If you're not being honest, you're not on the path

 Something that has been central to my practice for a long time is integrity. It wasn't always a central component but over the years I have come to the conclusion that dishonesty, with oneself and with others, is antithetical to spiritual practice. This really came to a head though my Practicus period when a couple of times my integrity, both intellectually and morally were put to the test. Since then I have been more or less compelled to absolute honesty with myself. 

In case I am misunderstood I should be clear; this has little to do with morality and everything to do with expedience. The universe itself is based on truth, it is itself,  this is often not as we would wish it to be or as we imagine it to be. If we wish to uncover its mysteries then we need to base our examination on truth. Truth for us, as explorers of the self and its relation with the universe, must begin with self-honesty. You cannot understand the self if you are in denial about the self, and you cannot understand the universe if you base your understanding on a false premise. This is why I assert unequivocally, that if you are not being honest, you are not on the path.

One of the reasons I essentially washed my hands of most of the occult scene, is the tendency towards believing things that from what I could see, were most likely not true. People saying things and acting in ways that made me think they didn't really believe it themselves. Another aspect was the prevalence of conspiracy theories. So many people practicing the western mystery traditions are also espousing ideas promulgated by David Icke and other fabricators of misinformation, literal enemies of truth, weaving factoids and popular ideas into enticing narratives that offer the cold comfort of being 'in the know'. Such people, while they talk about spiritual things and claim to be aspirants, are using the language of spirituality as a pose, a mask. They are not really interested in the truth of things, only in having their worldview confirmed. This bias is becoming more and more obvious with the advent of social media. People don't want reality, they want to be entertained and validated.

More recently they are also the same people who espouse climate change denial, deny that the coronavirus which has killed millions, even exists, and deny the efficacy of vaccines and seem to willingly distort things to fit their narrative that 'the man', some evil cabal of nefarious people, are trying to kill us all, or some such nonsense. You need only look at the data to see this isn't so. And by data I don't mean memes and YouTube videos.

"Aha", cries the believer, "maybe that's what 'they' want you to think".

Perhaps, but we have to have a standard of judgement, and either we accept that the whole scientific and medical establishment is lying to us, or the talking heads and rando's of YouTube are. 

But then, as a member of the scientific establishment myself, maybe I'm lying, another shill for big climate.....see how the logic goes?

With such people, I can only draw a couple of conclusions. Either they are gullible or dishonest, and reading the literature on such things it seems that people of that mindset will believe anything if it supports their worldview. People who believe one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe others, because that's how their minds work.

It seems that conspiracy theorists often have a persecution based mindset: somebody is doing things to me/us, they are out to get us, or keeping the truth from us. The reasons for this are unclear so I don't like to speculate too much. Narcissism and paranoia seem to play a role, as does lack of social currency, as if holding fringe beliefs offers some sort of consolation.

The same goes for a lot of spiritual theories and faiths. One of the reasons I could not countenance Christianity, aside from the hypocrisy, was the requirement of faith in that which I knew was almost certainly not true. Pretty much all religions have elements of this, and one reason I settled on zen Buddhism was that there is no requirement for faith, only practice. It has a 'come and see' attitude, although Buddhism too has various sects who espouse things I don't believe and see no reason to accept as truth. When I was active in the A.'.A.'. there was this unspoken faith in the HGA, and in the lineal succession of the Order so that we all got hung up on who was the real deal, and who was a faker. I have come to realise that the fakers are those who twist things for personal gain, irrespective of their paperwork or claims. There is also the idea that there is no illumination outside the A.'.A.'., a sort of faith that 'we are the real spiritual people', and all the rest, other religions and philosophies are somehow outside the temple. Exclusionary thinking if ever I saw it. I cannot accept that the A.'.A.'. has exclusive access to anything, it's just an idea that some people identify with, even I did for a long time, blinkered as I was.

Without critical appraisal of both the information you take on board and the faith you accept, and without absolute honesty with oneself, there can be no real spiritual practice. In the words of Nishijima Roshi: We are living in the universe, which is based in truth. Truth and honesty are bound together. If we are not honest we can never know our real situation in the universe.

Adhering to things which you have no basis for adhering to other than they sound nice or pander to your prejudice. Or worse yet, deliberately, misunderstanding, misconstruing, or disseminating false information and deceiving both yourself and others, are antithetical to the path. Anybody doing so and calling themselves initiate is deluding themselves.

All that remains and what came after

 This last year or so had brought many changes. One of my main themes has been simplification and refinement of practice, a casting off of the unnecessary in an effort to distil practice into a form with as little 'extra', as possible. This attitude, along with a tendency to seek out authenticity in all things has led me to drop off 93% of Thelemic and Occult ideas. Magick, Qaballah, Gematria, Visions and Divinations, in favour more and more, of simple sitting meditation.

