The Value of Divination (in my opinion)

 Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

I first picked up a deck of tarot cards when I was about 12 years old, a friend of my mothers had the Rider Waite pack which I was shown one night and it entranced me immediately. I subsequently borrowed books on the subject from the local library and even clumsily painted my own deck, since I had no money to buy one. I would say that this was my introduction to the occult, and more importantly, to the qaballah. 

Following from this, I explored other areas of divination, the runes and various other types of throwing stones, dice, the sticks and coins of the I-ching, geomancy, probably other things as well. Scrying came a little later when I was exploring witchcraft and experimenting with magical circles and other accoutrements of the craft.

Of all of these methods, the only one that I retain and always have to hand is a deck of tarot cards. I use the same rather worn Thoth pack that I received for Christmas at some point in the early 1990's, which was really my introduction to the depths of qaballah and Crowley's system even before reading any of his books. After about 28 years of experimentation I have reached some conclusions about the tarot and divination, based purely on my own experience, which I would like to set out here.

My first observation: 

Divination doesn't work.

That is quite a bald statement, and seemingly at odds with my claim to still use the tarot. Let me clarify: objectively, my predictions made using the tarot over all of that time, both for myself and others, have never been significantly different to what I could have guessed, either about another person or about a situation in my own life about which I might consult the tarot, without simply sitting back and paying attention. Others will disagree, and some might even foam at the mouth at the heresy, but that doesn't matter. I've yet to see evidence of consistent and accurate divination results, at least in myself or those I have worked with, so pending further data I classify predictions using tarot or other methods as inconclusive at best.

So, if it doesn't work, why do it? Simple, the training of the mind, or perhaps the taming of the mind puts it better. Students practicing divination are classified as walking on the path of Qoph, that is the realm of the subconscious mind, which is open partly for the Neophyte, but brought to a higher pitch later in the grade work and so of increasing importance as we progress. 

Swimming in that sea of images, thoughts, feelings, the lower astral, often touching the shells, we need to learn how to navigate. Five minutes of meditation will show a shower of images. Astral and etheric work multiplies this, opening the floodgates, and learning to navigate these straits is critical. Divination teaches how to define images, recognise structures and complexes of imagery and emotion which are the very stuff of the mind at this level. In addition to this, tarot provides a useful filing system, making it the most valuable of the various options in my opinion, we are able to use it to classify and analyze the images that arise. 

But experience and the words of the sages throughout the ages tell us not to accept any of these images as 'true'. I know I've made that mistake a few times. Others have and will continue to accept personal revelations based on astral imagery, visions, and 'spiritual experiences' as true, ignoring the warnings of the Chaldean oracles:

Stoop not down, therefore,

Unto the Darkly-Splendid World,

Wherein continually lieth a faithless Depth

And Hades wrapped in clouds,

Delighting in unintelligible images

Precipitous, winding,

A black, ever-rolling Abyss

Ever espousing a Body unluminous

Formless

And Void.

 This warning cannot be stressed enough I think. Not that one should be terrified of the subconscious, or the astral, on the contrary, fear only feeds fear. But we must train the mind, the intuition. It should never be forgotten that the goal of the Outer College is the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, not the entertainment of the ego or hanging around in the lower astral like a young man about town. Without a sharp intuition and a clear sense of purpose this is impossible, and instead ones own dark images and phantoms will happily take the place of the Angel, and lead you along their own paths. The same can be said of astral work, which really approaches the same area in a different manner. The aim is not divination, or astral travel for its own sake, the aim is always the Angel, the unification of mind and body, self and other, one and all.

The practice of divination serves as training for the greater divination, that of understanding one's own life and the path one is on, that is, the name and form of the Angel. These known, all that is necessary is known. These unknown, the initiate is a blind animal groping in the darkness, prey to every whim and passing amusement. The path is not a matter of speculation and logical reductionism, but nor is it a flight into fantasy and following ones bliss.

(Other spokesmen of Thelema, the occult, and the A.'.A.'. have championed "following your bliss". I respectfully but strongly disagree). 

It is a matter of accurately seeing both the world and oneself as they are, unvarnished, the very person you are in yourself, and your life, as it is, with its potentials and possibilities, in the clear light of day, not the darkling light of fantasy. Divination can be a dangerous tool, since if taken incorrectly it can actually make matters worse, one starts to believe ones delusions, and rather than obtaining the result, we end up getting sucked into the moonlit worlds of our own delusions, following the will'o the wisps of imagination, calling that True Will, never realising the mistake, we end up mistaking the first 'entity' that presents itself as an angel of light.

The correct method, I feel, is to practice divination as a sort of game, let the method itself lead you along storylines, allow the intuition to make connections and weave narratives, not judging them but also not attaching much importance to them. While we must always keep the central purpose in mind, to seek too ardently for an answer, accepting any that comes along in our divinations or early magical work, as universally valid is a good way to get entrapped in our own delusions. There is always the danger in divination, astral and magical work, and in life as a whole of mistaking ones own ideas for objective reality, so the correct method of divination can be a real help in overcoming this, an important part of the Great Work and the most common stumbling block on the path.

