What is the relationship-OTO initiations and A.'.A.'.
-
@Aum418 said
"
@Shachdar8=3 said
"93 HeliosMegestos. Your information is misleading, and by the looks of your website, you are not a True Thelemite. (IMO)!"Thats quite audacious...IAO131"
Misleading? As in "incorrect?" As in "all initiation rituals do NOT include a (symbolic or real) death and rebirth of some nature?"
"Not a True Thelemite" must indicate that I am not doing my Will. Oh wait! I don't remember claiming that I was a true Thelemite.
You guys can pick away at the website all you want. The last time I looked it contained all the elements of a Thelemic (oh no!) society that was operative before any of you read your first Crowley book. Any plagiarism is not really stealing because the wording of certain documents is completely changed to reflect an "audacious," irreverent, dangerous approach to dictatorships - it even states that openly and up front. Did you destroy your computer after the first reading?
Anyone who is running around flashing an 8=3 username on a (semi)public forum is pretty far out. 8=3! right!
I remain, AlfredENu-Man9=2 (or wuz it 13=0, I can never remember).
-
@h2h said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I don't even understand the question. How has attaining 10=1 anything at all to do with the subject?"Jim - you stated elsewhere that AC attained 8=3 in December 1909, 9=2 in October 1915 and 10=1 in the 1920s. So my question is based on the presumption that one must know about that which he or she speaks - namely how could AC write down the descriptions of these grades if he had not attained to them at the time of establishing the A.'.A.'. system with GCJ in 1907? Were the descriptions based on traditional Kabbalistic sources or was someone else guiding these two men?"
He didn't. For example, One Star in Sight (the only real description of 10=1 in his writings) was written later in the 1920s, after he had attained the grade.
And yes, it's also true that they were working under guidance. That was the whole point!
But those first years, they onluy wrote about the work up to 5=6 for the most part.
-
93 Edward E Numan.
What are you...A Minerval or something?
You don't know who I am, or what lineage I come from...Obviously you are not to familiar with grade structures within various different orders.
It doesn't say "Shachdar 8=3 O.T.O., or AA"
93 93/93.'.
(There is a difference between doing YOUR will, and THOU Will!)
James
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
And yes, it's also true that they were working under guidance. That was the whole point!"Under whose guidance? Aiwaz?? I don't recall reading anything like this in Confessions. If the guiding entity for setting up the A.'.A.'. system was Aiwaz, how was communication made with him - trance/channeling or automatic writing etc? And are there any documents of this communication in the order's founding papers?
-
Not guidance in the sense of dictation (a la PFC's communications with R.). It's more subtle than that.
-
I read somewhere in another thread that IX degree O.T.O. was analogous to D.M. or 5=6 of A.'.A.'. - how do the other degrees of O.T.O. align with the Grades of A.'.A.'.?
-
Crowley at one time gave an opinion correlating IX° O.T.O. with 6=5 (Adeptus Major) A.'.A.'.. He wasn't saying one is equal to the other - he was saying that the 6=5 is expected to have acquired "all magical power," and the IX° methods fill that need.
I came up with many cross-connections during my early years, though the most important thing to say is that the systems are technically incommensurable. One doesn't exactly equate to the other.
My favorites FWIW: Since one of the IX° refers to using the technique to attain to the K&C of the HGA, that means that IX° is (at its beginning) less than 5=6. That led to me equating it to A.'.A.'. 4=7 (which is more or less 7=4 of the old G.D.). This gives a very nice pattern where VIII° equates to 3=8 and VII° to 2=9 (and most of their papers and mysteries and techniques overlap these quite reasonably). Then "the whole of freemasonry" (which in O.T.O. is equivalent to VI° and earlier) equates to Malkuth. You can further parse it between 0=0 and 1=10 be noting that the III° O.T.O. takes on certain obligations that are resolved fully by A.'.A.'. 1=10 work, so I drew the line equating Probationer to O.T.O. 0°-II°, and Zelator to III°-VI°.
But, again, its just modelling for the sake of seeing what light each sheds on the other (and, in my original approach, to leverage A.'.A.'. instructions in building an O.T.O. education system). It shouldn't be taken as an equation.
-
They don't really line up. Crowley makes a comment how he thinks it's a good idea for those of Adeptus Major to attain IX in the OTO to have the teachings of that grade at their disposal and in another place makes a comment about the OTO being able to produce magicians up to 6=5 but no more. This was the OTO as ran by Crowley, or at least how he liked to envision it.
-
What about the correlation between Golden Dawn & A.'.A.'.? You said that 2=9 of A.'.A.'. was the equivalent of 5=6 in HOGD & 7=4 of HOGD was the equivalent of 4=7 in A.'.A.'. - what about the other Grades? Will you do a side-by-side comparrison?
