A.'.A.'. Lineage Question
-
"":38qs8oh8]When you were a probationer, did you have physical contact with your neophyte? Was a long distance relationship actually workable?"
I was in constant touch with my Neophyte. She was a 6-hour drive away, but we saw each other many times a year and were in as frequent phone call and email contact as needed.
And, of course, you can't really be admitted as Probationer except in person. Trying to circumvent that (as Crowley tried briefly) breaks the fundamental thing that happens in the reception.
"I move around far too much, I doubt Ill be able to maintain proximity to whoever receives me =/"
That does make it tough.
-
Initially I was in contact only through the Internet, until I have met him. Nowadays I see him one time each year (he is very far from me).
@Jim Eshelman said
"You get one contact for an incarnation"
I would say "there is only one call" for an incarnation. How could a Neophyte advance if his Zelator passed away; or if the later disconnect himself from the Order, etc.? He is barred? I do not think so. One example: Jones through Fuller (though he was not a Neophyte), and then through Crowley.
-
@Frater S.R. said
"I would say "there is only one call" for an incarnation. How could a Neophyte advance if his Zelator passed away;"
responsibility "floats upward" - the Zelator's Practicus inherits responsibility.
"or if the later disconnect himself from the Order, etc.? He is barred?"
That is my understanding, yes. We never accept anyone who has had a legitimate link and has left it. You can't go "lineage shopping." We'll help people as best we can within time constraints without formally taking them on, but we will never accept anyone whose basic story is, "I was admitted as a Priobationer by a legitimate link and, for reasons X and Y, I've left them or they've expelled me etc.; now I'm looking to get back in with somebody else."
"I do not think so. One example: Jones through Fuller (though he was not a Neophyte), and then through Crowley."
That's what I meant by the responsibility floating uphill. Reception by a Neophyte is beeing accepted not by an isolated teacher but by a line of responsibility. (There is an unpublished detail that makes this super clear on the Probationer's certificate.) One is received into a stream of one-to-one connection. If the immediate Superior is no longer available (due to death, expulsion, resignation, whatever), then responsibility passes to his or her direct Superior.
C.S. Jones is a great example. When his immediate Superior (Fuller) withdrew from the Order, Fuller's immediate Superior (Crowley) inherited responsibility.
-
@Frater S.R. said
"It really makes more sense then finding another one. There is other questions like "and if I have no contact with the superior of my Neophyte", etc. But these are special situations, not of our current discussion."
Agreed. Although the answer to that one is pretty simple: In a well-run organization, upon the removal (for whatever reason) of your immediate Superior, his or her Suprior should, of course, know about that, and should contact all of his or her Inferiors. (I hate that term, but it's the technical term, so I use it when necessary. "Successors" might be better!) Internal records (a master roster) is maintained for that reason.
-
93
So what about in the case of a badly run organisation, surely the student cannot be blamed for an error of judgement on his part, which he later realizes.
If the student makes contact with a superior who later turns out to be unreliable or downright false, it would not make sense to then bar him, for life from the order.
besides, its a well known psychological fact that people learn more from mistakes than from successes, and who never made a mistake?93 93/93
-
@Solitarius said
"So what about in the case of a badly run organisation, surely the student cannot be blamed for an error of judgement on his part, which he later realizes."
Your statement denies the student's responsibility for his or her choices, and I think that's a mistake.
This is a life-decision deeply rooted in karmic considerations. Such a step as taking initiation in A.'.A.'. exists in the context of one's movement across many lifetimes. I regard the authentic "knock" and the decision to open (or not open) the door as guided (or inwardly informed) acts.
So I have sympathy and compassion, but no philosophical conflict, in letting aspirants bear the consequences of their choice. (There's always next lifetime, or other activities or approaches in the current one.)
-
One of the reasons why I am, in retrospect, so glad that I didn't get the hoped-for contact when I hoped for it. I would have lacked the judgement to be selective about 'which' group I joined.
Patience is a supporting column to good judgement.
-
93
I don't agree that admitting a mistake somehow abdicates responsibility, how do you work that out?
On the contrary I would say that the ability to admit mistakes is an act of taking responsibility.As for past lives and Karma; well, I see no reason to believe in past lives per se, and Karma is only the Law of cause and effect, e.g i perform an act, i get a corresponding effect, the momentum of my past actions caused me to have to go through a whole lot of crap, including association with charlatans, before coming out the other side into my present situation, I view it as a kind of purging rather than outright failure, and it is certainly not a reason to give up my spiritual quest.
I personally only believe in this one life, and am not about to believe in reincarnation based on someone else's assertion, therefore, I have only this one chance to attain illumination before the dissolution of death makes all such arguments irrelevant.
for me the A.'.A.'. offers the one chance of experiencing, while living, the consciousness of the continuity of existence; by this I don't mean some earthly order calling itself the A.'.A.'., but the supernal order that such organisations are supposed to represent, although not all of them do, as I have found out first hand.93 93/93
-
@Solitarius said
"I don't agree that admitting a mistake somehow abdicates responsibility, how do you work that out?"
You seemed to be saying that one who made a mistake shouldn't be held accountable for it.
