Joining the A.'.A.'.
-
Yes, The fact that I the previous owner of the group raised me without test or reason to magus, was exactly why I thought it needed reformed and worked to do so.
but, when I call a meeting to discuss seriously the changes I am going to make and out of 20 only 3 show up and one of them is dressed as a furry, and spends his time goofing off and humping things, and one is running around shooting people, and the third most serious is in full armor with a drawn sword and keeps complaining that he needs to get back to the battle and has no time to discuss occult order matters. I think, just maybe the members that the the previous owner allowed to join are not serious about doing the work.
So I banned several of them, and found people who were more serious, but they didn't want to work in stages and just wanted to get the "secrets" and once they found the source material, they had all the keys to the "in jokes" and rhetoric, so they quite the order or stopped the ritual work.
Then came those who sad they would keep a journal, the first and only task I gave them, and yet only one of these ever sent me a copy of a journal to look at and this only one day. Then the previous owner shows up out of the blue and says I did not do a good job reforming her order and took it back, banned the one student who ever did any work, making that student think I was messing with him, so he left and is gone.
Now, as for this tenure this, a old crank in a shack can discover scientific truth, invent a better mouse trap, or launch a rocket to the moon, there are the goals of science, and such an unknown crank is just as justified in teaching the sciences as a professor of a well known university.
The A.'.A.'. is not like a university, so much as a field of study, like physics. You don't have to know some one who was taught physics by a student in Einsteins class in order to teach relativity. The grades of the A.'.A.'. are not like being a bishop in the catholic church where one has to have the power of Peter based via a hand shake chain.
What I see is an attempt at sorcery, that is an attempt to control a source for personal gains. Like one who poisons well, so that he can charge high price for him own water. Well I don't think I was ever a threat to your monopoly, so there is no need for the supposed great white brotherhood to sully its reputation with black sorcery, but I guess its too late now.
but maybe this A.'.A.'. is run the way Mr. Breeze runs his Caliphate
-
What does dressed in a furry mean?
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
@Chris Hanlon said
"What does dressed in a furry mean?
In L.V.X.,
chrys333"Furry is an animal costume. The term furry is typical given to those who dress in such costumes and have a sexual deviation of interest in animals, whether or not they actually act it out. Members of the furry culture tend to be gay and often have anonymous sex while in costume. Yes, the world is a strange place. Not everyone fits this broad analysis, but the reputation is certainly there.
-
93
ONE STAR IN SIGHT
by Aleister CrowleyThy feet in mire, thine head in murk,
O man, how piteous thy plight,
The doubts that daunt, the ills that irk,
Thou hast nor wit nor will to fight â
How hope in heart, or worth in work?
No star in sight!Thy Gods proved puppets of the priest.
"Truth? All's relation!" science sighed.
In bondage with thy brother beast,
Love tortured thee, as Love's hope died
And Love's faith rotted. Life no least
Dim star descried.Thy cringing carrion cowered and crawled
To find itself a chance-cast clod
Whose Pain was purposeless; appalled
That aimless accident thus trod
Its agony, that void skies sprawled
On the vain sod!All souls eternally exist,
Each individual, ultimate
Perfect - each makes itself a mist
Of mind and flesh to celebrate
With some twin mask their tender tryst
Insatiate.Some drunkards, doting on the dream,
Despair that it should die, mistake
Themselves for their own shadow-scheme.
One star can summon them to wake
To self; star-souls serene that gleam
On life's calm lake.That shall end never that began.
All things endure because they are.
Do what thou wilt, for every man
And every woman is a star.
Pan is not dead; he liveth, Pan!
Break down the bar!To man I come, the number of
A man my number, Lion of Light;
I am The Beast whose Law is Love.
Love under will, his royal right â
Behold within, and not above,
One star in sight! -
(Big sigh, again.)
Furry.
Once I was on the PFCase list, and a musician who told us that he was very much, as many musicians are, into Thelema. However, he had a three year old son, and the Thelemites he actually knew, he would never allow in the same house with his family. This caused him some cognitive dissonance.
Sometimes, no offense, I feel the same way on this list.
Of course, so called Christians cause cognitive dissonance in me, also.
Since both Thelema and Christianity require acceptance of the whole of creation, I believe I cannot be part of either.I don't love everybody. I don't accept everyone and their actions.Good luck on everyone's journey.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
@Chris Hanlon said
"Since both Thelema and Christianity require acceptance of the whole of creation, I believe I cannot be part of either."
