources become too concentrated - they can start to serve a very small interest.
Unless one has access to all of the correspondence between parties of the Instructors/Aspirants involved, you have to ask yourself why anyone would be in the business of defaming any A.'.A.'. "lineage" without complete evidence.
I've had the pleasure of reading some very interesting letters/documents that I will never discuss publicly. I have to say, some painted pictures that are out there online are NOT extremely accurate depictions...especially some events that happened in California awhile back.
Why paint pictures? FOX News and other slanderers/sensationalists like to do this for many reasons...
All in all, you know a tree by its fruit. "Lineages" survive and evolve or they don't. Survival of the fittest. And they care to be dogmatic or religious or popular, or they don't...and it hardly matters how people "feel" about it that aren't directly involved, much less their opinion...
Unless one gives a flying fuck about what the masses think. American Idol XIV is coming soon, too!
There are many Adepts out there, many of them don't care to be in the limelight all that much..."why not?" is an interesting question when thinking for one's self...
Obfuscation can be a tool.
-
@Frater 639 said
"Lineages are only as good as their Adepts."
Yes.
"Eales is a hell of a nice guy, Motta was a bastard to many, Germer was a hell of nice guy, Crowley was a bastard to many, Eshelman is a hell of a nice guy. Does it matter? No. What matters is contribution."
Yes. But it doesn't follow that everybody contributed equally, or at all. (I'm not categorizing anyone specifically.)
"To argue that any of these are better than any other, is like arguing that the liver is more important than the kidneys."
Not really. (Except in the sense that every man and every woman is a star, and no one is "better" than any other; but that's not the point.) Each one is different. Some have oustanding quality, some enough quality, some lack quality. Some are downright detrimental. Achieving a certain amount of notoriety is not enough for me to put that individual among those whom I know to be the "real deal."
"It is interesting to see how people arrive at opinions - many times it comes from people with limited information acting like they're an expert based on something they've read by others. Why do people abdicate their own authority to think for themselves so much?"
Yes, I found that to be the case also.
Just a few points. I agree with the spirit of what you said, FWIW.
93 93/93.
-
@Patrick Ossoski said
"
@639 said
"Eales is a hell of a nice guy, Motta was a bastard to many, Germer was a hell of nice guy, Crowley was a bastard to many, Eshelman is a hell of a nice guy. Does it matter? No. What matters is contribution."Yes. But it doesn't follow that everybody contributed equally, or at all. (I'm not categorizing anyone specifically.)"
Agreed. Everyone doesn't contribute equally, they contribute uniquely as every Star does...
@Patrick Ossoski said
"
@639 said
"To argue that any of these are better than any other, is like arguing that the liver is more important than the kidneys."
Not really. (Except in the sense that every man and every woman is a star, and no one is "better" than any other; but that's not the point.) Each one is different. Some have outstanding quality, some enough quality, some lack quality. Some are downright detrimental. Achieving a certain amount of notoriety is not enough for me to put that individual among those whom I know to be the "real deal.""
We agree that each one is different. As far as what you consider the "real deal" is a matter of opinion and what qualities you choose to judge by. From an A.'.A.'. point of view, it is the attainments that truly matter as the only sole measuring stick - and the details of these attainments are highly personal. Some perform different functions in evolution, according to their True Will - and a true Adept is not swayed by the scrutiny of anyone else's opinion in regard to their Path. Nor does an Adept need to be "honest" with anyone other than their Self.
I'll say it again without pointing fingers: you know a tree by its fruit. Some trees grow, some produce offspring, some wither away, etc. I think we're on the same page, though.
Anyway, this is getting OT...
My main point was talking about "lineages" and the misinformation/subsequent judgments that originate from questionable sources. And sometimes from sources that people consider authoritative and credible. The same phenomena can (and does) happen everywhere: from the media, from family, from friends, etc.
I think we agree about staying skeptical and not taking other people's judgments for face value.
@Patrick Ossoski said
"Just a few points. I agree with the spirit of what you said, FWIW."
Likewise.
-
"I understand what you mean by authentic experience -- however, I disagree with thinking that it is an extremely important factor in all cases. Authentic experience doesn't necessarily point to the efficacy of techniques and when they should be administered. Sometimes, an authentic experience can be modified with advantage based on data -- e.g. modifying a Liber III practice as suggested in the Blue Book. This is the difference between an organic and dynamic system (regardless of the school) and a potentially dogmatic and inflexible one."
There's a distinction between "authentic experience" and "authentic experience as designed by the founders." and I think what Jim was intending to convey was there is a certain level of integrity that is maintained; a certain wholeness and completeness that becomes available when the system is done the way it was meant to be done as intended by the system's founders.
-
@Al-Shariyf said
"
"I understand what you mean by authentic experience -- however, I disagree with thinking that it is an extremely important factor in all cases. Authentic experience doesn't necessarily point to the efficacy of techniques and when they should be administered. Sometimes, an authentic experience can be modified with advantage based on data -- e.g. modifying a Liber III practice as suggested in the Blue Book. This is the difference between an organic and dynamic system (regardless of the school) and a potentially dogmatic and inflexible one."There's a distinction between "authentic experience" and "authentic experience as designed by the founders." and I think what Jim was intending to convey was there is a certain level of integrity that is maintained; a certain wholeness and completeness that becomes available when the system is done the way it was meant to be done as intended by the system's founders."
Absolutely. What I was trying to convey was precisely that! The system's fathers advocated experimentation and correlation of data above all. They shunned atavistic and/or outgrown methods and never appealed to tradition as a justification for the practices.
That is the highest form of spiritual AND scientific integrity. It is also how evolution works and is a core idea of the A.'.A.'.!
-
@raven27 said
"Hello, I was wondering if anyone knows if there is a lineage in the Houston, Texas area? I know there is a O.T.O lodge here , but I just found out how different O.T.O and A.A. really are. I am more interested in A.A. ."
If anyone would know, it would be the members of the O.T.O. there.