I would always advocate that initiates persist in the work in a systematic manner, just as a researcher, however pleasing the preliminary results may look, will nonetheless continue his research to its end and await the whole dataset before reaching a conclusion. So the initiate should, all the while enjoying the ride, abstain from concluding anything until the work is complete. 

Love is the law, love under will.

Prisms and Filters

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Recently I came across the concepts of prisms and filters in daily practice. The concept comes from the Zen teacher Dainin Katagiri. He talked about how in our practice of zazen meditation we have to pass through a sort of filter, but what we really want to do is pass through a sort of prism, which is much more interesting and fun, and therefore addictive, but ultimately take us away from reality as it is in itself. This comes from a Buddhist perspective, and personally I feel it has a lot of merit, but I would like to think about it in terms of A\A\ practice.

Within the A\A\there are ultimately two main paths recognised, that of the magician and that of the mystic. The magician is one who analyses, takes apart, extracts information, goes on astral journeys through the practices of rising on the planes and so on. This to me is like using the mind as a prism. Learning the correspondences of the tarot and the tree of life is a way of breaking the whole into manageable parts, we can then isolate these and explore them separately, and this is a great thing to do. It is particularly important in the early grades, especially up to Practicus, where this analysis is brought to high degree. By passing through this prism of the mind we need to learn not just to break things apart and extract meaning, but to understand the whole, and how the integrity of the whole depends on the integrity of the parts. If I am running a scientific enquiry, I have to make certain assumptions, I have to theorize, and the accuracy of my results and the conclusions I make about them will be affected by the accuracy of my assumptions. We might see this process as one of “making a difference between things”. Useful, but not the final goal. In daily life, most of us spend a good pat of our time life this, in our interactions with others, endless talking about this or that concept whether or not it is relevant to our lives, making fine shades of distinction, categorising, and criticizing. Truth be told, it’s a lot of fun.

So, we have to pass through this prism, which is the mind, but it is not enough to simply separate out all of the colours and enjoy the rainbow effect. The process should teach us something about the mind, about the prism itself. It is easy and all too common to get caught up with one or another colour, lost in a maze of circular logic or obsessed with a particular thought pattern, and failing to understand that it's just a prism. I mean here more than just intellectual assent; this is not enough. What is needed is real understanding, properly digested. Only in this way can the understanding of the prism be integrated into our lives. Until then it remains just a theory.

As for filters. This is much more difficult. Katagiri says that when we sit in zazen, the aim is to just be a filter. What does this mean? In the practice of zazen, yoga, meditation, we just sit. If one’s meditation brings visions and interesting ideas, then it's really just a sort of prism, so we need to be careful. Anyone who has meditated for a while will understand that sometimes meditation is very boring. This is because we are used to the prism, we want distraction, conversation, the excitement of passing through the prism, the medley of colour and form. However, this filter of meditation is very important. By using the mind as a filter, we filter out all that is not essential to us. Sit quietly, count the breath, let the thoughts come and go, this is the filtering process. Sometimes when we sit in meditation, we may have the idea that we should sit in some ancient temple, or by a waterfall, or that by assuming this posture we are becoming more holy. This is all just prism, separating one thing from other things, it is not real meditation. This is ok, the filtering process includes these things. When you filter water, some tiny particles that you didn't notice before can get stuck in the filter itself, making it clog up. This is ok, we can just clean the filter out and continue to filter water. When the eyes are closed, thoughts come up, this morning I noticed my filter caught images of a film I saw last night. It could easily be other things, I just return to the breath, open my eyes, realise where I am, continue to filter.

Although it might seem that way, I would not say that filter is more important than the prism. Both are necessary, yet they serve different ends, and in terms of practice they fulfil different roles that within our system play complimentary parts. I feel that passing through the filter is more direct but more difficult, more austere, while the prism is more interesting, more practically useful, but more prone to distraction and deviation. In A\A\we practice both, some aspirants focus more on one or another, others are more balanced between the two. This is ok, we all follow our predilections in the path, sometimes analyzing and exploring, sometimes reflecting and filtering. The same goes for daily life as well as our practice, we take active and passive roles at different times. The thing I think, is to recognise the difference, to be aware of it and not to worry about it, then our whole lives become like a big filter and it becomes apparent that even those times when we seem to be involved in the prism, this too is a sort of filtering.  

Love is the law, love under will.

On the expectations of students

 Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

These days I have little contact with the occult community, and don’t personally take on students. That is to say, I am not in a position to choose or allocate from a pool of prospective students. That job is left to a more capable person and I have little input in the matter, except perhaps as a sort of consultant. This is probably just as well, since I have proved incapable of holding on to students for any length of time, all of those who have signed their Probationer oaths in my presence have since resigned. Some of these I roundly accept, were probably through my own fault, although the majority simply found the work impossible for a variety of reasons. These latter I can’t do much about except to accept that for most people, the Great Work will be a passing thing, a source of diversion left to one side as soon as life gets complicated. Those for whom it really gets under the skin are relatively few and far between.

