Money ethics from an A.'.A.'. point of vue
-
From what i understand it is forbidden to ask money for spiritual teachings in the A.'.A.'.
I agree. But it is not that simple. What are the limits of this? How does this work on practical level?
For instance a jungian or reichian psychoanalyst does "slide" into spiritual stuff. Same as hatha yoga teachers(you can add some raja in it). Same in martial arts(alchemy...). If you include spiritual teachings in such fields, what makes it allowed or forbidden from an A.'.A.'. point of vue? What are the limits?
Also, there's a point which is even less clear. We know there are many thieves and fakes in the divination and occult "business". And that contributes to feed the prejudices. Well. But couldnt be a good thing if some adepts actually started such "business"?
I could see two potential benefits from this:
.it would compensate the prejudices
.it would allow the adepts to practice full time, and thus getting even betterIf you tell me it is anti-thelemic because it promotes relying on someone else to get better in life/the path, well i can answer it is the true will of such people at that precise step of their life. Also there are rich people who lack time, and finding such a help could actually awaken an interest in themselves so it would increase the chances they'd want to get started themselves...
On the other hand, it could be considered "profanation" to give such high quality divination to people who are not actively involved in the path...?!
Also, can it be considered "doing it for money" if it is not the intent and if the practicioner charges as little as possible, just to be able to practice full time and eat well enough to be in good health?
It would not prevent them from continuing their "normal" order work(if they're not getting "fired" from A.'.A.'. because of it, that is
) , nor to teach for free the guys actively involved in the path. Say a guy like Jim did professional divination instead of computer stuff as a job. He could continue also all the great and free work he provides in the community. Only difference is he may progress way faster in divination. And this progress could benefit the community by retroaction.It is not my intent to play the "devil"'s lawyer("choronzon's lawyer" might be more accurate
) . I just want to get this clear and avoid any serious mistake.Notice when i say "A.'.A.'." i mean as much(and even more) "the real secret order" as the official earthly lineages. Please precise this if it plays significant difference.
-
93,
The Law is for All. If money prevents one from accessing the teaching of the A.'.A.'., then there is restriction, and* "the word of sin is restriction"* we are preventing them from joining. "Refuse none", is the purpose, and once you slap a price tag on it, you are preventing someone from joining - even if its really cheap. In some cases it may simply be symbolic that it is* free*, and so unrestricted.
-
@Frater Horus said
"From what i understand it is forbidden to ask money for spiritual teachings in the AA."
Lety's quote it directly: "There is however an absolute prohibition to accept money or other material reward, directly or indirectly, in respect of any service connected with the Order, for personal profit or advantage. The penalty is immediate expulsion, with no possibility of reinstatement on any terms soever."
"What are the limits of this? How does this work on practical level?
For instance a jungian or reichian psychoanalyst does "slide" into spiritual stuff."
Whoa whoa whoa! You've jumped track. That's not "in any service connected with the [A.'.A.'.]." It isn't connected at all unless the analyst has his or her A.'.A.'. inferior as a patient.
I think your statement is a symptom of the too-common tendency to think of A.'.A.'. broadly as "all that Great Work stuff" rather than as a specific organization operating by specific methodologies with distinct, discrete membership. (Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but I took the soap box opportunity when it came along <g>.)
I think this one point answers the rest of your questions.
"Also, there's a point which is even less clear. We know there are many thieves and fakes in the divination and occult "business". And that contributes to feed the prejudices. Well. But couldnt be a good thing if some adepts actually started such "business"?"
Are you charging your direct or indirect A.'.A.'. Inferior, for personal profit or advantage? And is it either related to their A.'.A.'. work or (by implied pressure etc.) perceived by them to be somehow instrumental to their A.'.A.'. work? If so, then there are many ethical questions - not just the money question.
"
Also, can it be considered "doing it for money" if it is not the intent and if the practicioner charges as little as possible, just to be able to practice full time and eat well enough to be in good health?"Within the constraining perimeter discussed above, I think you're always otherwise entitled to charge for your time. (My opinion, and subject to particular circumstances that I didn't contemplate in an off the cuff response.)
"Say a guy like Jim did professional divination instead of computer stuff as a job."
Crowley declared that this is out-and-out black magick. (I'm not taking a stand on that. I'm just reminding what he said.)
"Notice when i say "AA" i mean as much(and even more) "the real secret order" as the official earthly lineages. Please precise this if it plays significant difference."
Yeah, that's the problem with this line of questioning. You are citing a specific rule within a specific organization, and then struggling with how to apply it outside that context. You've created an artificial "problem," and are wrestling with how to solve it. Good isometric exercise, perhaps, but not a real problem.