 I have repeatedly echoed the sentiment of the Tibetan Poet and Siddha Milarepa: "My religion is not deceiving myself".

 Even my meditation naturally underwent simplification. The effort to concentrate on mantras or mental images naturally went, and I saw no reason to continue to think along the lines of chakras, energy lines, Kundalini and the rest. My practice of Aikido has shown me what 'extending ki' means, and nothing extra in terms of theory is required, nor observed either subjectively or objectively. Ki moves because it moves, anything else is extra and liable to be a barrier to progress. When I extent Ki I just do it, I don't use any theory, it's just a feeling. Imagine having to understand the complexities of our nerve fibres in order to walk. 

 My dabbling with Christianity last year taught me two things. The first is that without a robust set of ethics, spiritual practice is solipsistic, something done for the self, a self which cannot exist in isolation from others. The second is that I simply don't believe most of what many religions and spiritual systems require me to believe. I discarded Christianity as being neither ethically viable (too much blood on the churches hands for me to recognise them as a moral authority) nor intellectually honest (who on earth believes in the virgin birth and resurrection?). Thelema likewise, while useful in my 20's and most of my 30's as a philosophy of action, expects too much in terms of complex and unnecessary theory and having too weak an ethical framework. The caveat here is that the concepts of Nuit/Hadit/Ra-Hoor-Khuit, are in my opinion viable in their essence, but too flowery for my taste. 

There is no need to gild the lily, but reality as it is, is an acquired taste and we are accustomed to artificial flavourings.

 It is clear that Crowley collected ideas that he liked from older traditions and cobbled it together into his new religion, I don't for a moment believe in the reception theory. To me Thelema seems contrived, synthetic, and not something I want to identify with. Thelema too often leads to a sort of self absorbed attitude which is essentially selfish and narrow in too many people, and many are more interested in proving others wrong and having things their own way, calling this their 'True Will', while displaying high levels of immaturity and no real desire to move beyond the cosplaying stage, what my supervisor called the 'burning ground'. Professional soldiers who dare not fight, as Liber Al would put it. Spiritual practice is all too often a case of trying on new hats in order to demonstrate one's status to others. As the Buddhists would put it, this is having a head on top of your own head. While fun, it's really 'something extra'.

 So I closed that door behind me too. On attaining the K&C of the HGA, I realised by degrees that there is no Angel, only the formless, emptiness which is at once fullness. In the Christian mystical traditions there is a parallel phenomena, where the mystic gets so close to God that God seems to disappear. Some mistake this for 'losing their faith', while those who persist realise that what has happened is really a sort of Dhyana, the I/Thou relationship of the beginner, the supplicant and the angel, God and the worshipper is now simply one of identity, there is no need to have any image of God, an Angel or anything else. What presented itself to me as the angel was shown to be emptiness, the 'image of an image', to quote Liber 65, a way to come to grips with the idea but a means that must eventually be discarded if real union is to occur. 

A core tenet of the A.'.A.'. no longer has any meaning for me at this point, there is no angel, and form is at it's heart emptiness, ever changing, not constant and having no real eternal substance that I could grasp on to. Hadit proved to be not a constant point, but simply a point of view, ever flowing and changing. 

The tree of life was once described to me as 'useful to hang things on'. At the time (all of 18 years old) this struck me as too dismissive of something that I found profound. Now I am inclined to agree with it, and the A.'.A.'. system too is merely a way of keeping track of a series of stages, but in itself has no real meaning. It is a tool, nothing more, yet is too often used as a banner to wave and a social identifier (look at me, I'm an A.'.A.'. initiate!). "Aha", says the cynic, "but which lineage?", and we are right back in the relative world of I, me, mine. 

 Have I then left the A.'.A.'.? It is more accurate to say that the A.'.A.'. has fallen away as 'something extra'. You don't keep wearing your old uniform after you finish high school. I've not taken on students in years and don't really think of my practice in A.'.A.'. terms, or even tree of life terms, except to facilitate conversation with one or two people who I still talk to in that world. 

 So what's left after this wholesale iconoclasm of ideas and affiliations? Not much, yet everything, just as it always was before I started trying to make more of it. The only thing that approaches this is Zen. This is something that has always been in the background, but which I only now, approaching my 41st year, begin to appreciate.

 More precisely, the Soto Zen school has taken my interest. It's fair to say that I have jumped in with both feet. I have in fact been practicing meditation for many years, and through my martial arts practice Buddhist concepts have become second nature, they just work and I don't need to contort myself to their shape. Over the last few months I have studied a lot of the historical and theoretical background, done a lot more zazen, and made contact with various Zen Buddhist teachers and groups and aim to formally receive the 16 Bodhisattva precepts in the not too distant future. 'Converted' to Buddhism isn't how I would describe it. It's more a case of, when everything else is removed, what's left is essentially that most austere outcrop of Buddhism. One could say that I simply made a conscious decision to follow what was already there, a fair definition of doing one's True Will.

