"Got any money on you, Regardie?"
-
I've just started reading Gerald Suster's book, Crowley's Apprentice: The Life and Ideas of Israel Regardie. In chapter 4, Gerald depicts a story where Crowley asks Regardie for money, which he then goes out and spends it on champagne and brandy. Was Regardie not an A.'.A.'. student at the time? How is taking money off Regardie not a violation of the A.'.A.'.'s policy on taking money for personal gain?
-
@Mr Menth said
"Was Regardie not an A.'.A.'. student at the time? How is taking money off Regardie not a violation of the A.'.A.'.'s policy on taking money for personal gain?"
You are misunderstanding the rule. Crowley did not charge him per se for A.'.A.'. instruction, mentorship, etc. It wasn't quid pro quo. He just asked him for quid without offering a quo in exchange.
Here is the exact quote from One Star in Sight: "There is however an absolute prohibition to accept money or other material reward, directly or indirectly, in respect of any service connected with the Order, for personal profit or advantage."
No service was exchanged.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Mr Menth said
"Was Regardie not an A.'.A.'. student at the time? How is taking money off Regardie not a violation of the A.'.A.'.'s policy on taking money for personal gain?"You are misunderstanding the rule. Crowley did not charge him per se for A.'.A.'. instruction, mentorship, etc. It wasn't quid pro quo. He just asked him for quid without offering a quo in exchange.
Here is the exact quote from One Star in Sight: "There is however an absolute prohibition to accept money or other material reward, directly or indirectly, in respect of any service connected with the Order, for personal profit or advantage."
No service was exchanged."
Ah, I see where I went wrong, thank you.
Does the quote from One Star in Sight only apply to A.'.A.'. members offering services to other members, or would there be a violation if a member accepted money for, lets say, a lecture about the Order to non members?
-
Business is business. It's the usual concerns (so well articulated in modern times) of inequity in mixed relationships.
So, in the example you gave, it's naturally appropriate to pay for a commercial event. It's not appropriate to require someone to attend and pay due to the other relationship.
It could also be in inappropriate simply if the mixed relationship is ducking with either person's head and throwing the relationship out of balance.
-
By the way, while this could be a matter of external enforcement, the typical form is that it's automatic. One expels oneself by breaking something within oneself by betraying the trust.