-
@kuniggety said
"...and in another place makes a comment about the OTO being able to produce magicians up to 6=5 but no more. This was the OTO as ran by Crowley, or at least how he liked to envision it."
I've never liked his IX to 6=5 comparison. I always thought it went too far or not far enough.
My discomfort may be in the wording, and especially in the inference of an actual equation or near-equation. Based on direct experience of both, I'm willing to say that if a well-trained and well-experienced is also an Adept in the A.'.A.'. sense (5=6 Within), then the IX° would give that person outwardly discernible characteristics of a 6=5 and very likely would lead to that grade. - However, if a IX° isn't also actually 5=6 then there's no way that he or she is 6=5 - the degree expression would be more like 4=7.
On the other hand, I don't think the comparison goes far enough. I can't imagine a genu-wine Adept who understood and practiced the IX° O.T.O. method not also being as much 7=4 as they are 6=5. To me, the 7=4 symbolic and practical correspondences to 7=4 are much more striking to me than to 6=5. (But then, someone may be wanting to reserve that 7=4 analogy for, say, X°?)
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"616"
...you do realize that 616 is my signature & not a farewell...right?
616
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"What about the correlation between Golden Dawn & A.'.A.'.? You said that 2=9 of A.'.A.'. was the equivalent of 5=6 in HOGD & 7=4 of HOGD was the equivalent of 4=7 in A.'.A.'. - what about the other Grades? Will you do a side-by-side comparison?"
That's complicated by the question of whether you mean the ideal or the actual.
It's also complicated because the G.D. is a "work after" system and the A.'.A.'. is a "work before" system. Let me give you an example: Though 2=9 in G.D. and 2=9 in A.'.A.'. aren't the same at all, they at least share the quality of being symbolically correspondent to Yesod. In the G.D., the sequence is, "First you are initiated into Yesod, then you begin working on Yesod stuff." (I call this "work after.") In the A.'.A.'., the sequence is, "Master the methods which give you direct access to Yesod, and then we'll confirm this with the Yesod initiation." (I call this "work before.")
This is relevant to your question because it explains a confusion in reasonable correspondences. The A.'.A.'. 2=9 initiation ceremony is an adaptation of the G.D. 5=6 ceremony, and (as with the G.D.) is considered admission into the Second Order. However, the 1=10 A.'.A.'. is already doing the work of the G.D. 5=6 for the most part (and not just the preliminary Z.A.M. work - also much of the Th.A.M. curriculum).
So the A.'.A.'. 1=10 is akin to Second Order (5=6) G.D. in terms of the work actually being done; but the A.'.A.'. 2=9 is the analog in terms of initiation and symbolism.
Probably the best way to understand the A.'.A.'. 1=10 through 5=6 is that they are analogous to the five sub-grades of 5=6 in the G.D. (In the G.D. model, one worked the grades to Tiphereth at one level, being advised just before that one hadn't gotten past Megalith; then 5=6 was divided into 1=10 of 5=6 through 5=6 of 5=6. These were intended to rework the same territory at a higher level, what those of us who are snobs for this sort of thing sometimes call "actually" working it.)
The problem is, the G.D. system never really pulled that off. If they had, then the G.D. and A.'.A.'. systems would have converged at 6=5. In actuality, they never seriously developed the curriculum past a decent start at the Th.A.M. (2=9 of 5=6) level. Also (with the possible exception of Florence Farr), there was nobody in the entire history of the G.D. (1887-1900) who attained the K&C of the HGA while still a member. If such a real adept had come along, they likely would have thought him or her an 8=3. (And, indeed, when A.C. first thought he was reaching 8=3 in 1906, he was going through all the steps and getting all the results that are normal for what A.'.A.'. now calls 5=6).
This gives us a worthy dividing line for a technical comparison, though! If we take the ceremonial admission to the G.D. 5=6 as marking A.'.A.'. 2=9, and G.D. 8=3 as the name given to A.'.A.'. 5=6, then we have the 2=9 through 4=7 triad of A.'.A.'. corresponding to the 5=6 through 7=4 triad of G.D. (It's not quite grade-for-grade, but it's close enough for this overview.)
This makes a lot of things make sense!
But it also leads us, sooner or later, to what I think is the real basis for comparison. The Sephiroth are convenient (very convenient; I would probably say necessary) marking points, especially for a training system; but the real progress of attainment is in terms of the Four Worlds. Things get clearer when you realize that the A.'.A.'. admission into 5=6 (i.e., the success of the Dominus Liminis grade right before it) is an opening of consciousness to Briah; and the G.D. used a model where the opening of Briatic consciousness was at Binah. The maps suddenly look pretty much the same.