  I moved to a new city in a new country yesterday. I am here for work for two years on a project related to climate change, an issue which I regard as an existential threat. Possibly in some small way I might do some good. Anyway, yesterday I was exploring the town, I found an antique shop and had the idea that I should go in and look for a Buddha statue. Within minutes I had found exactly that, and exactly the right Buddha for zen practice; Shakyamuni Buddha (Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism). Rendered fairly crudely in a lump of ancient ebony wood. While not cheap he was within my budget, and (old habit perhaps, I don't like to haggle for this type of thing) so I bought him outright. I now have a makeshift alter in my temporary accommodation.

 This is an early iteration. Over time it will develop. I need light and incense, but not much else. I like the physical reminders of spiritual practice. The clothing, the paraphernalia and ritual. These provide a supporting framework on which to develop a practice, although care needs to be taken that we don't take up the outer expressions and forget the heart of practice. 

As I get older and past obsessions fall away, the straightforward humanity of a practice based on the facts of existence suits me more than detailed theories and intellectual baubles. Thelema was always trying to get somewhere and magick is always trying to get something. I realised some time back that there is nowhere to 'get' to, no goal, True Will is a process of living authentically, not a task to perform. Besides that, all I really want is to live naturally in the world as part of it, and making peace with the facts of nature, the facts of getting older, and living in a world which is constantly passing away before our eyes, whose one constant feature is its impermanence. I may perhaps be able to help others to do the same since we are all in the same boat.  It is in this spirit of openness to what is, the small things of daily life, as well as the larger questions of life & death, suffering, purpose, that I hope to pursue the path into middle age.

Pertinax

Using a rosary or prayer beads for meditation practice

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

There are innumerable methods of meditation out there, my current daily method is probably as simple as it has ever been, I pretty much just sit and watch the breath for a set period of time a couple of times a day. But anyone who has practiced any sort of meditation or yoga for a while will know that the mind is a tricky beast that really needs training. While actual mental silence is impossible without being dead, we can however use various methods to lower the volume, and one method is mantra yoga. Any one of thousands of mantras could be used, each to their own, and this method is discussed in Crowley's writings and is an accepted part of Raja yoga.

However, what is not talked about is the use of a rosary or beads to aid this. To remedy this I would like to talk a little about the use of counting beads in spiritual traditions, and how these might be adapted to a more or less Thelemic practice.

The first picture (on the left) is a Buddhist set of prayer beads, usually called a Mala, or Nenju in Japanese. This particular set belong to the Soto sect of Japanese Zen Buddhism. There are many different types which vary by sect, as well as formal, informal, and made from a range of materials. Also, unlike the Catholic rosary, the method of usage is much more general, and varies not only from sect to sect, but even from temple to temple.

As non-Buddhists and non-Catholics we can still use these tools, although I imagine the Buddhist Mala would be more generally useful and free of unwanted theological connotations, and therefore much more useful as an aid to mantra yoga.

Many will recognise the rosary (on the right) as being Christian in origin; Roman Catholic to be precise. The Catholics have a very precise and detailed approach to saying the rosary, and it is essentially a method of meditation on the mysteries of Christ via five decades of ten prayers. The order is to recite the Nicene creed holding the crucifix, then at single beads the lords prayer, and grouped beads a hail Mary, and a Salve Regina is recited when one gets to the medal. 

Mantras should be simple, repetitive, and easy to memorise. In this way they differ from prayers which generally convey devotion, although these too can be used. I would like to suggest some ideas for mantras within a Thelemic context.

We could easily recite the following: 

A ka dua

Tuf ur biu

bi a’a chefu

Dudu nur af 

an nuteru.

Unity uttermost showed! 

 I adore the might of Thy breath, 

Supreme and terrible God, 

 Who makest the gods and death 

To tremble before Thee - 

 I, I adore thee!

Either in the original or in English, at each bead. The Gayatri mantra would also be a good option given its universal nature: 

Om bhūr bhuvah svah

tat savitur varenyam

bhargo devasya dhīmahi

dhiyo yo nah pracodayāt.

This is traditionally recited 108 times (one for each bead), which is handy if we are using a Buddhist Mala. Being an invocation of the Solar principle this is particularly suitable for a Thelemic context. My personal favourite is from the heart sutra:

Gyate gyate 

paragyate,

parasamgyate

bodhi svaha!

