What is the relationship-OTO initiations and A.'.A.'.
-
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.
-
I'd like to add something to Jim's comments on the GD vs. the A.'.A.'. which may have caused some confusion, but it is confusion that precedes Jim's comment since Regardie became viewed as THE GD authority through his books. The HGA working was not a part of the GD system and this is the main point that seperates and makes it so hard for one to equivocate the A.'.A.'. and the GD. While Mathers had translated the text the majority of Golden Dawn members considered the working extremely dangerous and a fool's task. Crowley was one of the few who either didn't care or didn't see the danger involved in Mather's version! Regardie's writings, especially his pre-Stella Matutina writings, were still heavily influenced by the Crowley and he wrote these works with the A.'.A.'. system in mind. if you read A Garden of Pomegranates the work of the grades he relates are from the A.'.A.'. and Liber vel Armorum as regards the weapons of the elements. Crowley's interpretations have also become a sort of canon to even Golden Dawn teachings but if you research the source material much of it does not correlate with Crowley's interpretations and ideas. The interp of Adonai as the HGA for one is not a Golden Dawn teaching though there are questions of the Higher Self, though the HGA does not equate with the Higher Self very cleanly at all.
I'd say that the Golden Dawn and A.'.A.'. interpolations stop at 2=9. The rest of the system simply isn't congruent at all as the addition of Yoga states etc transcends the still somewhat quasi-masonic structure of the Golden Dawn system. Still you'd be surprised how many people still think 5=6 of the GD is the same as 5=6 of the A.'.A.'., especially if you just LOOK at the work of the A.'.A.'. and compare it to the GD!
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"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.""
Would these "three Craft Degrees and the Royal Arch" happen to be what is known as 'Blue Lodge'? & do they correspond to I° - IV° P.I. of O.T.O.?
Also, somewhere in Bailey's writings the Tibetan is quoted as saying that the Blue Lodge degrees of Freemasonry were specifically designed by the Great White Brotherhood & were intended to be the framework for a new societal structure. What do you guys think about this?
93/93
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"Would these "three Craft Degrees and the Royal Arch" happen to be what is known as 'Blue Lodge'? & do they correspond to I° - IV° P.I. of O.T.O.? "
Blue Lodge of Masonry plus Royal Arch. Yes, this is O.T.O. I-IV (not including P.'.I.'.).
"Also, somewhere in Bailey's writings the Tibetan is quoted as saying that the Blue Lodge degrees of Freemasonry were specifically designed by the Great White Brotherhood & were intended to be the framework for a new societal structure. What do you guys think about this?"
Well, it's what we used in crafting the Aspirants to Light rituals
- Yes, I think there was guidance behind them. -
93 Jim,
Are you speaking of the Royal Arch of today, as it is connected to the York Rite?
I know initially there were only two degrees (Masonry), and then came the 3rd degree, or Master Mason. The Royal Arch is in actuality part of the craft rituals, but one does not generally receive it in Blue Lodge.
One must now go York Right to receive the Royal Arch degree of Masonry which corresponds to the 4th degree O.T.O. (Or actually, the O.T.O. 4th degree is equivalent to the Royal Arch degree in Masonry) This is the beginning point of the Chivalric degrees in Masonry. (Chapter, Counsel and Commandery), unless you are part of the Prince Hall tradition.
There are further degrees beyond the Royal Arch through the York Rite.
But, my understanding in Craft Masonry today, Blue Lodge consists of Entered Apprentice, Fellow craft, and Master Mason. One must be proficient in the symbolic, or Craft degrees (Blue Lodge) before being able to even petition for York, or Scottish Rite. (At least in the Lodge I belong to it Does). Then again, I suppose the Jurisdiction could make a difference as well.The Royal Arch is the completion of the Symbolic Degrees though.
Freemasonry is a very valuable source to me, and it has, is, and will always be the frame work for all societal structures.
Interesting thread:-)
93 93/93.'.
James
-
@Shachdar8=3 said
"Are you speaking of the Royal Arch of today, as it is connected to the York Rite?"
The Royal Arch appears in many rites - York, Scottish, etc.; and in England, last I knew, it had semi-independent jurisdiction.
"I know initially there were only two degrees (Masonry), and then came the 3rd degree, or Master Mason. The Royal Arch is in actuality part of the craft rituals, but one does not generally receive it in Blue Lodge."
Yes. The Royal Arch and the current Third are contemporaries. In fact, the Royal Arch almost became the Third instead of the Hiram ritual.
"One must now go York Right to receive the Royal Arch degree of Masonry which corresponds to the 4th degree O.T.O.[/qjuote]
Actually, the O.T.O. ritual was based on the Metropolitan Rite in Britain. It's significantly different from the York version."
That's a term linked to a particular rite. Remember, the H.R.A. originally existed as a stand-alone degree, outside the context of any collateral rites."But, my understanding in Craft Masonry today, Blue Lodge consists of Entered Apprentice, Fellow craft, and Master Mason."
Yes. That distinction is why Grand Lodge of England used the language they used: that Masonry consists of the three Craft degrees and the Royal Arch.
-
@Red Eagle of Death said
"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?"
-
Rosecrucians:
As far as I’m aware, there is no evidence linking the Rosecrucianism that influenced the Golden Dawn back to the people behind the Fama and Confessio. Somewhere in the Equinox Crowley denounces various modern Rosecrucian groups as frauds but he never provides his criteria for authenticity. Even to say “visible Rosecrucian movement” is misleading because it implies an invisible Rosecrucian lineage going back to the people who published Fama and Confessio or earlier to Father Christian Rosenkreuz. As far as I’m aware, there is no such lineage or evidence for it (some would say that's because they are invisible). What you have are various “Rosecrucian” groups that sprang up after the fact, claiming to be the true heirs of the Rosecrucian current. The Fama and Confessio undoubtedly contain initiatic truths, but they could have been written by some 16th century Adept as a playful fiction (maybe he or she was bored) that took on a life of its own thereafter… -
Freemasons:
There is no historical connection between the Freemasons and Rosecrucians simply because the latter never existed. However, some writers have suggested Scottish Freemasonry grew out of the Templars who fled to Scotland and took refuge under Robert the Bruce after Philip le Bel arrested the Templars and destroyed their order. If true, Freemasonry developed out of the remnants of the Templars and similarities can be seen in how both groups are designed to function outside of national, financial and legal constraints. This secular enlightened “universalism” may be traced back to the principle of Baphomet. -
OTO:
The OTO grew out of the Freemasonry/Templar framework. Peter Koenig’s website, for all its anti-OTO bias, is a useful resource on the early history of the OTO. -
Aleister Crowley
The connection between the A.A. and OTO occurs only via the figure of Crowley. In 1904, AC has the Cairo Working and receives Al Legis. In 1907 AC establishes the A.A. system with GCJ out of the ruins of the Golden Dawn. In 1914 AC substantially rewrites the OTO initiations and takes over as OHO in 1922. AC inserts The Book of the Law and Thelema into both the A.A. system and his reworking of the OTO grade initiations.
-