An example of convegence of these: The 8° of Temple of Thelema is exactly equal to 5=6 A.'.A.'.. It is, however, symbolically equated to Binah. and I needed to write an initiation ceremony that would actually trigger the opening of Neshamic consciousness (so to speak, the full descent of the Shin), would open the gates in preparation for what A.'.A.'. calls 5=6, but would be founded on Binah symbols. This was done by using the Grail as the central symbol which undergoes the key transmutation (building on a particularly splendid and beautiful moment in the 5° ceremony where the postulant utters a phrase beginning, "My victory..."). The convergence works quite beautifully, and had the secondary advantage that writing the ceremony further emphasized to me the necessary transparency of specific forms in the face of the actuality of what they veil.
-
@KRVB MMShCh said
"
@Red Eagle of Death said
"616"...you do realize that 616 is my signature & not a farewell...right?
616"
I knew it was the number of your motto, but I guess I assumed it was a designated farwell too after reading about 616 maybe being the number of the Beast. -
@Jim Eshelman said
"This makes a lot of things make sense!"
Thanks for that thorough reply Jim...I think I have a reasonable foothold on the differences(and similarities) between the Orders.
Let me make sure I am getting it all in order:
The Golden Dawn developed out of Rosicrucianism & A.'.A.'. is the maturation of the same system? How does Freemasonry & the O.T.O. fit into all of this? Did Freemasonry, like Rosicrucianism, develop out of the Templars?
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"
I knew it was the number of your motto, but I guess I assumed it was a designated farwell too after reading about 616 maybe being the number of the Beast. "...no worries love
616
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"The Golden Dawn developed out of Rosicrucianism & A.'.A.'. is the maturation of the same system?"
Both correct.
"How does Freemasonry & the O.T.O. fit into all of this? Did Freemasonry, like Rosicrucianism, develop out of the Templars?"
Rosicrucianism may or may not have developed from the Templar tradition. Most hold that it did not, but there are some arguments that it did in some fashion.
Picking up where conventional history allows, though...
The visible Rosicrucian movement and Freemasonry (and Odd Fellows and a number of other things) developed concurrently around 1600 E.V. Each seems to have given something to the other, but otherwise the development was fairly independent. Throughout the 17th Century, it seems evident that a significant set of people were involved.
Freemasonry at the time consisted only of its first two degrees. Rosicrucianism didn't seem to have a degree structure as part of its approach. FM gave to RC the idea of stepped degrees. RC gave to FM the CRC legend from the Fama, which became the basis not so much for the 3° ritual as is usually claimed, but more for the Royal Arch. Throughout much of the 18th Century, there was a competition between the Hiram rite and the Royal Arch as to which would be the third degree on top of the two that they had. Grand Lodge of England eventually formalized the Hiram rite as the 3°, and kept the peace by declaring that "Freemasonry consists of the three Craft Degrees and the Royal Arch."
Rosicrucianism came away with its own traditions but something of a Masonic style. The German "Gold & Rosy Cross" order is possibly the first clear development from this. Freemasonry concurrently came away with an infusion of some RC input, but not (for example) a Tree of Life model or a distinctly RC tale or identification - it continued its own, independent sequence.
Fellowships such as O.T.O. or Aspirants to Light have degrees based on the Masonic model, which is pretty complete within itself. Orders such as Temple of Thelema have degrees based on the Tree of Life and the Rosicrucian traditions.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The visible Rosicrucian movement and Freemasonry (and Odd Fellows and a number of other things) developed concurrently around 1600 E.V. ... Freemasonry at the time consisted only of its first two degrees. Rosicrucianism didn't seem to have a degree structure as part of its approach. FM gave to RC the idea of stepped degrees."
I was wondering when you think the degree structure and the 10 Latin Grade Names came to be formed as Steps of Initiation in Rosicrucianism then? Thanks.
- IPSISSIMVS
- MAGVS
- MAGISTER TEMPLI
- ADEPTVS EXEMPTVS
- ADEPTVS MAIOR
- ADEPTVS MINOR
- PHILOSOPHVS
- PRACTICVS
- THEORICVS
- ZELATOR
-
@Wizardiaoan said
"I was wondering when you think the degree structure and the 10 Latin Grade Names came to be formed as Steps of Initiation in Rosicrucianism then?"
Not sure. There's no mention of them in the* Fama* and Confessio. It would seem that this naming came after Rosicrucianism absorbed the degree idea from Freemasonry, which would place it at early 18th Century AFAICT. It would have made sense to them to use the Tree of Life for this purpose, and I think the numbering pattern likely arose from the 13th C. work The Gates of Light.