We could use this while in sitting meditation, although personally I like to separate mantra practice from sitting practice, and tend to go out for a walk reciting a mantra. Of course, a set of beads is not essential for this, but it does help to focus the mind. Specifically, when meditation is performed incorrectly we can get the idea that we need to lose awareness of the body. I feel that this is not helpful and more likely to lead to a wafty, unfocussed mindset at odds with what we want to develop. Having a set of beads to count requires the use of the hands and a connection between the mind and the body, bringing increased focus on the here and now. We can see if the mind is wandering because our mind and fingers go out of sink and we lose track of where we were in the mantra. Another useful point is that during meditation we can find ourselves unintentionally clock watching, wondering if our time is up yet, and growing impatient as a result. If instead of clock watching, we find out how many times we need to recite a mantra for a given amount of time, we can use the beads to help with this. Some people just recite their mantra 108 times, once for each bead, so that when they get to the large mother bead they know their session is finished. Again there are no rules, each should find his or her own way.

As with anything, the objective of the practice should be considered, and the beads, like the mantra itself, are really only a means to an end, and that end is greater integration of mind and body, and greater integration of the practitioner with the world around them. If the use of a mantra or a set of beads helps, then it it can't be a bad thing.

Love is the law, love under will.

Do I believe in god(s), angels, spirits, demons and the rest?

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

This is a question that I have asked myself a few times over the years, and which I think is probably pertinent given my involvement with mystical and magical systems in general. It is not easy to answer definitively, so I will try to clarify it as much as I can.

Firstly, definitions are important. If a person asks me, yes or no, whether I believe in God, then to avoid complications I would probably reply, yes. However, this needs some qualification. What does 'God' mean, and what do I mean by believe. God to me is not some beard in the sky, a sort of discorporate father figure that I can ask favours of and beg forgiveness of sins. If praying worked, the world would be a very different place, so we can be quite certain that God doesn't answer prayers, at least in the sense that is commonly understood and taught in Sunday school. No. To me, God is the ground of being, the fundamental suchness of the universe, the basic energy of life itself. Liber legis calls it Hadit, and this describes it pretty well, but essentially God is unknowable. God is the silence between notes, the space between words, the eternal and imminent moment between one breath and the next. God doesn't answer prayers because God is prayer, and the person praying. Gods answer to prayers is in the prayer itself.

But a separate being that makes for holiness? I see no reason to even consider that possibility. The God of the ancient Hebrews, Yahweh, I regard as a form of local deity, elevated to master of the universe status by his worshippers, but essentially a Semitic tribal totem no different from Baal, Astaroth, or any of the other dozens of tribal totems running around the middle-east at that time and mentioned in the Old Testament as rival deities.

So, why even call it God? Cultural conditioning I suppose. In the right company using that designation is natural enough and people understand what is meant. But there is room for confusion, and of course those who reject the term might not like it, but that's not my problem. Besides, in the introductory lection we are advised about this in no uncertain terms, so it should, we would hope, be second nature to an initiate: 

"Should therefore the candidate hear the name of any God, let him not rashly assume that it refers to any known God, save only the God known to himself. Or should the ritual speak in terms (however vague) which seem to imply Egyptian, Taoist, Buddhist, Indian, Persian, Greek, Judaic, Christian, or Moslem philosophy, let him reflect that this is a defect of language; the literary limitation and not the spiritual prejudice of the man P."

As for gods, demons, spirits, angels and the rest. I have had my fair share of dealings with gods over the years, but it was always with constructs of the mind, overlays onto reality, images deliberately given to forces, real or imaginary, but with no sense of a separate identity. The same goes for demons, angels and spirits to varying degrees. So no, I don't believe that they have any objective reality. They are however useful ways of interfacing with reality at different levels. For example my work with Liber Astarte was with the goddess Persephone. This was a rather interesting time in which I was able to see things from the perspective of cyclic birth and death, using the early agricultural symbolism and highlighting mans reliance as a species on the annual rhythms of the world, and the sense that we come out of the world, not into it. I have also had experiences that I might describe as demonic, soul sucking things that can attach themselves to a person in the lower astral. Whether these are just negative thought forms, symptoms of a diseased mind, or literal astral scavengers and bottom feeders. They frequently took on the form of walking corpses, thin, hungry things, or occasionally black angry things, aggressive and threatening, thereby matching traditional descriptions of such things. 

The last time I saw one of these was on the night I arrived at my regiment when I was serving in the army. Nobody had told them I was coming, so I arrived at the guard room and was redirected to the barracks where I was given a place to sleep in a spare room. I deployed my roll mat and sleeping bag on the floor and that night settled in to sleep. In the early hours of the morning I awoke to see a black silhouette in the doorway in a threatening posture. It practically buzzed with aggression and I knew it to be non-human right away. I had to meet the regimental sergeant major in the morning and was annoyed at being awoken, I sat up and said, "F off, I'm trying to sleep", and promptly lay back down. I've not seen anything of the sort since. 

