Finding a lineage?
-
A lineage coming from Marcelo Motta: aa-thelema.org/contact-us.html
-
@Joshua said
"Can't initiation be performed over a distance?"
No. The initiation itself must be in person. Anyone who suggests otherwise to you is flushing you down a rat's asshole.
And it's highly advantageous if you are geographically close enough to your Superior that you can be in personal contact at least a few times a year.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"No. The initiation itself must be in person. Anyone who suggests otherwise to you is flushing you down a rat's {***hole}.
"Wow. But before I completely disagree...
I have a hard time finding this substantiated...and it would presuppose some very interesting ideas...especially since there is a robust history of recognizing attainments overseas...
Are we talking that a ceremonial ritual is a necessity here?
Are we talking about taking the Oath of a Probationer?
Are we talking something other than what is written in Liber 185?I agree with the Neophyte needing a ceremony per Liber 185 (but there is Liber Pyramidos)...I forget, did Frater Achad go through a formal Neophyte ceremonial initiation? I think I remember somewhere that he received a letter...
@Jim Eshelman said
"And it's highly advantageous if you are geographically close enough to your Superior that you can be in personal contact at least a few times a year."
Agreed.
-
@Frater 639 said
"I have a hard time finding this substantiated...and it would presuppose some very interesting ideas...especially since there is a robust history of recognizing attainments overseas... "
Do you mean in modern times? Never from us!
And Crowley tried it a couple of times (not initial admission), then dropped it.
"Are we talking that a ceremonial ritual is a necessity here?"
Literally here.
"Are we talking about taking the Oath of a Probationer?"
That's part of it.
"Are we talking something other than what is written in Liber 185?"
No, though there is the actual understanding of administering what is in 185. (I will not - now or ever - discuss this in public.)
"I agree with the Neophyte needing a ceremony per Liber 185 (but there is Liber Pyramidos)...I forget, did Frater Achad go through a formal Neophyte ceremonial initiation? I think I remember somewhere that he received a letter..."
So did Jane Wolfe. - Neophyte isn't nearly as critical as Probationer.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Frater 639 said
""Are we talking about taking the Oath of a Probationer?"
That's part of it.
"Are we talking something other than what is written in Liber 185?"
No, though there is the actual understanding of administering what is in 185. (I will not - now or ever - discuss this in public.) "
"I understand what you mean regarding "actual administering" -- however, I think it doesn't necessarily have to coincide with the actual Oath of Probation in the strict sense. I can definitely see the practical importance...as there are certain things that are conveyed in person...
I do agree that meeting in person is crucial when it comes to "initiation." Contact is key. But initiation, in this context, doesn't specifically refer to the actual time of taking the Oath of Probation IMHO.
That being said, the Oath is more important than meeting a million Adepts!
-
@Frater 639 said
"I understand what you mean regarding "actual administering" -- however, I think it doesn't necessarily have to coincide with the actual Oath of Probation in the strict sense. I can definitely see the]
practical importance...as there are certain things that are conveyed in person..."I hear that this is your point of view. Nonetheless, you're not going to get me to budge on this one.
One can, of course, take a personal oath anytime one wishes, and of whatever source. I'm specifically talking about the procedure that admits one as a Probationer of A.'.A.'.. (And, as you probably know, I'm not just talking about the oath. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with specific points you're saying. I'm not being clearer because I don't want to spoil certain things or make certain things inauthentic.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Frater 639 said
"I understand what you mean regarding "actual administering" -- however, I think it doesn't necessarily have to coincide with the actual Oath of Probation in the strict sense. I can definitely see the]
practical importance...as there are certain things that are conveyed in person..."I hear that this is your point of view. Nonetheless, you're not going to get me to budge on this one.
One can, of course, take a personal oath anytime one wishes, and of whatever source. I'm specifically talking about the procedure that admits one as a Probationer of A.'.A.'.. (And, as you probably know, I'm not just talking about the oath. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with specific points you're saying. I'm not being clearer because I don't want to spoil certain things or make certain things inauthentic.)"
Yes. I'm not just talking about a personal oath. I'm talking about a procedure. I understand your reasons for staying silent, of course.
