One chance - from when?
-
93
I've been wondering about the following:
I know that A.'.A.'. membership is a "once-off" affair, i.e. if you leave any time after taking the Probationer oath, that's it, you can't be re-admitted.
But this does not, I assume, apply to the Student stage? And I assume this means a student can leave and later return if re-admitted to the same or another lineage? It does seem like a good period to check out whether a specific lineage is a good "fit".
I've also been wondering how this would all apply to the lineages that don't recognise each other - if someone were to leave one lineage after taking the Probationer oath, would the above rule apply if same person were to try and join another linage, or would the previous oath be considered null and void?
93 93/93
-
@ODST said
"I know that A.'.A.'. membership is a "once-off" affair, i.e. if you leave any time after taking the Probationer oath, that's it, you can't be re-admitted.
But this does not, I assume, apply to the Student stage? And I assume this means a student can leave and later return if re-admitted to the same or another lineage? It does seem like a good period to check out whether a specific lineage is a good "fit"."
A Student hasn't been admitted. Therefore, there is no issue re-admission, lineage, linkage, etc. A Student hasn't even gotten to the door.
"I've also been wondering how this would all apply to the lineages that don't recognise each other - if someone were to leave one lineage after taking the Probationer oath, would the above rule apply if same person were to try and join another linage, or would the previous oath be considered null and void?"
It's based on your own integrity. (That's where it's going to come back and bite you in the ass.) If someone has been admitted into what they truly regard as an authentic link, I judge that we are not entitled to have formal connection to them. You could lie to me and say, "Oh, I now don't think they were real," and you might fool me into thinking that's the case, but you're stabbing yourself in the back if you try that. One shot at the Real Thing per incarnation: That's the rule.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"That's where it's going to come back and bite you in the {@$$}.) If someone has been admitted into what they truly regard as an authentic link, I judge that we are not entitled to have formal connection to them. You could lie to me and say, "Oh, I now don't think they were real," and you might fool me into thinking that's the case, but you're stabbing yourself in the back if you try that. One shot at the Real Thing per incarnation: That's the rule."
That makes perfect sense to me. One can only assume that someone would only go as far as the Probationer Oath if they really did believe they were getting into the real deal. If they didn't think so but signed the oath anyway, well then, that raises a whole bunch of other red flags!
For interest's sake, what is the origin or the reason for the one chance per incarnation rule?
-
@ODST said
"For interest's sake, what is the origin or the reason for the one chance per incarnation rule?"
Not sure. It does date to 1907 at least - that's when Liber LXI was written and approved. It was some combination of Crowley's and Jones' sensibilities, intuition, guidance, based on underlying occult doctrine received by them - but not sure of the exact mix.
-
"It is the Arcanum Arcanorum, and the Holy of Holies wherein the Sacred Ark rests inviolate. Every legitimate magical order, mystery school, religion, or other agency disseminating some portion of Wisdom or Light is or has been but an Outer Vehicle of this Inner Fellowship of Light. "All words are sacred and all prophets true; save only that they understand a little..." (Liber Legis, I:56).
"It seems to me that the quote above says that any group can be connected to the 'one true and invisible order'.
You also say that it is about whether they regarded it as an authentic link. Not about whether the link itself ultimately proved legitimate or not.
And if the A.'.A.'., in the common meaning, is a current earthly incarnation of the 'one true and invisible order'. Then there are other incarnations (returning to the idea at the quote).
So, wouldn't anyone who ever truly thought they were being admitted into anything resembling the 'one true and invisible order' - whether one of the many claimed A.'. A.'. links, or a previous incarnation of the A.'. A.'., or even a direct individual initiation - be disqualified from seeking membership in the A.'. A.'.?
And before Crowley founded the A.'. A.'. (in the mundane sense) what was the previous incarnation of the A.'. A.'. (in the eternal sense)? Did Crowley believe he was being initiated into the 'one true and invisible order' when he was initiated into the second order of the G.'.D.'.? Or was that a technicality for some reason or other?
All this confusion between the 'Real Thing' and the outer structure seems very confusing to me. And no offense, but this 'one shot per incarnation' business just sounds a little self-serious to me. As much as we'd like to pretend we're in control with our rules and words, it seems to me that the Initiator often has other plans.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"It seems to me that the quote above says that any group can be connected to the 'one true and invisible order'."
In theory, yes. (But we weren't talking about contacted groups. We were talking about an individual's admission into the 0=0 Grade of A.'.A.'., which is sealed on the inner planes.)
"You also say that it is about whether they regarded it as an authentic link. Not about whether the link itself ultimately proved legitimate or not."