Of those who left the Order because of me, I have had a lot of time to reflect on what went wrong, a sometimes uncomfortable process but a necessary one I think. What I notice is that they usually resign because of personality clashes, they can’t help but put a supervisor on a pedestal, and when they get to know the person, and realise that he is human, has his failings and quirks of personality, and even, (the horror) disagrees with them, they feel that they can no longer work under the supervision of such a person and must therefore resign. The unvarnished truth of it is that they just don’t like or respect me enough to consider me a teacher, and so go off in search of somebody who fits the mold better, or else return to solitary practice. They are correct of course, I'm no guru, I realise that much, so I don't try to be, but instead confine myself to administering the syllabus as it was presented to me.

For me, this repeated process of aspirant post-mortem has been an exercise in humility. Nobody likes rejection, especially on the spiritual plane where one’s deepest predilections and sense of what it is to be, are exposed. It is not without some discomfort that I put this in writing, but I know it must be done for the analysis to be complete. However, I do feel that those who have resigned because of me miss an important point, that so long as the syllabus is adhered to, ones personal beliefs are of little import. 

If one’s supervisor insists on practices or activities that are not part of the core curriculum of the A\A\,, or is manipulative, then one should indeed depart. If s/he insists that you agree to a given point of view, for instance theism or atheism, or flat-eartherism, or anything else not part of the core A\A\ curriculum, then one should probably walk away. I would assert strongly though that if one's supervisor agrees with you on every point, tells you how great you are and never challenges your views then you are unlikely to grow except in your own conceit. If on the other hand, you feel compelled to walk away because of a difference of opinions that is in no way insisted upon and does not affect your path, then walking away is a sign of being influenced at a much lower level than that of the spirit, instead one is operating and basing their decision of the sphere of the personality. In such instances I feel that the Great Work devolves into a sort of tea party, a social exercise only. That is not what the A\A\ is for. For this reason it becomes clearer with every year that associations with other initiates should be relatively distant, even with those one regards as friends. Crowley said as much somewhere, that an initiate should go into fits of horror if he catches a glimpse of another initiate through a telescope, or words to that effect. In practice, I find that I need to be careful when engaging students and other initiates, not to get too involved at the level of the personality, an incredibly difficult maneuver and one that I am still learning, and a key reason why I don't associate with initiates or the occult 'scene' in general. 

As an  A\A\supervisor sometimes these things can't be easily avoided and engagement is necessary. I may challenge the opinions and viewpoints of an aspirant, if they seem to be influencing his or her path. Not so much to refute them as to expose them. The A\A\path is first and foremost a path of scepticism, and that scepticism must extend even, especially in fact, to ones deeply held beliefs. The deepest splinters are not felt, but slowly infect the flesh, and must be excised with the scalpel of analysis if the flesh is to heal. Being a solitary path, this is intensely introspective, but we must be careful that it doesn't become an exercise in naval gazing, or else caught in the mirror of self reflection, we end up worse off than we were before we started. Nor is the process over at any particular grade, but continues day after day, year after year, forever. 

When a supervisor offers sceptical response to a students expressed certainties, this is likely to be not so much a refutation, but an invitation to look more closely. While of course he may disagree with a point of view, he should be open to persuasion if presented with verifiable facts, but unprovable opinions don't deserve that sort of respect, they remain opinions only, and to insist on such without providing valid evidence is the opposite of the method of science. Immature students may receive this as a personal attack, insofar as they are incapable of separating themselves from their opinions. Our opinions are ours, we identify with them, they may come to define us, thus becoming a source of separateness, which is really alienation, yet we cling to it. I feel now that those students with whom I have clashed have largely done so on the matter of opinions when I offered a sceptical response (irrespective of my own opinions on the matter), and unwilling to compromise, or thinking that differing opinions imply fundamental incompatibility. 

In any case, I suspect I never really find out the real reasons for student departures, I can only go by what the student tells me and that may not be the whole truth of a thing.

They are probably correct as far as their needs go, so despite disappointment on my part, I have to accept that they probably made the right decision for them. I am unlikely to pat a person on the head and tell them they are a good boy. I am quite saturnine by nature, and if I see a person doing well, I am likely to expect more of them, test them further, exactly as I do myself. I don’t coddle or sooth, at least not those I consider to be adults, although I do have compassion, and challenges to ones thinking are of course optional insofar as they are not directly covered in the syllabus. Life has a way of presenting its own ordeals, there is no need for me to invent more. 

Finally, while I am genuinely sorry for those students who felt that they could not continue to work with me, I can only applaud their decision to do so and look on with a sort of grim pride at those ex-students who took True Will at face value and acted on theirs. This is the first and last lesson. After all, if you meet Buddha in the road, you must kill him.

Love is the law, love under will.