"As for past lives and Karma; well, I see no reason to believe in past lives per se,"
Understood, and believe as you will. But, the experience of many people aside, there is very little in this work (past the basics) that, on close examination, makes sense ikn the context only of a single life. The progress of the soul isn't a race from bottom to top of the Tree in a single life but, rather, incremental gain and frequent recapitulation (to rapidly retrace, in each new life, the ground more arduously covered in earlier ones).
"I personally only believe in this one life"
And, on the theory that it's better to be an agnostic than a hypocrite, I honor your decision, at this very early stage of your work, not to believe in something you can't presently experience.
"and am not about to believe in reincarnation based on someone else's assertion"
I am very content with Patanjali's hierarchy of evidence. The best evidence is one's own experience. But, absent that, the next best evidence is the testimony of someone who is in a place to know. (This is essentially what the courts have adopted also.) - Below these kinds of evidence are many lesser ones, such as the testimony of someone who doesn't have a clue (or a way to find a clue).
"for me the A.'.A.'. offers the one chance of experiencing, while living, the consciousness of the continuity of existence; by this I don't mean some earthly order calling itself the A.'.A.'., but the supernal order that such organisations are supposed to represent"
You speak of the S.'.S.'., in other words.
-
93
Of course if you make a mistake you will be held accountable for it, what I am saying is that it seems daft to exclude someone from entry into the order because they happened to encounter, and very nearly be duped by someone who upon close examination tuned out to be not worth the effort.
As I'm sure you noticed, I am only just getting past the purely intellectual stage in my own growth, and it would be presumptuous of me to make assertions based on wishful thinking, on the other hand, the fact that I'm here discussing this at all shows that although intellectually I find the idea of transmigration of souls hard to swallow, I am willing to perform the experiment myself and thus come to an informed conclusion.
the thing with accepting that someone else is in a place to know implies the surety that that person is both Honest and Sane, As I have recently escaped such a lunatic I tend to err on the side of caution. at the present I have to take any such assertion on faith, not that such an assertion is necessarily true in the objective sense, but that the person postulating such an idea has valid reasons for doing so, e.g. person X believes himself to be Napoleon, that's fine; he is only insane if he believes that person Y should also believe that he is Napoleon. this is the basis of all religion, the assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with a given assertion should be put to the sword.
You are right, I did mean the S.'.S.'., my bad, I forgot that there is a subtle distinction, A.'.A.'. members are ipso facto Thelemites, whereas an S.'.S.'. member may never have even heard of Thelema, Am I right? -
@Jim Eshelman said
" (There's always next lifetime, or other activities or approaches in the current one.)"
Hi Jim, I am curious what you mean by "other activities or approaches" - does this mean joining a non-AA magical order, or an Eastern yoga system etc.?
Also, you speak about "authentic" contacts. Is this something you can discern by gut-feeling about the aspirant, or does your branch maintain a registry of whom you recognize as authentic?
-
@Escarabaj said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
" (There's always next lifetime, or other activities or approaches in the current one.)"Hi Jim, I am curious what you mean by "other activities or approaches" - does this mean joining a non-AA magical order, or an Eastern yoga system etc.?"
Or whatever, including none of the above. There are countless things one can do with a life.
"Also, you speak about "authentic" contacts. Is this something you can discern by gut-feeling about the aspirant, or does your branch maintain a registry of whom you recognize as authentic?"
We never make any comment on the authenticity of anyone not in our lineage unless it appears that someone is at serious risk, if that's what you're asking. Mostly, it's none of our business. Also, the lessons of discernment and discrimination are among the most important lessons one can learn (and might even be worth the effort of an entire incarnation).
But (to go in another direction), yes, there is documentary evidence, within our lineage, of each person who has ever been authentically admitted by someone - both a master roster, and documentary evidence in the member's possession.
-
@danica said
"Solitarius,
the work itself is what counts the most."I second that opinion.
BTW, Jim, does an affiliation with a Golden Dawn, Wiccan or some other magickal group disqualify one as well from A.'.A.'. admittance, or is it primarily other A.'.A.'. lineages. Also, what constitutes admittance as a Probationer into the A.'.A.'.? Is it the taking of the oath?
-
@nderabloodredsky said
"BTW, Jim, does an affiliation with a Golden Dawn, Wiccan or some other magical group disqualify one as well from A.'.A.'. admittance"
No, not at all.
"Also, what constitutes admittance as a Probationer into the A.'.A.'.? Is it the taking of the oath?"
There is a specific process by which a Neophyte admits a Probationer. A specific thing happens during that process, which (among other things) includes the transmission of an inner plane connection to the stream of the Order, a "recording" of the step.
-
@Solitarius said
"What happens if the Neophyte turns out to not be a Neophyte, but an alleged 8=3. and rather than following procedure, simply posts probationer documents for the student to sign more or less straight away?"
Then they were never admitted to A.'.A.'.. They may have gained any number of other things, but not that particular thing.
"If the Probationer then withdraws association with that particular contact, judging him to be unsound, (as A.C. did with the G.'.D.'.) but stays true to his oath to the S.'.S.'., what then?"
Since they were never admitted to A.'.A.'. (and presuming they're willing to admit that fact), then the aspirant is still free to seek a connection to the Order.