What was this? I have no idea. However I've not seen much since that time, nothing uninvited in any case. I have had shells of dead things hanging around, more so when I was in my teens and early twenties, when I was living a lot more fast and loose and really not taking care of myself. More recently, a friend who died about 6 years ago used to visit from time to time, a silent presence in the corner of my mental vision, occasionally coming into my dreams. Oddly he became more and more inhuman as time went by, and more like a hungry thing and less like the friend I knew, until I took him to a nearby temple, he's not been around since. In any case, that was not my friend, just a thought form gradually falling apart over time. While I treated it as if it were a spirit, or a husk of the person I knew, I have no real reason to suppose it was anything other than my memory of my friend, a way of coming to terms with his death, but I will never know for certain.

As for the Angel, and angels in general? That's a subject in itself, which I think I have already covered. I will say that early in my A.'.A.'. career he took the form of a Sumerian God, sometimes the peacock angel of the Yezidi, and an ancient Hebrew spirit of the wilderness, but as I went on these names and forms were gradually cast aside, images of images, not things to be attached to, but useful at certain points in my training. At this moment, I would say that the 'Angel', is another stand in term, much like God, for that about which nothing can be said. These previous images can be called angels in the technical sense, i.e. messengers, ways of making the connection. But the connection made, they are no longer necessary and so I rarely employ them. I will go so far as to say that I was instructed by the Angel itself not to rely on these images and forms. 

So in the final analysis, I suppose I an a positive agnostic in the matter of belief. I have no idea if any of these things are real, and reason says there is little to suggest that they are anything other than projections of the mind. Yet somehow treating them as if they are objectively what they present themselves to be seems to work. Or, as I think it was Robert Anton Wilson who responded, when asked if he thought these things were real: They're real enough.  

Love is the law, love under will.

No path, Nowhere to go.

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

 My approach to the path has always come back to seeing reality as it is, rather than as I'd like to see it. Even though at times I have fallen into habits of acquiring badges, mottos, ranks, as well as theories practices and dogmas, eventually each of these falls away under the ruthless scrutiny of the quest for authenticity in practice. What is left is something that I can't even put a name to, at least not one which will stick as definitive. My understanding is that the main thing standing in my way is myself, my preconceptions, hopes, wishes, fears, desires, even the desire for enlightenment becomes something I carry around like a burden, so anything except that 'something', which is ever present yet somehow hidden, ends up being put aside in the end. The path is like the eye of a needle, and even a tiny knot in the yarn makes passing it through the eye impossible.

 Even the path itself can become a sort of attachment. The idea that there is a path to begin with is the same. Is it a path, or am I just a ghost wandering in the mist? In one sense, religion, spirituality, the path, and the rest, ar all just empty words and rituals. And yet they point towards something else, something deeper, and this I have come to appreciate is an understanding of life that goes beyond these things yet at the same time accepts them as expressions of it, itself being inexpressible in its 'is-ness'.

Many years ago, I had a sort of vision, which I perhaps didn't realise the import of until more recently. In the vision I saw a black ocean, and on it flowers eternally blooming and fading away. With this image came the words, "void flowers". I think I can appreciate this vision now. The sea is that nothingness which is itself an infinite fullness, because though itself unformed, gives birth to all things eternally. Like flowers arising on the surface of the ocean only to sink back down again in endless succession. This image is similar to the Egyptian symbolism of the lotus flower, whos roots are in the black mud of creation, and whos flowers briefly bloom on the surface only to sink back down when their time is over.

While I can see that this is the truth of it, according to the limitations of my perception at any rate, I am still far from realising it in daily life, in my person. The vision is not fully digested so to speak, there are still dregs, knots in the thread, ideas, hopes, fears, and the rest, which I cling to even though I know they are passing away. Holding on to the flowers as if they had any permanence, as if we could preserve even one is the predicament we find ourselves in. If that flower be ones life, career, loved ones, even our sense of self, individuality, a soul, religion, God and the rest. All of these things are flowers on the ocean, they bloom in their time and pass away. 

As a person who has spent a lot of time working on magick and spiritual practice this pulls the rug out from under me somewhat. All the grades, titles, practices, even the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, itself the "image of an image", though important in their own place, are shown to be means to this end, not things to hold on to or to place great importance in. You don't wear skis to cross rocks, or climbing boots to swim in the sea. In the same way, magickal practices are useful in their own place. Qaballah can help order the mind, Goetia or the Abramelin can help bring certain things out or in to the sphere of the magician, yet a magician is only a worker of illusion, that is to say, he operates in the realm of form and concept, of means to ends, and on the lowest levels practical magick to improve ones lot in life. Yet while this remains the focus of practice it is a hinderance to a deeper view which can only really be arrived at when these things are put in their place and understood clearly. Not to refute them in a spasm of world denial, each level of existence has it's proper attributes, only to observe them in this universal perspective, as things that are part of the round of life and death, not things that can be held on to.