-
@Jason R said
"93,
The Law is for All. If money prevents one from accessing the teaching of the A.'.A.'., then there is restriction, and* "the word of sin is restriction"* we are preventing them from joining. "Refuse none", is the purpose, and once you slap a price tag on it, you are preventing someone from joining - even if its really cheap. In some cases it may simply be symbolic that it is* free*, and so unrestricted."
Yes i get this. The point is not the actual A.'.A.'. teaching. It's things that can relate indirectly and that you might do professionaly independently.
So in this case there is no restriction. I would tend to see the opposite. It could open access to other kind of people indirectly. But anyway it would be totally independant.
-
@Frater Horus said
"
@Jason R said
"93,The Law is for All. If money prevents one from accessing the teaching of the A.'.A.'., then there is restriction, and* "the word of sin is restriction"* we are preventing them from joining. "Refuse none", is the purpose, and once you slap a price tag on it, you are preventing someone from joining - even if its really cheap. In some cases it may simply be symbolic that it is* free*, and so unrestricted."
Yes i get this. The point is not the actual A.'.A.'. teaching. It's things that can relate indirectly and that you might do professionaly independently.
So in this case there is no restriction. I would tend to see the opposite. It could open access to other kind of people indirectly. But anyway it would be totally independant."
I see, yes. Sorry I misunderstood your question. I think Jim pretty much answered that.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Yeah, that's the problem with this line of questioning. You are citing a specific rule within a specific organization, and then struggling with how to apply it outside that context. You've created an artificial "problem," and are wrestling with how to solve it. Good isometric exercise, perhaps, but not a real problem."
I dont think it's "artificial". If for instance Crowley says professional divination is pure black magick, well:
.divination is not specific to A.'.A.'., but still there's a problem isnt it?
.what happens to such a person? how can it impact his spiritual developpement?Also the guy would be banished from any lineage? But as one specificity of the A.'.A.'. is being as precisely as possible a reproduction of the "real secret, inner order", this imply it could have deep consequences. Or is this rule more like a preventive "safety", more administrative than spiritual related?
Now i'm thinking about that guy who invented scientology. I read you thought he had a 7=4 level, and then turned as a black bro as he didnt cross the abyss. From this, i understand that such a man(ok, extreme example, but at least its clear):
.obviously would not be accepted in any A.'.A.'. lineage
.but still is a freakin 7=4 in the "real" order
.thus it would imply you can do almost anything you want...until the abyss. Only there black magick impacts further progress??????!!!!!!
.what could be the danger of doing so before such level of 7=4 except being not accepted in any A.'.A.'. lineage? Is there no way back or something? Does it prevents you in advance from crossing the abyss further?!
And why pro divination would more black than pro yoga or something? I dont get this.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
Are you charging your direct or indirect A.'.A.'. Inferior, for personal profit or advantage? And is it either related to their A.'.A.'. work or (by implied pressure etc.) perceived by them to be somehow instrumental to their A.'.A.'. work?"No ! No way ! I'm not even a member of an official lineage so it would not even cross my mind claiming membership nor teaching an"inferior"...
My answer to Jason clarifies it was not the point anyway.
Just to clarify.
-
@Frater Horus said
"I dont think it's "artificial". If for instance Crowley says professional divination is pure black magick, well:
.divination is not specific to A.'.A.'., but still there's a problem isnt it?
.what happens to such a person? how can it impact his spiritual developpement?"That's a whole 'nuther topic. (Remember, I didn't take a stand on either side of that issue.)
"Also the guy would be banished from any lineage?"
Why? Had "the guy," as a member of A.'.A.'., accepted any money, directly or indirectly, for matters pertaining strictly to A.'.A.'. while already a member?
It's not a moral matter. It's an internal, operational ethics matter.
"Or is this rule more like a preventive "safety", more administrative than spiritual related?"
I think it is mostly that, yes. It does also filter out some disequilibrating ego matters.
"And why pro divination would more black than pro yoga or something? I dont get this."
Read the analysis in Magick in Theory & Practice. It's probably in Chapter 18, but I could be remembering wrong about that.
-
Thanks... Ok i will watch my usage of the term A.'.A.'.
Yes, it's the 18th. I've also reread 21st(black magick).
In chapter 21 he puts in the same category "pro divination" and "mental healers"...
That's precisely why i quit "psychology" and focus on psychoanalysis instead...
But i remember in Confessions, the beast says he considered using magick to trade in finance, as an easy way to make money. He didnt make it because he could just not concentrate on anything else than hardcore great work.
So basically there's no problem doing money black magick while being in the A.'.A.'., as far as the black practice is not directly related with the order in any form...?