Gee, I don't think that most Thelemites would agree to this "acceptance of the whole of creation" bit. Not by a long shot. Sure, Chapter 1 of Liber Legis is all about expaning into Nuit, making no difference between things, etc. It's a wonderful mode of consciousness to explore. But what about Chapters 2 and 3!? Those are all about pulling out the sword of discrimination and slashing where you will! I don't think one could construct a healthy personal take on Thelema from just Chapter 1 (or just Chapter 2, or 3)! Gotta find balance between these poles, IMHO.
Soror Meral (somewhere in the first volume of ITC) said something about being on guard against building up a philosophy out of just one or two quotes from the Book of the Law. Somewhere therein lies another quote that will contradict it!
"Once I was on the PFCase list, and a musician who told us that he was very much, as many musicians are, into Thelema. However, he had a three year old son, and the Thelemites he actually knew, he would never allow in the same house with his family. This caused him some cognitive dissonance."
I'm not sure why. If it's part of his Will to provide a safe and secure environment for his family, and the people around him calling themselves Thelemites are indeed losers as implied, then I think it's pretty darn "Thelemic." Something very similar to this is one of the reasons (not the only) that I haven't joined any local Thelemic group.
"Sometimes, no offense, I feel the same way on this list."
Eh, we're all just farting around here. Doing something other than meditating...
"I don't love everybody. I don't accept everyone and their actions."
Again, I don't think that you have to, to be a Thelemite.
"Good luck on everyone's journey."
That sounds like a leave-taking. I hope it isn't. Sorry about taking the thread off-topic, but hey, at least I'm not talking about the furries!
Steve
-
I am just saying that the people who I was left in charge of where not interested in Thelema at all. I mean if it some ones WILL to play furry sex games or to play like a robot ninja, I have no problem with that, but if ones WILL is to attain in the system of the A.'.A.'. in order to be granted the opportunity to shape the progress of humanity, then they shall have to focus on that end. Otherwise the A.'.A.'. is not really the right stage in which to express the WILL.
The formula of thelema can be used by anyone in any field of interest, "the law in for all", but the system of the A.'.A.'. is a specific application of the Thelemic formula to occult lodge structure. The Furry culture may very well adopt the formula to produce better furries, In that case perhaps a Furry Magus shall arise to speak the Word of the aeon to the Furry community, but I am not that Magus.
I never claimed to be the fur messiah, and I don't want the job. Nor do I want to babysit goof off, The divine fool is not king of the jack-asses.
-
@Froclown said
"The Furry culture may very well adopt the formula to produce better furries, In that case perhaps a Furry Magus shall arise to speak the Word of the aeon to the Furry community, but I am not that Magus. "
By the way, I just figured out why I was experiencing cognitive dissonance about these folks. I was confusing them with fans of these books, whom I recall were similarly weird in the 1970s, with their fan fiction and role playing...
Steve
-
93,
Chris Hanlon said:
" Since both Thelema and Christianity require acceptance of the whole of creation, I believe I cannot be part of either.
I don't love everybody. I don't accept everyone and their actions. "
I think what Thelema is about, ultimately, is acceptance of the whole of our personal experience of creation. Same thing regarding loving others. Awareness of our own responses, statements and acts is the essential goal, while emitting positive vibes towards people manifesting jerkishness (or being furries in inappropriate situations) is probably never helpful.
Creating a calm center is the task as I see it. Acceptance of the whole of creation would be like trying to keep the cosmos cool, calm and collected. You'd have to spend most of your life repressing emotions to maintain a semblance of such acceptance, unless you were very far along your path.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
93
Chris Hanlon:
" I don't love everybody. I don't accept everyone and their actions.
"Do you love and accept yourself?
The reason I felt inclined to have those concerned with this thread read or re-read One Star in Sight was to remind them of the ending epiphany: "Behold within, and not above, One star in sight!" That certainly does not require one to accept the whole of creation just know Thyself and Thine own creation... not a task for everybody indeed unfortunately.
Peace.
-
Do I love and accept myself?
Sometimes, I do, and sometimes, I don't.
Makes sense that I love and accept others some time, and don't other times.