By practicing letting go, acquiescing to life as it is without trying to dress it up, or force it into any particular mold, it becomes possible to detach the attention from self, from the impermanent flowers that arise and sink back into the ocean, we become not victims of life, our lives a brief flowering in the sunlight, but willing participants in the dance, the eternal ebb and flow of existence. This can enliven whatever practice or observances we adhere to, because they then become expressions of this voidness, part of the dance and flow, we practice magickal ritual, or meditation, or even drinking tea or quietly sitting, and this is an expression of this eternal flowing and ebbing of the ocean of existence, we become one with it. This it not something to fear or lament over, not is it something to celebrate, it just is, and we can either work with it, or fight against it, and the person who strives against the momentum of the whole universe wastes his strength, even this effort is only a void flower.

Love is the law, love under will.

Inner Order grades 2: Adeptus Major (6○=5□)

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

While Crowley wrote extensively about the Outer Order grades, much less was written about those of the Inner Order. There are a number of reasons for this, one may simply be that he lacked material to fill out these grades. This is the cynical explanation, and while there may be some truth to it, I don’t think it is as simple as all that.

To elaborate, let us consider what it means to enter the Inner Order. The Adept has, by definition, obtained the experience called the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel (K&C of the HGA). This means that she has received her marching orders, and all further directions is not from her supervisor in the Order, but from the Angel itself. Since the K&C is entirely an individual matter, it becomes impossible to write authoritatively on what might constitute the tasks of the grades except in the most general terms. It then becomes the responsibility of the Adept in question to understand how her given tasks in fit onto her current grade work and implement them to the best of her ability in accordance with her own understanding. Ideally this would be done in collaboration with the supervisor, who’s job now is more one of observation and confirmation rather than testing by a set curriculum, but as often as not is an entirely private affair. Success or failure are thus matters kept between the Adeptus and her Angel, “under the shadow of the wings”, as it were.

With this in mind, the Adeptus Major can be generally defined as one who, having received their orders in Tiphareth, is thrown back into the thick of life to fulfil any and all requirements set forth by the Holy Guardian Angel. In my case, these tasks were first defined quite clearly. There validity was confirmed by the apparent ease of initiating the required steps. You might say that the Adeptus Major states her will, and then proves it by walking the walk. A false move will result in the Adeptus getting stuck until the course is corrected.

Technically speaking, there are three main tasks for the Adeptus Major grade. These are as follows:

·      Acquisition of the Siddhis.

·      Control of the Gunas.

·      Self-reliance.

The three paths to be followed are:

·      Kaph: The evocation of the mighty ones (10)

·      Yod: the absorption of the emanations (9), Liber DCCCXXXI

·      Teth: The protection of the Sphere (11), Liber O

It falls to each Adeptus Major to understand the grades in his or her own way, since language is mutable in its nuance and import, so I can’t make any claims to orthodoxy. This missive can therefore be taken as indicative of my approach, which may or may not be useful for others. To that end, while sticking with the general program, I have interpreted the paths in my own way, based on my own understanding of the paths and tasks of the grade. To do this I try to avoid jargon except to indicate where my ideas are drawn from. For this grade then, my keywords are as follows:

Equanimity (Kaph, The Wheel of Fortune)

The traditional image of this atu is the wheel of fortune, spun by an invisible hand. At its apex sits the sphinx, whilst the crocodile (Sebek) and ape (Babu) revolve on the circumference of the wheel. in direct terms, the task is initially to identify with the sphinx rather than the two animal faced gods, to find the centre around which the three gunas (Tamas, Rajas, Sattva) revolve. In the end though, we must bypass even the Sattvic quality of the Sphinx, which however clear, is still only a guna, it arises and passes away just as Rajas and Tamas, but must first be brought into balance. This achieved, the initiate passes beyond the cycles of being, consciousness and bliss inherent in the gunas.

For reference, Tamas is interpreted as ‘thick darkness’, lethargy, heaviness, dullness. Ignorance in the Buddhist sense. Rajas is energy, fiery, positive, forceful. Sattva is clarity, light, transcendence. They are equated with the Salt, Sulphur and Mercury of the alchemical model.

An important point. Both Sebek and Babu are humanoid, with animal faces. That is to say, their animal aspect is foremost, the ravenous Sebek, the wily and equally ravenous Babu. In modern Egyptology, both are regarded as devourers of the dead (make of that what you will). By contrast, the Sphinx is a human faced animal, representing the dominance of the reasoning faculty over the animal. Traditionally speaking, Sphinxes were a sort of inscrutable force themselves, waylaying travelers whom they would devour if they could not answer the riddle: “What goes on four legs in the morning, two at midday, and three in the evening?” It can do no harm to give the answer here, “A man”. It is my sense that understanding that this is man’s lot and acquiescing wholeheartedly with the conditions of our lives from cradle to grave, accepting our existence as the flowering of the universal consciousness, rather than behaving as if we were the victim of a cruel joke, is the real key to the riddle, the fruit of which is equanimity. 