Egotism and Practice

 Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

When Crowley instituted the syllabus and methods of the A.'.A.'., he stipulated that each aspirant should work alone or with their instructor. The main reason for this is to reduce the risk of the work becoming a social gathering, a 'tea party', as one initiate put it. Another good reason is to reduce the friction of egos within the work. There is no getting away from the fact that, once you set out on the path, at some point the ego is going to trip you up. For me, the ego pops up from time to time in a multitude of ways. One of the biggest in in comparing myself with others. 

Using a graded system, we are of course subject to a hierarchy, we have people above us who we take as superiors, and those below us in the chain, who presumably that makes inferiors. To attempt to mitigate this somewhat, within the lineage I work out of we have substituted these terms for 'supervisor' and 'student'. It's not perfect, but language is important, what you feed into the subconscious is what grows there. 

Other situations for ego to arise are available. I recall that I once joined a Buddhist meditation group for a while. Nice people, vegetarian, knowledgeable about their subject, with a bit of an activist streak that I wasn't entirely comfortable with but I was mainly there for the meditation. One day I was out with some friends, walking the dogs in the woods, having a beer and generally having a good time. I happened to see a couple walking nearby, and one of them was a lady from the meditation group. I hoped that she wouldn't see me drinking beer in the woods, lest she judge me and think me not a 'serious' practitioner. You see, the ego has a negative side too.  

I've never done a vipassana retreat. I'd quite like to give it a go, but one report gave me food for thought. An acquaintance of mine did one, and she said it was full of egotists all trying to outdo each other with how well they could meditate. I'll never know how much of this is true as reported and how much her perception, perhaps based on the same sort of negative egotism I fell prey to in the woods that day. I suspect it may have been a little of both.

In the dojo we are constantly exposing our strengths and weaknesses to one another. One friend described it as the ego being a raw nerve. We perform well, we feel good, but if we perform badly we feel bad, more so that the other person was there to observe our failure. It takes real humility to fail and fail hundreds of times, even after years of practice, and still go back the next day to do it again.

Egotism arises in all walks of life. As an academic I've felt it, as a martial artist, as a musician, it has a multitude of ways to show its face. I feel however that to try to suppress it or pretend that we don't have it is a mistake. Psychologists tell us that suppressed emotions get stuffed into the subconscious, and arise later as neuroses and projections. What we put into the subconscious is what grows there. The subconscious mind provides the materials from which we build the conscious mind, so we need to be careful of every loose thought and feeling that we suppress and stuff into the cellar, hoping that nobody will notice. 

My current practice regarding ego is to treat it as everything else that comes up, observe it, name it, and understand how it arises and passes away. But importantly try not to attach anything to it. Morihei Ueshiba said, "when a guest comes to visit, invite him in, when he's ready to leave, bid him farewell." Meditation is like this. Spiritual practice is like this. We observe what we are and where we are, thoughts, feelings, pain, pleasure, without judgement or expectation. It can be painful to stand naked before ourselves, it pricks the ego to admit our shortcomings and perceived failings. But without this we have no humility, we build up walls between ourselves and others, we start making distinctions and differences, better/worse, wise/stupid, good/evil etc. 

In the end, ego can teach us how to deal with ego, if we are willing to look it in the face.

Love is the law, love under will.

Meditation demystified 3 (Dharana and Dhyana)

 Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

This far I have focused only on the physical aspects of yoga and meditation. Now I want to talk a little about the mental aspects. Dharana is properly connected to the grade of Practicus, while dhyana is the main focus of the Dominus Liminus. I will however discuss them in their own right, rather than as grade focused practice. I would further say that the practice of dhyana is probably still my daily practice, helped along by both dharana and pranayama. 

First, definitions: dharana is concentration, dhyana is unification. Dharana admits both subject and object, dhyana is the unification of subject and object into a single whole. Expanded outwards this naturally develops into samadhi, but one step at a time.

Practically speaking, dharana is probably the most complex of the two, and can be as variable as the imagination allows. Liber E suggests various methods, imagining various shapes, tattvas, shapes, colours, smells etc. Of course the simplest and most effective in my opinion is just to count the breath, not necessarily in the same way as pranayama, but simply counting the gentle inhalation and exhalation, or focusing the attention on the hara (muladara chakra or seika no itten). There is really no need to make anything complicated about it, although there is nothing specifically wrong with that either. Coordinated physical movements require concentration, and can therefore form the basis of dharana. Just walking down the street or driving can also serve. The thing is to obtain a mindset that naturally sticks fast to whatever you require it to, and stay there for as long as necessary.

Crowley recommends counting ones breaks. This is highly subjective but still useful, I would suggest making a spreadsheet documenting the number of breaks per session over a given time period, say several months. The best thing is to take the data first and then apply it to a graph all at once, so you can note changes, improvements or regressions, without being tempted to respond to the data and thus bias the results. It should also be possible to work out what helps or hinders good dharana by referring to the diary and noting common factors by comparing particularly good or bad days to the corresponding diary entries. 

