From tyagi@bjt.net Fri Nov 15 01:30:11 1996 Return-Path: tyagi@bjt.net Received: from kudonet.com (kudonet.com [165.227.52.1]) by bitsy.hollyfeld.org (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA09281 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 01:29:56 -0500 Received: from kudo20.kudonet.com by kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA10940; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:23:13 -0800 Received: by kudo20.kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA18281; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:15:48 -0800 From: tyagi@bjt.net (Tyagi Nagasiva) Message-Id: <199611150515.VAA18281@kudo20.kudonet.com> Subject: 9611.otomyst.bh To: tyagi@hollyfeld.org Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:15:47 -0800 (PST) Orientation: House of Kaos, St. Joseph, Kali Fornika, US -- Kali Yuga X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O >From thelema93-l-owner@hollyfeld.org Thu Nov 14 14:31:34 1996 X-Authentication-Warning: bitsy.hollyfeld.org: majordom set sender to owner-thelema93-l using -f Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:28:49 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Heidrick Subject: Re: Orders and Individuals (was Originality, was woopee!, was L To: thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org In-Reply-To: <199611140452.UAA35904@scv3.apple.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org Precedence: bulk reply-to: thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org content-length: 4510 93, Tim Maroney wrote: >Excellent question. I hear a lot about mystical systems "working", but no >one ever seems to ask what that means. Possibly on grounds that it's a general approbation or comment on function. Doesn't say more than that there is an area of cohesion in the function. As to a question of "a mystical system" in OTO, this is particularly difficult to address. The initiations use several different systems, not much that would be mystical per-say, aside from the notion of use of symbols and the invisible officers. Those systems are harmonized to an extent, and different students would ascribe different importance to them -- useful in itself, since that allows a candidate to progress by whatever works at the time in the set. The paradigm of life from conception through birth, age and death, extended by elaboration in the degrees after IIIrd into particular work in life, seems the most important to me. That's from Masonry and precursors. The use of Kundalini Yoga in the various penal signs and so forth would be a close second by my thinking. Magical effect seems to flow from both of those, as does the nature of OTO as a place to work out Thelemic social and personal questions. Aside from the shift toward Thelema, nothing in those two subsystems or paradigms originated with Crowley. Crowley did elaborate a little and cut a lot, but the mechanism apart from the orientation to Thelema is pretty much intact as he found it. Crowley's main substantative change in OTO is fixing the VSL to Liber AL, with the appropriate ramifications. "The Book of the Law" appears to echo this in its very name. Study is promoted, but by individual selection mainly. Mysticism and Magick abounds, but by the interest of the members individually and collectively. That's the core mystical system in the OTO. It's not entirely passive on the part of OTO; but recommendations and resources are provided, not rigid dictation outside the initiations and the Gnostic Mass as particular forms in use. This does frustrate a good deal, but people have to pursue what interests them in OTO -- not take fixed direction from on high as to how to proceed in their personal attainments. Aeonics, correspondences and the rest are identified and fixed as patterns; but I have not seen a rigidity in regard to "truth" in these things -- just insistence on accuracy of record regarding these things as expressed and worked in context. Detailed belief is discouraged. The only rigid mystical belief structures seem to be in the area of direction by the individual him or her self and a primary belief in Thelema as revealed in Liber AL -- under individual interpretation. Naturally enough, some local OTO groups will compound that with the social fixation of an individual or the common pecking order of the group. When that gets out of hand, the group either stagnates or breaks up -- if necessary, by external intercession. Specialization by the group is encouraged a little at Camp level, tolerated a bit at Oasis level and viewed askance at Lodge level -- unless it is handled in such a way that multiple options continue without undue sanction. Beyond Lodge level, where most of the operation of OTO structure exists, it does get narrow again. However, that's in administration and service, with specialized studies for the individual members. About 3% of OTO members proceed into those areas. The information in the studies is widely available outside OTO membership, although the contextual setting is not as accessible. In regard to A.'.A.'., almost all the structure of that came from the G.'.D.'. paradigm, with the details and a very few deeper changes modified by Crowley. A.'.A.'. does have a narrow curriculum, with efforts at precision -- vide _Equinox_ IV, 1. However, Crowley affirmed that the system does not claim uniqueness or perfection, allowing a challenge to bypass everything to the level of Magister Templi. The Great Work, HGA, Passage of the Abyss and the rest are structures -- somewhat flexible in the mystical categories and extremely individual in the experiences. This is the best I can do off the cuff to come to an address of your questions on grounds of what the mystical systems are. It isn't much of a focus on your challenge, and no answer. I simply do not see these things as dogma, rather structure and staircase design. If you would rather use an elevator or escalator, good luck finding one. 93 93/93 Bill Heidrick ----- End of forwarded message from Bill Heidrick -----