Thanks to all.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
Battle of the A.'.A.'. 's!!!! I'm coming in with this a lil bit late but I should like to point out that were we back in A.C's time and this sort of stuff was presented to him he'd prolly point to Liber E wherein he sets the conditions under which the A.'.A.'. might take official notice of any experiments.
-
@RifRaf said
"I don't know if this has been covered already, forgive me if it has. To which lineage does the website www.aathelema.org fall under? Could it be considered a true lineage back to the original which Crowley formed. Some of the members I have spoke with proclaim that it was linked to Crowley through Grady McMurtry. From what I know, I woudld suspect otherwise. But "from what I know" doesn't hold much weight."
I believe that is a lineage through Motta and Ray Earles...
IAO131
-
**Buddhists don't need permission or lineage to start Buddhist temples, and Shinto priests can build shrines anywhere they like. **
Dear Froclown
Much as I don't want to appear like I am ganging up on you, I can only reiterate what James has been telling you. Unfortunately, you are simply incorrect on basic points.
I am a Chan (Zen) Buddhist priest and let me tell you, you DO need permission to open a Buddhist temple, IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE NAME OF A LINEAGE TO GRANT IT SOME VALIDITY. You can open a Buddhist study group, if you wish, but if you were to suggest or infer it it a part of an established lineage, you need to be able to show WHO has conferred that right. As with the A.A., you will require authorisation from your appropriate superior to do so.
Now, this does not mean that you cannot call yourself an AA Magus or a Buddhist Abbot, it just means you are appropriating a title and an authority you simply do not have. That authority must be conferred. If you call yourself Magus within the AA, you are simply misleading people. No-one with any legitimacy conferred that right.
Froclown, you are continually misunderstanding the difference between attaiment and entitlement. You are more than entitled to call yourself Magus, you can even call yourself the Supreme Unguent of Kether, Grand Poobah of the Cup of Babalon, or Crowley's Unacknowledged Son, if you wish. You can call yourself anything you want. And what you achieve and attain may even be sacred - of course, from my Chan perspective, the very concept of a difference between sacred and profane is at best purely for convenience but almost invariably a non-sensical indulgence - but that doesn't mean you are in any way entitled to being able to claim recognised office in an organisation.
I am legally ordained Buddhist priest, but I can't just open a VALID temple, even if I am wise and enlightened beyond the experience of Buddha himself, without the permission of my Abbot.
Do you see?
Ta Mo
-
No I do not see,
Did Alan Watts or Kin Wilber have to get a special charter to teach Buddhism or to invite people to their home to meditate?
If I want to be a Buddhist, all I have to do is read a book about Buddhism and set my self to practice what I read their in. If I then believe I have myself attained the same Trance, hallucinations, or whatever you want to call the sate Siddhartha achieved under that tree, then I am just as much an enlightened (awakened master) as the student who was taught in most revered monastery in Tibet that claims lineage to Buddha himself.
On what authority was the Golden Dawn derived, not from direct lineage, rather Mathers claimed to formulate it from some ancient texts he found.
likewise anyone with a bible can start a protestant church in his basement, and the only test is if the church doctrine follows the bible or not.
If I have access to the cakeacola recipe, I and I follow that recipe I can make my own coke at home, even if I don't have the authority of the coke company to do so, their only retribution in that I broke copywrite laws, However the A.'.A.'. sources are mostly open source.
To that extent, the A.'.A.'. is open source. like linux. Any nerd with the gumption can download the linux kernal and create his own version of linux, likewise anyone who wants to pull the A.'.A.'. material out of the public domain, can create their own REDHAT A.'.A.'. or a Ubuntu A.'.A.'. or even an A.'.A.'. Second life release
If you don't believe Crowely was part of the Open Source movement, look at how he published the G.'.D.'. material, and his expressed views against "Mystery"
-
Does anyone know of all the various "authentic" lineages which can be traced back to Aleister Crowley and George Cecil Jones? How do they differ? There seem to be tons of lineages... how do you know if they are "authentic?"
If the bottom line is "By their fruits shall ye know them" what fruits are we looking for? Scholarship? Writing? Publishing? Changing the world?
What point does the AA teacher to student relationship go beyond 1 to 1? For some reason I have it in my mind that the whole thing was established to be a chain, where each student, after raising a grade, then becomes a teacher to a single student below them and so on. If that were so wouldn't there only be 2 possible "authentic" lineages?