As for dhyana: this is where things get confusing. Firstly, good dharana leads naturally to dhyana. Dhyana isn't a practice as such, but a state of unified consciousness that is the result of practice. Dhyana is what happens when you achieve one-pointedness. Within Tempu's system, this was called, shin-shin-toitsu, 'mind-body unification'. In Zen, dhyana is that state in which, when you sit, you just sit, when you walk, you just walk. The mind being like the still surface of a lake, that reflects all things clearly.

Practically speaking, the state can be difficult to achieve, and more so to maintain. In a typical practice during a normal period when I am subject to the usual distractions of life, dhyana comes and goes throughout the sitting. I will be sat, the mind in its usual patterns, coming and going, following thoughts or the senses as usual, and briefly, it will stop, it is like a light comes on or a window opens to let in fresh air, blowing away the cobwebs of ordinary confused though. In aikido, dhyana comes when the mind and body are in perfect harmony with that of my partner, whether throwing or being thrown, the movement becomes unified, and on those occasions the person being thrown almost always lands with a laugh and the harmony of the movement. We might call this 'getting in the groove', it is common among musicians, dancers etc.

So, how to practice dhyana? It is not easy to just issue instructions since we are generally working against a lifetime of habits, but it is at least conceptually simple, since we can soon learn what kinds of things help or hinder our meditation by seeing what thoughts intrude and what makes us want to get up off the cushion. As far as practical advice for sitting itself goes: sit still, breath regularly, relax completely, stop talking, listen. 

Talking of listening; I have found that listening to the 'nada' sound is useful. This is the ringing sound that we hear when all other sounds are filtered out. The mere fact of noticing the sound indicates that the mind is reasonably quiet, so it is a good place to start to cultivate this silence. 

Now, we should be aware that the state of dhyana is always there, like the nada sound, and it only takes a second to return to it. The natural state of the mind and the body is to be unified. Animals, dogs and cats for example, are naturally in this state, did you ever try to push a cat over? They are naturally stable because the mind and body are naturally unified. This is our birthright too, although human minds are filled with all sorts of distractions, we are accustomed to carrying unnecessary tensions and useless thoughts. This causes the mind to tense up and separate from the body. The body tenses up, stiff shoulders, heavy movements, constricted blood vessels, and this happens so gradually that we don't notice. We cannot even remember what dhyana feels like.

Dhyana is then nothing more than our natural state, when we drop pretense, stop chasing after distractions, thoughts, verbal chatter, stop trying to attain some mystical state, when we relax, sit still but alert, just part of the world around us, neither unduly distracted nor closed off from it, we can return to the unified state which is originally ours.

Love is the law, love under will.

On Duplicity

 Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Over the last decade, the O.T.O. and its attendant A.'.A.'. group have gradually taken center stage in Thelemic discourse. Naturally, the O.T.O. is perhaps the largest and best-known Thelemic order today. I was a member from 2010 to 2014 before resigning to pursue my own path.

Around that time, J.D. Gunther began to gain attention, particularly within the O.T.O. It was said that he was the head of the A.'.A.'. and closely associated with senior O.T.O. members, including the O.H.O. This was intriguing, especially for those familiar with A.'.A.'. history. It’s worth noting that discussion of the A.'.A.'. during O.T.O. meetings was generally frowned upon. While this didn't stop us, it did lend a clandestine air to the whole affair.

Gunther authored a couple of fascinating books combining Jungian psychology, Thelemic doctrine, references to various ancient sources, and a concept he called 'duplexity.' This doctrine posited that the A.'.A.'. and O.T.O. function as dual currents, akin to the two serpents entwined on Hermes' rod. I read these works with interest but must admit that much of their content felt tangential to my path. Gunther’s interpretations of the A.'.A.'. seemed idiosyncratic, and I found Crowley’s vision to be both purer and more compelling.

Despite flying in the face of Crowley's assertions in various places that there is no essential connection between A.'.A.'. and OTO, the idea of duplexity, from what I can gather born of the imaginings of the author, was seized upon by OTO people as proof of the validity of the order, to the extent that it is today taken as dogma in those circles. It doesn't take much analysis to see what the idea gained traction, despite being at odds with what Crowley himself said on the matter. (For the record, when it comes to Crowley's legacy, I trust what he himself said, rather than trusting interpretations of later commentators). At the time we lapped up what appeared to be new teachings, and all wanted to join the official A.'.A.'., to meet the elusive 'world teacher', get invitations to his lectures, and generally be in the 'in crowd'. Gunther gave off an air of academic rigour and depth that leant weight to his writings, of course we were all ears. 

Despite contradicting Crowley's repeated assertions that there is no essential connection between the A.'.A.'. and the O.T.O., the concept of 'duplexity'—seemingly a product of the author’s imagination—was eagerly adopted by O.T.O. members as validation of their order. This idea has since been elevated to dogma within those circles. It doesn’t require much analysis to see why this concept gained traction, even though it conflicts with Crowley’s own statements on the matter. For the record, I trust Crowley’s direct words over the interpretations of later commentators when it comes to his legacy.

At the time, we eagerly embraced what seemed like fresh teachings. We were all keen to join the official A.'.A.'., meet the enigmatic 'world teacher,' receive invitations to his lectures, and be part of the 'in crowd.' Gunther exuded an aura of academic rigor and intellectual depth that gave his writings a certain authority—and naturally, we were all ears.