What distinction are you making between the two? They sound the same to me. (It seems you are distinguishing between "authentic" and "legitimate"?)
"And if the A.'.A.'., in the common meaning, is a current earthly incarnation of the 'one true and invisible order'. Then there are other incarnations (returning to the idea at the quote)."
That would be the logical conclusion. However, the A.'.A.'. (in the specific sense that you reference it) wouldn't necessarily take any notice of them.
"So, wouldn't anyone who ever truly thought they were being admitted into anything resembling the 'one true and invisible order' - whether one of the many claimed A.'. A.'. links, or a previous incarnation of the A.'. A.'., or even a direct individual initiation - be disqualified from seeking membership in the A.'. A.'.?"
Nope. First of all, the question doesn't even arise unless the "anything resembling" was, in fact, authentically contacted. Second of all, such contacted vehicles often are pathways to A.'.A.'. admission, not alternatives (they address different levels of preparation, stages preceeding the First Order proper). Third (and here I have only my own perceptions to guide me), the specific formulae and method of admission of a Probationer records a distinctive, precise step on the Inner Rolls that nothing else I've ever encountered accomplishes - it is its own thing.
"And before Crowley founded the A.'. A.'. (in the mundane sense) what was the previous incarnation of the A.'. A.'. (in the eternal sense)?"
"Before cars were available, what in the world did people do when they needed to fill their tank?"
"Did Crowley believe he was being initiated into the 'one true and invisible order' when he was initiated into the second order of the G.'.D.'.? Or was that a technicality for some reason or other?"
I'm sure (based on what he wrote about it) that Crowley thought the G.D. was THAT ONE REAL ORDER that he had read about in Waite and 'Cloud' etc. But he later discovered it wasn't. He challenged it, tested it, proved it to himself, and felt quite solid that the earthly organization AT LEAST was false. But he did continue to hold that his original oaths were to the Third Order, and he continued to hold himself true to those oaths to Them. When Liber Legis was dictated, he regarded it as marching orders from those to whom he had actually taken his oaths.
"All this confusion between the 'Real Thing' and the outer structure seems very confusing to me."
Instead of thinking of it as 'the real deal' (that's a separate question - and I do regard these policies as authentic, but I don't think that's the point here), think of it as "this is the particular set of policies under which A.'.A.'. conducts business." It is, therefore, the set of policies under which those sworn to A.'.A.'. need to operate.
"And no offense, but this 'one shot per incarnation' business just sounds a little self-serious to me. As much as we'd like to pretend we're in control with our rules and words, it seems to me that the Initiator often has other plans."
No offense taken.
-
Thanks, Jim.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Yes. All your arguments are rational, but I would like to challenge your opinion and remind you of the original passage:
" Listen, we pray you, with attention: for once only does the Great Order knock at any one door. Whosoever knows any member of that Order as such, can never know another, until he too has attained to mastery. Here, therefore, we pause, that you may thoroughly search yourself, and consider if you are yet fitted to take an irrevocable step. For the reading of that which follows is Recorded". (Liber LXV vel Causae, v. 6).This is not only a policy.
It is an inspired reading, from a Class A document!
This makes it clear that it is from above the Abyss, where all systems of attainment merge. All who have worked with any system of attainment, be it A.'.A.'., Sufi, Shamanism, monasticism, zen-buddhism, yoga or any other equally valid paths, - know perfectly well that "once only does the Great Order knock at any one door" - actually means that once you opened the door to those powers and the Great Masters, who knock, you will never be the same and must go on to the end, whatever end. You have let a power across your threshold that will change life habitat for ever. Also, mark, this is reaffirmed by the following statement: "consider if you are yet fitted to take an irrecovable step". There is no step back after a certain point. From then on - the aspirant must follow the path on to the very end, be it a good or a bad one. This applies for all, in life.There is no really turning back once you have taken the step of a Probationer.
We recognize this from all the tales of magic. I refer to the literature curriculum of the A'.'.A.'. where many books of world fame take up the same subject. Always does the hero who neglects his calling end up being drawn back into it. Sooner or later.Love is the law, love under will.
Martin Hauk -
@martin hauk said
"This is not only a policy. It is an inspired reading, from a Class A document! "
It's a Class B document. Though originally collated with Class A documents, Liber 61 is, itself, Class B.
-
Origially Class A and briefly B, yes, but in my "The Holy Books of Thelema", it is Class D.
Interesting. -
@martin hauk said
"Origially Class A and briefly B, yes, but in my "The Holy Books of Thelema", it is Class D.