Thus, sattvic awareness is brought into harmony with the other two gunas, and a clear awareness both of the samsaric state, and that which is beyond, yet inherent in samsara itself. Samsara is Nirvana, Nirvana is Samsara.

Self-reliance (Yod, The Hermit)

This path can be understood in a variety of ways. Pertinent to the Adeptus Major grade is the idea of a self-reliant being, directed by the inner light of the Holy Guardian Angel which is our ‘face before we are born’, (called in the Abramelin the ‘Bornless one’, i.e. the one beyond transitory things, who is in a sense zero, being Bornless. This idea resonates with my comments on the path of Kaph, being the Sphinx rather than a mere hungry animal strapped to the wheel of karma as a victim. The Sphinx remember is mercurial, Sattvic, master of the elements rather than their victim, a magician.

A key part of the Adeptus Major grade is that the holder shall convey the orders of her superior in the Order. In terms of the A\A\ as an initiatory Order, this means ensuring that those below her maintain the discipline expected of initiates, and that the system functions as a teaching body. It also includes ensuring that rules around inception of new candidates as well as the advancement of the brethren are upheld, and the teachings of the presiding Adept, usually the Preamonstrator, are duly conveyed and implemented. However this really only comes in to play if the Adeptus Major is assigned the role of Imperator, which may not be the case.

On the inner planes, in a way applicable to all who hold this grade, it is much simpler. The ‘Superior’, is the Angel, the Bornless face of the initiate herself, whose orders, which she received at the Knowledge and Conversation, must be conveyed to the lower spheres. The Adept thus serves as a conduit from Atziluthic to Assiah, herself operating theoretically in Briah, the archetypical plane, communicating via yetziratic forms, words, images, concepts understandable to those in the Outer College, and to the corresponding parts of her own being.

In the ordinary sense, this means that the Adeptus Major is to live her own truth, to be herself in all things, which is not the same as simply asserting herself unduly. This is, interestingly, the real meaning of humility, to be oneself, without ornament or elaboration, just as one is. Thus, as the hermit, the Adeptus Major should aspire to simplicity and humility, ruthlessly casting off all artifice and artificiality,  seeking to do her Will, and nothing else.

Grace (Teth, Strength/Lust)

This is the third task of the Adeptus Major, and the one which, when complete, leads naturally to the next grade of Adeptus Exemptus. My personal feeling is that Crowley’s interpretation of this path as ‘Lust’, while technically fine when properly understood, is too easily misunderstood, and omits an important lesson of this path, that of grace. It gives the impression of fiery and passionate activity, when in face Babalon riding the beast is ‘drunk on the blood of the saints’, therefore not in strict control, holding the reins lightly.

The traditional image of the Atu is a maiden gently but firmly holding open the mouth of a lion. She does this not by force, but by grace. This reflects the adage of the desert fathers, echoed in the Tao te Ching, that wild animals will not hurt somebody who is ‘pure of heart’, or in harmony with the Tao. This is identical with the idea in Thelema that the person who is doing their True Will has the inertia of the universe to assist them, which is the Thelemic interpretation of purity of heart. “Pure Will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is in every way perfect” Liber al I:44.

As before, we can see that this path represents a development on the ideas presented in the previous two. They can be seen as three strands of a rope which requires all three in order to be complete. The Adeptus Major must this, practice equanimity by accepting the conditions or existence as they are, must be self-reliant and one-pointed, following her True Will wherever it may lead without distraction, and third, must exercise grace in her dealings with the world and her path, not forcing things, but following the path as it unfolds without regret or fear. This is of course easier said than done!

To me, this grade above all others encountered so far, indicates a real change in the direction of the Adept. As an Outer Order magician, there is a sense that the initiate is wearing different hats at different times, learning a curriculum, practicing various skills as a student at a university might, but there is a sense of going through the motions, it is a course that you take, like a university course which you will eventually graduate. The adeptus Minor becomes a sort of Mystic by dint of the Dhyana known to us as the K&C of the HGA, a sense of certainty will ensue, doors will open and close, the path starts to open up, but this is very much the honeymoon period.

An Adeptus Major on the other hand has to has to strive at all times to live as a ‘man of the way’ in its real sense. His school is that of ‘hard knocks’, and the freedom obtained as a denizen of the city of the sun, soon shows itself to be a one-way ticket along the self-willed path that he will follow to its end, either joyfully or kicking and screaming, depending on how well she learns and applies the lessons of this grade. This really isn’t school any more, the Inner College grades are played out in the life of the Adept, and the rewards and punishments, the ordeals, are mandatory and real.