I did some digging into J.D. Gunther—his background and the reliability of the claims surrounding him. The earliest reference I could find comes from James Wasserman (anecdotal, but from a credible source). Wasserman recounted Gunther walking into their shop in New York, claiming to represent the A.'.A.'. Upon learning that they were students of Marcelo Motta, Gunther immediately reached out to Motta and became his student.

From this, two points become clear:

1. Gunther had a history of making questionable claims to authority, as he had no formal contact with the A.'.A.'. prior to this encounter, as evidenced by his subsequent actions.

2. He did eventually become a student of Motta, thereby establishing himself as an A.'.A.'. initiate under a traceable instructor.

To his credit, once confronted with a legitimate link to the Order, Gunther acknowledged it and petitioned for admission. However, it’s evident that the idea of a pre-existing connection was already in his mind at the time. I would classify this connection as a spiritual link, and it’s worth noting that such claims are difficult to dispute, provided the claimant adheres to them. After all, "Success is your proof."

Motta was well-known, even then, for being something of a firebrand. He attempted—unsuccessfully—to claim leadership of the O.T.O., ultimately losing that battle in court to Grady McMurtry and a group of Motta's own former students. These ex-students went on to form the current leadership of the O.T.O. Their ongoing affiliation with Gunther as his students in the A.'.A.'. is, in fact, the true foundation of the concept of 'duplexity.'

I believe that the later introduction of the term itself, along with its apparent significance, is largely a concoction designed to justify their position rather than stemming from any genuine mystical revelation.

It is well known that Motta, a student of Karl Germer, had a contentious history with many of his own students. He was often described as domineering, demanding absolute loyalty, and expelling most of his students for various perceived infractions. My current superior was briefly in communication with Motta, but when faced with the same demands for loyalty, he politely declined.

With the exception of Frater Sphinx (David Berssen), nearly every student or associate of Motta eventually found themselves expelled or severing ties with him for one reason or another. Gunther's case, however, was somewhat different. He wasn’t expelled from the A.'.A.'. by Motta; instead, he chose to resign.

How do I know this? from the hand of Motta himself. In his volume of the equinox (https://archive.org/details/TheEquinoxVol5No4SexAndReligion), he clearly states the following:

"James Daniel Gunther, once a legitimate OTO representative, demoted for planning to murder his hierarchic superior. Withdrew voluntarily from the A.'.A.'. and was expelled from the OTO" (editorial, sex and religion, page 11).

Perhaps this is hyperbole. Motta was, after all, somewhat unbalanced—paranoid, to say the least. So why should we believe him? My reasoning is as follows: the editorial notes in several places that Motta expelled various individuals from the A.'.A.'., clearly demonstrating that he had no hesitation in severing ties with students who displeased him. Moreover, he had no qualms about publicly outing individuals he claimed were falsely asserting A.'.A.'. status.

If Motta had truly wanted Gunther out, he could have easily done so. This raises an important point: if Motta expelled Gunther from the O.T.O., why did he not do the same with the A.'.A.'.? It suggests that, at least on some level, Motta recognized Gunther's legitimacy within the A.'.A.'. framework, even if their paths eventually diverged.

It's essentially Gunther's word against Motta's, and both men have a track record of making questionable claims—neither seems above bending the truth. So, who should we believe? Personally, I side with Motta. The reason he didn’t sever ties with Gunther was simple: he didn’t need to. Motta, known for his tendency to expel students with relish, would likely have taken great satisfaction in formally dismissing Gunther. He certainly had the authority to do so, as Gunther appeared to regard him as his superior—a lineage that, as far as I know, is still claimed today.

However, expulsion wasn’t necessary. Given the accusations levelled against him, Gunther made the choice to remove himself.

As any Probationer knows, "Only once does the Great Order knock on any one door" (The Preliminary Lection, verse 6). This implies that each individual receives only one opportunity per incarnation—no second chances. Therefore, given that Gunther resigned, as seems likely based on the evidence, his claim to represent the A.'.A.'. cannot hold true.

If Gunther can provide evidence to disprove this, then I’m all ears. So far, though—crickets. I was once told by one of his Probationers that the real magical link was through Krumm Heller. However, since the O.T.O. has consistently stated that they do not recognize this initiate in any capacity, this seems unlikely. Furthermore, I have not encountered this story being repeated.

Given what we know about Motta, I can’t say I blame him for withdrawing, if only for the sake of his mental health. In his position, I’d probably have done the same—high-tailed it out of there—and, like him, continued the work independently. Could he have aligned himself with another initiate? Perhaps. When my own supervisor resigned, I sought out another and successfully retained a formal link to the Order, one that I was able to verify to my own satisfaction.

However, times were different back then; perhaps that opportunity wasn’t available to him. In such cases—which, as it turns out, are not uncommon—someone may lose their direct, flesh-and-blood link to the Order. But that doesn’t mean the quest must come to an end.