Interesting."Agree on Class D. My misstatement about Class B. It was never a Class A document.
-
Dear Jim,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"Class A consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organisation. They are referred to as The Holy Books, because they originated from sources beyond human comprehension. Liber LXI vel Causae was originally included in this classification but has since been reclassified as Class D".
Is this Preliminary Lection in Liber LXI vel Causae is official instruction and not Holy Book, in your view? I find that had to believe. The Preliminary Lection must be - just look at the language and the content. I agree the History Lection cannot be Class A, it is to down-to-earth. But agree, the Preliniary Lection has the fire to it that all Master Therions texts have, when Class A. In v. 3 from the Preliminary Lection we hear: "In all systems of religion is to be found a system of Initiation, which may be defined as the process by which a man comes to learn that unkown Crown".
It follows that the Great Order, here spoken of, is to be found in all religions?
The message is still the same - in the Crown - all Systems come to one point above the Abyss.We can learn a great deal from the age-old history of mankind, especially when it comes to receiving the knock on the door from the Great Order. Another thing:
When you resign from a Master, certainly, you don't give up the pursuit of the Great Reward?
What happened to all those others?
Certainly, by birth right -man has the right to attain to the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy One.
NB. I am a student of your very great book The Mystical and Magical System of the A.'.A.'.
It is really important question to me, this part at my m. and m. carreer.
I hope you understand me.
Love is the law, love under will.
M. Hauk
-
@martin hauk said
""Class A consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organisation. They are referred to as The Holy Books, because they originated from sources beyond human comprehension. Liber LXI vel Causae was originally included in this classification but has since been reclassified as Class D"."
Source? (I can think of a couple of places it might be from, but haven't time to look them up this morning.)
Looking now, I'm reminded that its original publication in the small vellum edition of 1909 did list it as Class A; but there were so many typographical errors in that edition that I'd tended to think of that as being one of them!
If you're quoting the syllabus from either Eqx 1:10 or 3:1, it would mean that it wasn't a typo but intended at the time.In that case, I consent that you are historically right, though I question whether that's the right way for Crowley to have recorded the history of it all. LXI wasn't received like any of the other Class A documents. It was a document he sat down and wrote, and then he and Jones hashed it out, and later they revised it as circumstances changed, all before it first appeared alongside actual Class A works in the 1909 vellum edition.
"Is this Preliminary Lection in Liber LXI vel Causae is official instruction and not Holy Book, in your view? I find that had to believe. The Preliminary Lection must be - just look at the language and the content. I agree the History Lection cannot be Class A, it is to down-to-earth. But agree, the Preliniary Lection has the fire to it that all Master Therions texts have, when Class A. In v. 3 from the Preliminary Lection we hear: "In all systems of religion is to be found a system of Initiation, which may be defined as the process by which a man comes to learn that unkown Crown"."
I agree that it has something of the tone of, say, Liber X. But, then again, so do other of Crowley's writings, and the method of writing this one was that consistent with Class B type of works. It's only classified as Class D because it forms much of the rubric of an actual ritual, i.e., the Probationer initiation ritual.
"When you resign from a Master, certainly, you don't give up the pursuit of the Great Reward?"
Many do... but, of course, many do not.
I agree with what you have written in principle; but breaching your link in the chain, there are consequences. You're a ronin, with all the advantages and disadvantages that title carries. It's simply a different path.
BTW, Martin, welcome to the forum!
-
ha, ha! you made me laugh, ronin, my friend!
ok, thanx for the reply and thought, some clarifying materials you gave me, admirable.Love is the law, love under will.
M. Hauk
-
93
Ha! We all remember the characteristic R.C. path - it was always scientific and actually-factually a real fellowship, not a "master-pupilship". Remember the quarrels at the invisible college, the predecessor of the royal society? Also, mone on the allegory of the masterless warrior: in europe the feudal lords evoked their Black Knights, who stood by their own right. Some of them did not accept the lords. Really. This approach gave way to fellowships, eventually, as we know it.
Another allegory of the same thing: Parzeval - the Green Fool who stole a red armor, he won his way by his own right and talent (he had hunted in the woods his whole childhood) - and he became the red knight by right of talent, when he took the armor of the red knight.
How many methods are there into the One Fortress?
Does one need to cite John St. John in Liber 860? for affirmation? It went something like this:
"Why, I would recite Tennyson, if it would result in Samhadhi!" I think that states it clearly - and again: "They shall be judged by their fruits". Maybe that was how it was written, I didn't check.
I guess it all boils down to this:
To go down the true path of Thelema, judge your work by its fruits.93 93/93