I was just dismayed at the hard and fast NO! to a potential Aspirant...the response made it sound as if someone was speaking as the sole authority of the A.'.A.'. because their particular lineal tradition has a way of doing things. Assertions like that put me in the mind of A.E. Waite, which is why I asked the specific questions.
After reading your responses I don't think you meant it in that way. We know trees by their fruit and hopefully We all have the same aim.
Thanks for the response, Jim.
-
While not claiming sole authority, this is more than a lineal decision.
We've turned away hundreds over the last decade. (Not turned away from all opportunities they might find elsewhere - just communicated we weren't in a position to be of service to them.)
The member would be deprived of the authentic experience as it was created by its founders, and a critical magical factor. They also would strain the resources of those trying to serve them, and with a substantially reduced chance of success.
We serve them as best we can by publishing tools and information resources they need (including this forum as an information source).
Our commitment - as first presented to me by Soror Meral, and readily embraced by me - is to deliver the system as designed by its Founders (and with any expansions being within the terms of the system they passed to us).
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"While not claiming sole authority, this is more than a lineal decision."
I understand -- and I'm pretty sure you understand my point.
"We've turned away hundreds over the last decade. (Not turned away from all opportunities they might find elsewhere - just communicated we weren't in a position to be of service to them.)
The member would be deprived of the authentic experience as it was created by its founders, and a critical magical factor. They also would strain the resources of those trying to serve them, and with a substantially reduced chance of success."
I understand limited resources. If admission was granted for all that applied, you'd have a certain failure rate. If admission was granted for a few that applied, you'd have a certain failure rate. These are only SOME of the variables when calculating the efficacy of a lineage's guidelines -- and it is difficult to compare data of successful percentage rates across the board when the information isn't openly published.
I understand what you mean by authentic experience -- however, I disagree with thinking that it is an extremely important factor in all cases. Authentic experience doesn't necessarily point to the efficacy of techniques and when they should be administered. Sometimes, an authentic experience can be modified *with advantage * based on data -- e.g. modifying a Liber III practice as suggested in the Blue Book. This is the difference between an organic and dynamic system (regardless of the school) and a potentially dogmatic and inflexible one.
In short, I've had an authentic experience riding in a Model T; but, if I were to go to New York, I'd like to take a plane. A journeyman picks the proper tools for the job he is setting out to do. Sure, I can hammer in nails with pliers, but why not use a hammer? Because sometimes a hammer isn't available...which brings you to your next point...
"We serve them as best we can by publishing tools and information resources they need (including this forum as an information source). "
And it is an awesome resource! No doubt about that. I owe you a debt of gratitude and a really sincere "thank you!" As an author and teacher, you are an inspiration and a role model...to say the least. Alos, a motherf*cker of a magician and extremely dedicated while selflessly helping to provide these resources.
"Our commitment - as first presented to me by Soror Meral, and readily embraced by me - is to deliver the system as designed by its Founders (and with any expansions being within the terms of the system they passed to us)."
I understand. The System, as designed by its Founders, is INTRINSICALLY committed taking in new data and assimilating new techniques -- it is a CURRENT. Crowley would keel over if he knew things were slavishly imitated based on tradition...I'm sure you agree. My point about bringing up the past was that he modified strict A.'.A.'. guidelines based on data (the Grand Neophyte comes to mind, as one example). He was committed to removing superfluous aspects of EVERYTHING. Keep in mind, I'm not detracting from your point of an "authentic experience" and its magical potential.
This site uses a forum-based information format (to a certain extent). This was not part of the original design when the A.'.A.'. was founded, but this site is used with advantage. Again -- we assess, take notes, and draw conclusions.
My original point is that someone can take the Oath of Probationer without having to meet "Temple Chiefs" in person. A Neophyte needs to receive a Probationer -- this can be done quite effectively (based on data) without following out an "authentic experience" as you call it.
Again, not to take away from one point: we definitely agree that there are certain things that need to be conveyed in person.
We just don't agree when you say it detracts from the "authentic experience"** based on what its "Founders" want**. What I perceive they would want when applying potentially atavistic principles to a living, breathing System, as it evolves, may be different than your perception...let's hope it's always based on numbers. However, I do respect your commitment to the tradition as handed to you.