Withdrawing from Motta's discipleship does not necessarily equate to withdrawing from the Great Work. By Gunther’s own admission, he subsequently entered a lengthy period of introspection before reemerging in the 1980s as the leader of what was then the most prominent A.'.A.'. group—the one with its address printed in the back of most O.T.O.-published Crowley books.

If we take Crowley at his word that the A.'.A.'. is a sempiternal Order, then it transcends the mundane concerns of interpersonal politics. I fully accept that one can withdraw from discipleship while still maintaining an inner connection to the A.'.A.'., as the notion of an unbroken chain of transmission from the dawn of time seems highly improbable. That idea resembles the fanciful dreams of the Theosophists more than grounded reality.

This leads to a critical dichotomy: either the A.'.A.'. is a sempiternal spiritual order accessible to anyone who genuinely seeks it, or it is a mundane hierarchical organization where membership hinges on a direct, flesh-and-blood link. If the latter is true, we can reasonably conclude that the A.'.A.'. was merely a creation of Aleister Crowley in his more idealistic youth, and the talk of sempiternal orders is little more than decorative fantasy.

 Personally, I side with Crowley and regard the A.'.A.'. as a sempiternal order of the spirit. “The Brothers of the A∴A∴ refuse none. They have no objection to anyone claiming to be of themselves. If he does so, let him abide by it” (Liber LXXI III:24). This means I have no issue with anyone claiming membership. It doesn’t concern me as long as they don’t impose on or interfere with others.

The A.'.A.'. is an immensely powerful thought-form, directly resonating with the highest ideals of many spiritual seekers. In a sense, once you’re in—once you’ve received the brand—you are in for life. I’ve had students who, despite formally resigning, continue to think in A.'.A.'. terms and use the grade system. They are fully aware that their resignation forfeits their right to claim affiliation with the mundane Order, yet they persist in the work.

I don’t blame them for continuing; after all, their commitment to the principles remains. Importantly, however, they aren’t out making claims of authority, nor are they questioning the legitimacy or integrity of those who choose not to operate under the same banner or submit to their authority. For this reason, I choose not to comment.

Generally, I adopt a live-and-let-live approach, but I draw the line at dishonesty—especially when it is used to deceive others and sow division for personal gain. When duplicity arises, I feel a responsibility to speak out.

I know several people within both the O.T.O. and the Gunther-led A.'.A.'., adherents to the concept of duplexity. To avoid unnecessary arguments, I generally keep my peace, as this has little bearing on my day-to-day life. On the whole, good work is being done within that camp. Some valuable books are being published—some less so—but there are a few truly brilliant occultists and writers affiliated with the group whom I hold in high regard, even though I view the leadership's claims to sole authority as spurious.

Gunther continues to remain active on the lecture circuit. The notion that all A.'.A.'. groups, except theirs, are pretenders surfaces regularly. They have honed the art of authoritative assertion to a fine degree—so much so that their air of certainty leaves little room for challenge. At this point, it feels like finely tuned propaganda, almost convincing in its assuredness. Yet, engaging with it is akin to drinking a draft that initially seems pleasant but harbours a hidden bitterness beneath the surface.

Crowley wrote, to paraphrase, that the hallmark of the Black Brothers is their exclusivity: "We are the men," "ours is the only way." When I look at the Gunther-led A.'.A.'., this is precisely what I see. Not only is the claim to be head of the Order—by my assessment and in the opinion of his superior (who ought to have the final say)—most likely false, but the group’s claims of exclusivity are also highly suspect. It’s worth noting that no other known A.'.A.'. individuals make such claims, even though much stronger assertions could arguably be made by others. This, to me, is a significant red flag.

The projected air of authority from this group feels brittle, like a cracked vase—it appears polished on the surface, but when tapped, it emits a hollow, false note. A little digging into readily available archives quickly reveals the underlying deception. To be clear, I’m not accusing them of being 'Black Brothers' outright, but they certainly display traits commonly associated with that type and may well be heading down that path.

This approach also leans heavily on an anchoring bias among new recruits. People naturally tend to rely on the first piece of information they receive on a topic when evaluating subsequent evidence. Most of us encounter this particular A.'.A.'. group first—often through references in the backs of books. Impressed by its aura of gravitas and lacking any immediate reason to question it, many, at least subconsciously, measure all other claims against this initial impression. I must admit, if you overlook the crucial fact of Motta’s testimony, their presentation is quite convincing.

My (now resigned) superior fell into this pattern, as have some of my students—and I did as well, for quite some time. Simply put, I didn’t know any better until I started examining the evidence.

In any case, it will persist. There is nothing I can do to stop it, and that’s alright. History, after all, is written by the victors—just ask the Catholic Church. My own path with the mundane A.'.A.'. is nearly complete; you could say I’ve passed through Crowley’s system and emerged in clearer waters.

It is only the lingering attachments of my lower self—formed during my time as an aspirant in a small lineage of the A.'.A.'., coupled with my strong aversion to dishonesty, especially in spiritual matters—that make me sensitive to these issues.

