BOTA
-
Curious what opinions on BOTA here are - specifically, Case's approach still valid or too Old Aeon? How far up the tree does their work take one - only up to Tiphareth, or higher? Being that Case was so wary of some good stuff like Pranayama and Enochian I'm wondering how much PRACTICAL stuff is in there.
-
@Cygnus said
"Curious what opinions on BOTA here are"
I have the highest regard for it. The first two months of work are something you can't find (at least, not in a complete form) anywhere else, and it is of enormous value. The Tarot courses need to be worked patiently, at the speed that the lessons arrive, for maximum benefit. (If you don't work them, you might as well not bother to read them.) The sixth year of work (Case's personal magnum opus, for which everything earlier prepares you) is a one-year course constituting the most important work on alchemy accessible in written form IMO.
"How far up the tree does their work take one - only up to Tiphareth, or higher?"
That's a complicated question. Their initiated work omnly goes (formally) to 5=6, but that's on a GD scale, not an A.'.A.'. scale. The lessons themselves mostly contemplate an earlier stage of work than any of the initiatic work, but potentially have all you would need for substantial attainment, depending on what you do with what is given.
"Being that Case was so wary of some good stuff like Pranayama and Enochian I'm wondering how much PRACTICAL stuff is in there."
You're absolutely correct about Enochian - he stripped any hint of it from the system. He's misunderstood on the yoga stuff, however: His position was that some things should only be undertaken under the direct oversight of a teacher who had mastered it - a very prudent point of view worthy of attention.
There is practical stuff in the lessons - almost nothing BUT practical stuff - but it won't take the form of ritual or what you probably think of as yoga.
PS - On rereading this, I find my answer a bit obscure. I should clarify that the lessons are deemed confidential (one signs an agreement to that effect before starting), so I'm not mentioning actual content. I have, however, tried to give an answer that directly provides what you asked for.
-
@Cygnus said
"Thank you!
Is it the type of work that could be added to an already engaged Thelemic tree-climbing expedition, and compliment it rather than derail it?"
Yes, should integrate with pretty much anything. - It's primarily Tarot meditations with a particular technique. (That's not the whole story, but that's a broad picture.)
It might be tempting to switch and go through the lessons with a Thoth deck. I recommend against it. Use it with the tools given. There is value in letting your mind coexist inside of different models without one infringing on the other. Ultimately, it isn't about acquiring information about Tarot and Qaballah, but about the changes this effects in you as a result of the steps.
-
I have to jump in here regarding whether Case is "still valid or too Old Aeon." I've been following the BOTA lessons for several years now, and am in the middle of the alchemy series that Jim alluded to. (I'm reading my weekly lesson now -- I wish the Sunday School lessons I had to read as a child had been as good as these.) I am constantly astounded at how often his writing seems like a commentary on the Law of Thelema. (In fact, now that I put it that way, maybe we should be avoiding Case as a center of pestilence
) Case is the most "Thelemic" of occult writers who are not explicitly Thelemites.But he was adamant about keeping one foot squarely in the Old Aeon. I think he was convinced that the Law of the Ageless Wisdom never changed, and so couldn't accept the idea of a new formula that abrogated all the old ones. Maybe his antipathy to Crowley as a person made it impossible for him to accept Crowley as a prophet. He did consider Crowley to be failed genius, a promising occultist who had fallen from grace.
-
I'm not so sure that Thelema is some new law displacing all the old ones, I believe it to be based on ageless wisdom. We don't need some prophet to tell us the law, because it can be obtained without having it handed down from some other person.
-
Case's main intent, perhaps his Will, was to preserve the Rosicrucian path of development. If I read it correctly, he stripped the Golden Dawn system of everything that wasn't traceable to the ancient Rosicrucian path of instruction. He felt it was safer, more tried and true. Perhaps even that is to over-characterize his motivations.
Crowley's main intent, perhaps his Will, was to forge ahead and experiment with cutting-edge techniques and combinations of techniques of advancement. For example, magic and Yoga practices are used in conjunction, and Enochian is thrown in there as well.
This is what I see as the main difference between the two.
As to the question of the eternality of the Ageless Wisdom. It's not the Wisdom that changes, it's the people and our needs that change. The New Aeon is not new in terms of the Ageless Wisdom. It's not a revolution in the Ageless Wisdom.
The New Aeon is a developmental change in the psyche of humanity. It's humanity that has changed, not the Wisdom. Mainly, we've changed in terms of our approach to the Wisdom - through skepticism instead of faith. It is the psyche of humanity that is evolving. The meaning-stories - the myths and mythologies - evolve with the psyche of humanity. But the Wisdom to which they lead stays always the same.
Jung talks about the Spirit of the Depths versus the Spirit of the Age. The Spirit of the Depths is ageless and eternal. The Spirit of the Age changes over time with culture and its dominant philosophies.
In my understanding of it, the formula of the New Aeon does not resist the Spirit of the Age, but begins there, where humankind is, and then works to forge an understanding of the ageless and eternal Spirit of the Depths, so to speak.
The analogy that comes to mind when I try to bridge the divide between the two... If I was climbing a mountain with hooks and ropes, I want to make sure that the current hook is deeply imbedded and secure in the cliff before I start climbing any higher. Case's job would have been to secure the hook. Crowley's job would have been to determine the path upward.
-
I have to disagree with your characterization of AC's willing this regard. His opening gambit, for example, was to document and draw together the best historic techniques of East and West alike. One stated goal was to provide an ark preserving the ancient methods for the future.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I have to disagree with your characterization of AC's willing this regard. His opening gambit, for example, was to document and draw together the best historic techniques of East and West alike. One stated goal was to provide an ark preserving the ancient methods for the future."
If I read Case correctly, he viewed traditional Rosicrucianism as inherently based in the Christian mythos. Perhaps I have overly related to Case in my characterization of Crowley.
-
Yes, I do think PFC thought of his Rosicrucianism is basically Christian - though his relationship to Christianity had relatively little to do with its modern popular forms. It was (I would say) more Gnostic-quintessentialist. That is, his strongest focus was on the archetypal Christos.