That being said, and this isn't directed at any specific system -- I will call bullshit to any training system resting on laurels, plain and simple -- without giving a crap about a limp appeal to authority. Show me the data that conflicts with my own experiences. However, one can say whatever they like regarding authority...I merely find that it could be misleading in relation to the data...
I'm not bringing up a specific lineage, as it is dangerously close to asserting validity of one over the other -- which is specifically forbidden on this forum.
Also, the overall aim is more important than sectarian quibbling...I know you agree on that. Some people still believe success between lineages is a zero sum game, which is highly unfortunate. I sincerely hope this attitude ends in my generation. Again, we know trees by their fruits and success is thy proof.
Thanks again for taking time to answer so thoroughly.
-
We mostly are clear on where we agree and where we disagree. Now, off to the games! <vbg>
PS - You don't entirely get what I'm saying (mostly, I think, because I have been intentionally obscure - that is, you don't entirely get what I'm not saying <g>). I mention this only because you summarized my position, and I just wanted to distance myself from your summary. -- I don't agree, for example, that A.'.A.'. is a current. It's fed by a current, but it's not the current. It's an Order.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"PS - You don't entirely get what I'm saying (mostly, I think, because I have been intentionally obscure - that is, you don't entirely get what I'm not saying <g>)."
Haha! Fair enough. I could say the same thing* with advantage*.
@Jim Eshelman said
" I mention this only because you summarized my position, and I just wanted to distance myself from your summary. -- I don't agree, for example, that A.'.A.'. is a current. It's fed by a current, but it's not the current. It's an Order."
Sure, I'll definitely agree if you put it that way -- but there isn't one without the other. At least, not an Order worth having IMHO...
@Jim Eshelman said
"Now, off to the games! <vbg>"
Sounds good.
-
@Patrick Ossoski said
"Ray Eales?
"May I ask why the eye rolls?
-
-
@Patrick Ossoski said
"
@Thelemic oz said
"
@Patrick Ossoski said
"Ray Eales?"May I ask why the eye rolls?
"You may I ask, but it's probably better that I do not answer. (Nowadays, I wouldn't have made that comment, even if I still have the same opinion.)"
Lineages are only as good as their Adepts. Ray Eales was a disciple of Motta, who was a disciple of Germer, who was a disciple of Crowley.
Eales is a hell of a nice guy, Motta was a bastard to many, Germer was a hell of nice guy, Crowley was a bastard to many, Eshelman is a hell of a nice guy. Does it matter? No. What matters is contribution.
Eales doesn't publish all that much, but doesn't lack in promulgation. Eshelman does publish - and his contributions are great. Germer didn't publish anything that he wrote himself. Motta commented on pretty much every Holy Book, Book 4, etc. Crowley wrote almost too much.
To argue that any of these are better than any other, is like arguing that the liver is more important than the kidneys.
Germer was such a knowledgeable and beautiful Teacher - and part of many lineages that we enjoy many fruits from today. Indirectly, he is a contributer to this website. Interesting, hmm?
It is interesting to see how people arrive at opinions - many times it comes from people with limited information acting like they're an expert based on something they've read by others. Why do people abdicate their own authority to think for themselves so much?
Sometimes, laughing at FOX News is better than believing the slander, smear campaigns, or sensationalism.
Scribes are scribes, men are men, Adepts are Adepts...
People that point fingers at other lineages, in regard to authenticity, are absolutely hilarious. Hell, the idea of lineages is Old Aeon - the A.'.A.'. operates as a matrix - just think if only one "lineage" spoke with Its Authority. We all know what happens when media sources become too concentrated - they can start to serve a very small interest.
Unless one has access to all of the correspondence between parties of the Instructors/Aspirants involved, you have to ask yourself why anyone would be in the business of defaming any A.'.A.'. "lineage" without complete evidence.
I've had the pleasure of reading some very interesting letters/documents that I will never discuss publicly. I have to say, some painted pictures that are out there online are NOT extremely accurate depictions...especially some events that happened in California awhile back.
Why paint pictures? FOX News and other slanderers/sensationalists like to do this for many reasons...
