was Crowley an Oath Breaker?
-
As an initiate of the Golden Dawn, Crowley made some "secrecy vows", that technically were broken by the publishing of "The Equinox" and other literature.
Was Crowley justified in this? and if so, how could he demand the same from others? -
@Scapegoa said
"As an initiate of the Golden Dawn, Crowley made some "secrecy vows", that technically were broken by the publishing of "The Equinox" and other literature."
Was it?
His position was that the oath (and thus his duty) was not to Mathers et al. but to the governing powers behind the order ("The Secret Chiefs"); and that these Secret Chiefs were the same that ordered him to publish the old rituals.
One can debate whether this is true (though that would be tough to keep as a rational, logical, factual debate from this point in time); but it seems at least clear that he was, from within his own mind, not an oath-breaker but an oath-fulfiller.
In contrast, he wrote a scathing letter to Regardie after the latter published The Golden Dawn. In the letter and a follow-up, AC was quite clear that he regarded Regardie as an out-and-out oath-breaker because Regardie just made the human decision on his own to publish the rituals; whereas AC had only "acted on orders" from those to whom he had sworn allegience.
I don't think the topic can be addressed sensibly without understanding Crowley's view, motive, actions, etc.
PS - If Crowley was acting in good faith by sincerely believing this position, but happened to be wrong, then he wasn't violating his First Order obligation (which requires knowing and intentional violation); but, in that scenario, he would have been violating his Second Order obligation upon publication of the Second Order material, because the Second Order oath's penalty clause doesn't include a "knowing and intentional" exception.
PPS - I haven't voted above because your question starts by presuming he was an oath breaker, and then asks if that's OK. My position is that he wasn't an oath breaker but, if he were, then no, it wasn't OK. (So I guess that means, "No, he wasn't justified as an oath-breaker, since he wasn't an oath-breaker." OK, I'll cast the vote that way.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
PPS - I haven't voted above because your question starts by presuming he was an oath breaker, and then asks if that's OK. My position is that he wasn't an oath breaker but, if he were, then no, it wasn't OK. (So I guess that means, "No, he wasn't justified as an oath-breaker, since he wasn't an oath-breaker." OK, I'll cast the vote that way.)"
You are right, I should have left the poll with the same title as the thread, I made that assumption, from the point of view of the organization to which he belonged, who presumably would not be able to accept "personal gnosis" as an excuse; or risk setting a structurally dangerous precedent within that organization, i believe it is historically accurate to say, that was how things were viewed by many of his contemporaries within the GD at the time? correct me if I'm wrong?