THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.order,alt.thelema,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick,talk.religion.misc
From: 333 
Subject: OTO, Crowley, and Thelemites 
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:15:13 GMT

50030121 VII om 

"cock" :
> I'm not in the OTO, but from conversations I've had with friends 
> who are, I've gathered that they do not "worship" Aiwass, 

that would be unusual. at best I've heard OTO members claim that
Aiwas/Aiwass/Aiwaz/Eyewash was their Holy Guardian Angel, like 
Crowley's, but usually they treat Aiwass as an augoeides, 
sometimes of particularly powerful or knowledgeable type. 
worship of someone else's augoeides would be totally at odds 
with most OTO members I've met, yes.

> they just acknowledge him as the entity that gave Crowley the 
> Book of the Law.

many do. some OTO members don't consider Crowley or his scripture
to be worth more than burning, however, and some pay it no regard 
at all.

> If Thelemites worship anything, 

nonsense! Thelemitism is full of worship. inflaming with prayer
of diverse type.

> it is their own Will, at least as I understand the matter.

sounds more like stories about Satanists or Thelemic philosophers. 

> I didn't think you were calling him a role model for yourself.  
> You don't seem to like the guy much, at least from the way you 
> seem to be talking about him.  As for what the OTO members 
> you've talked to have said, I won't deny it, but it doesn't 
> match up with what the OTO people I know have said.

OTO is an initiatic membership org which can include any number
of people with differing ideas and practices. Thelemites are
not constrained to any particular order or social theme.

"Spike Spiegel" (I think):
>> The O.T.O. currently publishes a version of Book IV with
>> a long-winded introduction celebrating and glamorizing Crowley.  

the OTO gets money from its publishing. the notoriety and 
outrageous ignorance of cult members amuses those with the
capacity for insightful discernment.

>> Nothing in that introduction commits the O.T.O. to 
>> responsibility for Crowley's conduct.  But it enables 
>> them to market the Crowley image and to squeeze money 
>> out of Crowley's publicity value.

what are they going to do, squander their copyrights? c'mon,
those who understand the failure of the man are facilitating
a mammoth deception and those who do not are orchestrating
a hoax upon a good portion of what tries to pass for modern 
Neo-Rosicrucianism. it seems Zanoni set the standard and
Crowley bent it to include the ridiculous.

> Why should the OTO denounce him?  

as a bigotted, occasionally-amusing writer who once was 
its chief officer?

> He is their founder, after all.  

naw, that was a Reussian orientalism, or if you believe the
legends, the earnestness of Karl Kellner. fashioned after
the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor if you believe some.

> As that organization is based on his work, 

arguably you are very far off-base here, there being other 
OTOs which do not wish to have anything to do with Crowley
(having split off prior to or because of the Beast).

> it would be rather odd if they did denounce him, I would think.  

more because of his talismanic effect. one doesn't usually
denounce one's gimmick.

> There is no reason why the organization should be responsible 
> for the man's conduct.... 

never the issue. a straw man.

> As it is the organization responsible for spreading his 
> teachings, 

over-generalized. there are several others, mostly smaller.

> it makes sense that they would make money off of them.  

not where he signed over the copyrights to others or
allowed them to become public domain.

> ...It's widely known that Crowley was a bit of a scoundrel.  

deceptive reprobate is probably sustainable.

> Even if he wasn't a pedophile, 

Bagh-i-Muattar appears to speak to the contrary.

> he is called a Nazi sympathizer,

writing for the Fatherland is sometimes used to
bolster this claim. sympathizing can be supported,
as well as anti-semitism (edited out by Regardie).

> a Satanist, 

direct invocations of Satan and comparing his Holy
Guardian Angel to Satan are good reasons for this one.

> a racist, 

demonstrated in his diaries/autofailureology.

> and is widely known for using people to his own advantage.  

and for leaving people in worse straights than he found them.

> Some of these things are true, some are not, 

speculations are usually bandied about, but there are
substantial quotations which demonstrate the important
parts and arguments in favour or against the rest.

> but for the people who utilize his teachings this 
> doesn't matter, because they've looked past the man 
> himself, and are more concerned with what he had to say.

unfortunately, the man himself is an example of the
outcome of his method, his Featured Formula. to overlook
this is like IGNORING HIS RESULTS -- a clear error even
in his holy scripture. ignoring his results is clearly
the METHOD OF RELIGION and contrary to his claim.

> Personally, I feel that's a rather sensible way of going 
> about things.  

from a Rosicrucian perspective (one in which one attempts
to get in touch with the A.'.A.'., etc.), it is futile to
ignore results. one will drift from instructor to instructor
without recognizable advancement, wasting one's time and
attention upon the worthless and arrogant vampires. Crowley's
context is Rosicrucian adeptship. to ignore the man is folly.

> I personally don't believe Jesus was the literal son of God, 

a completely different matter. we know far more about the
man Crowley than we do about any man Jesus. we have writ
by the former, no evidence for the character or activities
of the latter beyond being kilt and maybe inspiring radicals.

> as he suppoosedly claimed, but some of the things he had 
> to say make sense regardless.

sure, so do some of the things which Bart Simpson says.
that doesn't make Bart Simpson a real boy. we might as
well speculate what Crowley said to Gerald Gardner.

> It is a waste of time to discuss philosophy with anyone 
> who bases his position on articles of faith, because 
> he will not question them as long as he clings to them.  

the true Philosophicus is capable of abstracting hirself
from hir axioms and extending hir experience into the
spiritual domain of others. those within occult orders
who require a doctrine are fools and masters of fools.

> He must first admit to the possibility that his faith
> can be challenged on rational, factual grounds before 
> any meaningful dialogue can occur.  

nonsense. suspension of axioms is often undertaken by
the flexible of mind, even those converted to cults.

> Most persons who are comfortable with faith to begin
> with are reluctant to do this.  

this is one of the characteristic differences between
those initiated to Philosophy and those whose zealous
character disables them for life.

> The most one can do in a dialogue with a faith-adherent 
> is to discuss lesser issues with him, bearing in mind 
> that he will accept or interpret the conversation only 
> within the context of that faith.

yes, 
it is a conceptual limitation on the part of the Zelator.

333