All in all, you know a tree by its fruit. "Lineages" survive and evolve or they don't. Survival of the fittest. And they care to be dogmatic or religious or popular, or they don't...and it hardly matters how people "feel" about it that aren't directly involved, much less their opinion...
Unless one gives a flying fuck about what the masses think. American Idol XIV is coming soon, too!
There are many Adepts out there, many of them don't care to be in the limelight all that much..."why not?" is an interesting question when thinking for one's self...
Obfuscation can be a tool.
-
@Frater 639 said
"Lineages are only as good as their Adepts."
Yes.
"Eales is a hell of a nice guy, Motta was a bastard to many, Germer was a hell of nice guy, Crowley was a bastard to many, Eshelman is a hell of a nice guy. Does it matter? No. What matters is contribution."
Yes. But it doesn't follow that everybody contributed equally, or at all. (I'm not categorizing anyone specifically.)
"To argue that any of these are better than any other, is like arguing that the liver is more important than the kidneys."
Not really. (Except in the sense that every man and every woman is a star, and no one is "better" than any other; but that's not the point.) Each one is different. Some have oustanding quality, some enough quality, some lack quality. Some are downright detrimental. Achieving a certain amount of notoriety is not enough for me to put that individual among those whom I know to be the "real deal."
"It is interesting to see how people arrive at opinions - many times it comes from people with limited information acting like they're an expert based on something they've read by others. Why do people abdicate their own authority to think for themselves so much?"
Yes, I found that to be the case also.
Just a few points. I agree with the spirit of what you said, FWIW.
93 93/93.
-
@Patrick Ossoski said
"
@639 said
"Eales is a hell of a nice guy, Motta was a bastard to many, Germer was a hell of nice guy, Crowley was a bastard to many, Eshelman is a hell of a nice guy. Does it matter? No. What matters is contribution."Yes. But it doesn't follow that everybody contributed equally, or at all. (I'm not categorizing anyone specifically.)"
Agreed. Everyone doesn't contribute equally, they contribute uniquely as every Star does...
@Patrick Ossoski said
"
@639 said
"To argue that any of these are better than any other, is like arguing that the liver is more important than the kidneys."
Not really. (Except in the sense that every man and every woman is a star, and no one is "better" than any other; but that's not the point.) Each one is different. Some have outstanding quality, some enough quality, some lack quality. Some are downright detrimental. Achieving a certain amount of notoriety is not enough for me to put that individual among those whom I know to be the "real deal.""
We agree that each one is different. As far as what you consider the "real deal" is a matter of opinion and what qualities you choose to judge by. From an A.'.A.'. point of view, it is the attainments that truly matter as the only sole measuring stick - and the details of these attainments are highly personal. Some perform different functions in evolution, according to their True Will - and a true Adept is not swayed by the scrutiny of anyone else's opinion in regard to their Path. Nor does an Adept need to be "honest" with anyone other than their Self.
I'll say it again without pointing fingers: you know a tree by its fruit. Some trees grow, some produce offspring, some wither away, etc. I think we're on the same page, though.
Anyway, this is getting OT...
My main point was talking about "lineages" and the misinformation/subsequent judgments that originate from questionable sources. And sometimes from sources that people consider authoritative and credible. The same phenomena can (and does) happen everywhere: from the media, from family, from friends, etc.
I think we agree about staying skeptical and not taking other people's judgments for face value.
@Patrick Ossoski said
"Just a few points. I agree with the spirit of what you said, FWIW."
Likewise.
-
"I understand what you mean by authentic experience -- however, I disagree with thinking that it is an extremely important factor in all cases. Authentic experience doesn't necessarily point to the efficacy of techniques and when they should be administered. Sometimes, an authentic experience can be modified with advantage based on data -- e.g. modifying a Liber III practice as suggested in the Blue Book. This is the difference between an organic and dynamic system (regardless of the school) and a potentially dogmatic and inflexible one."
There's a distinction between "authentic experience" and "authentic experience as designed by the founders." and I think what Jim was intending to convey was there is a certain level of integrity that is maintained; a certain wholeness and completeness that becomes available when the system is done the way it was meant to be done as intended by the system's founders.