Love is the law, love under will.

Martial arts in relation to the A.'.A.'. path

 Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

I have been fortunate in my life to have been exposed to the martial arts relatively early on. I always had an interest in the martial arts, I practiced a Korean art for about a year in my mid-teens, then at 19 I met a practitioner of Karate, Batto-jutsu, and Tai chi chuan. My interest at the time was largely in the Japanese sword. I remember after discussing this with him he showed me how to cut. Then, handing me a suitable sized stick, told me to go and practice cutting before heading off for a beer. This I did, for hours, and continued to learn from him for years. For the next few years the bokken (wooden training sword) was a constant companion. In fact even after I joined the British Army a couple of years later, except for basic training, I carried a pair of bokken wherever I travelled, even overseas at one point, and trained with whoever was available. 

I also took up the practice of Yang style Tai chi chuan, the longer form consisting of 108 steps. I have now practiced this for over 20 years. 

I have had an interest in Thelema since my teens, and formally affiliated with the A.'.A.'. ten years ago this month. Less than a year after that I also began training in Shinshin-toitsu Aikido (Sometimes called 'Ki Aikido'). I remember one autumn Sunday morning when I had only recently started, sitting seiza in the dojo, the instructor reading from the shoku-shu (book of sayings and readings), "The Universe is a limitless circle with a limitless radius. This condensed becomes the one-point in the lower abdomen which is the centre of the Universe".......I was hooked.

Later exploration revealed to me that Koichi Tohei, the student of O Sensei who went farthest in exploring the ki (氣) aspect of aikido and founder of ki aikido, didn't simply come up with the system by himself, but in addition to intensive training in Zen meditation and the ascetic misogi practices of Ichikukai, started by the Zen master and swordsman Yamaoka Tesshu, inherited a lot of his knowledge from Nakamura Tempu, the Japanese espionage agent who, after contracting tuberculosis travelled the world in search of a cure, obtaining a medical degree in the process and finally winding up in the Himalayas, practicing raja yoga under the semi-mythical guru Kariappa. Tempu on returning to Japan, eventually went on to formulate the system he called shin shin toitsu do. (The way of mind-body unification, sometimes called 'Japanese yoga'). Tohei Sensei was a student of this system, which enabled him to understand and put into practice what he was learning under O Sensei as a student of aikido. 

Tohei eventually went on to start his own organisation promoting shin shin toitsu aikido (aikido with mind-body unification), a merging of the two systems, essentially aikido with raja yoga and misogi training built in. In this system, students practice aikido, and in a parallel track practice shin shin toitsu do. The two systems are tested together, for example you have to pass sets of ki tests at 5th, 3rd and 1st kyu in order to be allowed to test for the relevant aikido grades. This also continues up through the dan (black belt) grades. 

Throughout my own A.'.A.'. path, ki aikido has been a constant companion. My Zelator exams were passed by virtue of the mind-body unification practices taught in the dojo up to sho-kyu (5th kyu aikido), and having recently passed my shodan exam, 9 years after starting, you could say that the art is central to my path. While it is not necessary for A.'.A.'. students to enroll in their local aikido club, It is without reservation that I would recommend such training as a viable and robust training system which meets, and in most instances surpasses the testing requirements of the 2=9 and 3=8 grades, with higher level training even meeting the requirements of dhyana for a Dominus Liminus. The A.'.A.'. path is largely solitary, and one thing lacking I feel is adequate testing. Students could be doing the wrong thing, having bad posture or incorrect breathing, potentially for years without correction, going on to pass these mistakes on to subsequent students. 

While I can't speak of other arts, in ki aikido, asana and pranayama are taught and tested right from the start. You can't progress through the early grades without demonstrating proficiency, and this continues through the higher levels. Most aikido techniques don't work without these fundamentals in place and the uncoordinated practitioner is left with only a hollow shell of the art, which without proper coordination is just an inferior, dance-like form of ju-jutsu. Successful aikido implies successful yoga. The learning and practice of kata (forms) and waza (techniques) requires intense Dharana (concentration) and dhyana (unification) training, leading the aspirant naturally to a unified state required of the A.'.A.'. initiate up to and beyond the adeptus minor level.

Some A.'.A.'. instructors may refuse such things, insisting on using Liber E as the basis of training. That is their prerogative, but personally, if a student goes through a rigourous system like this, which specifically teaches and tests in the requirements of the A.'.A.'., albeit under a different format, I would have no problem with accepting this as evidence for the relevant grades. My yardstick in such matters in not so much adherence to form for it's own sake, but simply practicality, does it get the required results?

Of course there are a lot of other requirements for an A.'.A.'. aspirant, the system is extensive and each must be armed at all points, both for their own training and for teaching others, which is a key part of the system. I consider that yoga is core practice, yet sadly degraded and downplayed by many students who are more interested in other aspects of the system that are more obviously 'occult', while the difficult, rigourous and often unnoticed disciplines of yoga, and their fruits, are forgotten on the bookshelf.

Love is the law, love under will.