I'm trying to understand the "authenticity" thing better as like Froclown (oh I can't believe I said that), I've been doing things from books/internet and on my own and have had some positive subjective results.
However it seems clear to me that certain "authentic" AA's might contain additional material, better insight, or different experiences... however as described above in this thread, many occult groups seem to be full of nuts... so what are some realistic options out there?Thoughts?
-
Frowclown wrote:
**No I do not see,
Did Alan Watts or Kin Wilber have to get a special charter to teach Buddhism or to invite people to their home to meditate?
If I want to be a Buddhist, all I have to do is read a book about Buddhism and set my self to practice what I read their in. If I then believe I have myself attained the same Trance, hallucinations, or whatever you want to call the sate Siddhartha achieved under that tree, then I am just as much an enlightened (awakened master) as the student who was taught in most revered monastery in Tibet that claims lineage to Buddha himself.**
With respect Frowclown, what aren't you getting here? No, Alan Watts or Kin Wilber did not need a special charter to teach Buddhism. Nor do you need a special charter to teach Thelema. HOWEVER, if they chose to teach Buddhism within a specific tradition of Buddhism which clearly stated and explained a required charter of succession or relevant authority to do so, then they WOULD need that "special charter".
You can teach Buddhism any way you want. But don't say you do it with the authority of a temple or lineage if you don't. Same with the A.A.
As I clearly said, I myself could be MORE enlightened that Buddha (assuming the possibility of the concept), and more entitled to start a world religion, but that doesn't mean I can open a valid temple in the name of my lineage without my Abbot granting that right.
TaMo
-
ok you say I can teach buddhism but just no open the specific temple of one order or another which is fine.
I agree that if you run Bob's zen shack I can not claim to operate by own Bob's zen shack as affiliated with your type and mythods of zen without your permisison.
However, if you called your temple just Zen rather than Bob's Zen shack, you can clearly not claim that no one else in the world can open a Zen temple, or run a Zen monastery, just because you chose to call your particular temple just Zen, rather than something specific.
I never claimed that I was running an official specific extension or charter of the A.'.A.'. that was created by Jones and Crowley.
Rather I claimed that I was working on creating an order which teaches the same school of thought on which Crowely based his A.'.A.'. and used the same base texts and syllabus of Crowley's order, but also included some original methods and contents.
For example first baptist is a particular christian church and so is the latter day saints a particualar christian sect they both teach from the same base text the bible and they use similar methods, and some sects share methods and specific teachings openly. There may be one church is called Christian, not christian church, just chrisitian, if some one opens a sect that is also a christian sect, that uses the same bible, organ music, preaches in a church, but calls itself Christian church of St.Paul, Can you claim that this church does not teach christianity, just because it calls itself chrisitan without the official charter of the original Chrstians?
-
Froclown,
It's more like you say you are a Roman Catholic priest and can dispense forgiveness of sins and initiate everyone into the different sacraments, like marriage, death, etc. Then, you tell everybody, you really aren't affiliated with Rome or the Pope, or with what everybody else calls a Roman Catholic Church.
You can do what you want, Froclown. It's just hard to agree with the way you use vocabulary. You use the vocabulary of another tradition, and the people of that tradition are saying, that's not what they consider the correct meaning.
Why do you even care? Do what thou wilt.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
the A.'.A.'. is like the internet,
this one order of A.'.A.'. is one server on the internet.
A.'.A.'. means the hidden college, its the sanctuary behind the cloud, its a metaphysical state that is shared by people who never met each other, do not know each other in the physical incarnation at all, but are linked only by their shared achievement of that state.
The Order Crowley built was one of many stairways that leads up the mountain to that sanctuary, not the sanctuary itself.
All stairways leading to the A.'.A>'. can rightly be called the order of the A.'.A.'. especially those who use the public domain source material of Crowley's order.
Anyone who wants can take the Vedas and the Upanishads and teach Hinduism from them, build a temple to the gods etc, and anyone can take the source materials of the Master Therion, including his material on the structure and system of the various orders he created, to re-construct them.
If I took Crowley's diaries and re-constructed his abbey, could I not call my abbey an Abbey of Thelema, or do I need direct permission from some lineage of Crowely to do so?
If I want to teach grammar in my home for free, do I have to get sanctioned by the Modern Language Association? Am I not allowed to call it Grammar School, because elementary grade schools in the 1800s where called grammar school, and people might expect I am teaching vitalism and luminescent ether?