This is in some ways the most severe grade yet, suitably enough residing as it does midway up the pillar of severity. It brooks no argument, takes no prisoners, has no mercy on the adept should a moment of weakness arise. By accepting the grade, she must also bear its curse, to do her True Will and nothing else with equanimity, self-reliance, and grace. If one would be a saint, not one drop can be held back from the cup, you must give your all, or not at all.

Love is the law, love under will.  

The Spiritual Con

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

The spiritual game is like a burglar robbing a building. When the police enter the front door, he goes up to the first floor. When they go up to the first, he goes up to the second and so on, until theoretically at least he must presumably get up to the roof. Our qabalistic system reflects this, our goal is always the next grade up. If I am a Neophyte, I want to become a Zelator. If a Zelator I want to become a Practicus and so on. The presumed spiritual self, the core of one's being, is the robber, always one floor up. The initiate is the police sent to root out the robber, who always seems just out of reach, whenever you make it onto the next floor, there you are, and no robber in sight, he's gone up a level! 

We play this endless game with ourselves, and granted, we find some interesting things on each floor, some have fantastic views. Occasionally we think we get a glimpse of the robber as he disappears up the stairs. He may even leave a note, “you can’t catch me, but keep trying, just a little further”. For the most part, this game is an internalisation of the games we usually play in the world. The spiritual game is largely a sublimation, rather than a new activity.

If we look in other areas of life, we can see that we are always trying to play the robber to somebody else, we are always trying to get something. For some the prize is a new car, a high level job, fame and fortune, for others the prize is something hard to pin down but still just another prize; the knowledge and conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, enlightenment, siddhis, and so on. However, if we conduct our inner life as if we were out to get something then this is just an elaborate way of moving in circles. We don't really want to grow beyond ourselves, we just want to expand our idea of ourselves, make ourselves more real by adding a sublimated dimension, which we call our spiritual practice.

In social life, and the day-to-day life of business and work, this need to get ahead is always there. Except that there is more than one cop after the robber, we always want to be ahead of the other guy, to get the prize that he is too slow to get, we want to be the one that's 'got it'. Sometimes we behave as a competitor, sometimes a teacher, posing as guide or sage, demonstrating our wisdom or power, as one who inhabits the next floor up from others and therefore entitled to be listened to and respected. As somebody who has in the past had ‘students’ in the A\A\, I became aware of this tendency in myself and others; the need to always be one step ahead, just a bit more enlightened, a bit wiser than the student, have a closer link to the founder of the order, and thus superior, closer to getting the robber than they, always just ahead.

In the moral realm the same thing happens and is often mixed in with spirituality. Are liberal Christians better than conservative? My church is more accepting than yours, or more traditional, more 'old school', or closer to the original gospel, are common examples. In my foray's into the Catholic faith I noticed a strong tendency for self identified 'traditional Catholics' to criticize more liberal 'cafeteria Catholics' as being half baked and probably going to hell, while in turn being criticized for being hidebound by tradition and removed from the gospel. In Buddhism it is well known that each sect regards itself as superior for having a certain view. Mahayana is criticized by Hinayana adherents for its use of teachings other than those of the first Buddha, and Hinayana is often viewed negatively by Mahayana proponents with their sophisticated developments of the basic doctrine. Within our own system similar things happen: my lineage is purer than yours, has a more direct line to Aleister Crowley, or more 'orthodox', or conversely, my lineage might not have a clear paper trail, but we are the more accepting, the more liberal, less judgmental, or closer to the original ideals of the Great White Brotherhood. Claims to greater orthodoxy, greater originality, greater progressiveness, or more stringent examinations and testing criteria, or simply of being more serious Thelemites, all are really just ways of 'getting ahead' of the others, it's a con that we play on each other, and on ourselves. 

There is also the 'purity of aspiration' trap: as a purely ‘spiritual’ practitioner am I really any better than the guy who tries to use magic for material gain? In reality I and the guy using magic for material ends are really playing the same game in different arenas, trying in our way, to get ahead of the competition, to win prizes. We are always trying to be better, in some way, than the other guy.

While we often don't like to admit it, we think we are better than non practitioners because we play a spiritual game rather than a material one, we criticize materialists and those whose primary concerns are comfort in life. We have tried to go one floor up, like robbers, from Assiah to Yetzirah, from Yetzirah to Briah and so on. Really we are just playing the same old game of one-upmanship.

How then to undo this? I don’t think you can really, if you try to then you are liable to fall into yet another trap, the trap of being the most down to earth, grounded, rational and non-game-playing, then you start saying all sorts of terrible things about those who still appear to be playing the game of cops and robbers, and are therefore still inferior to you. It seems like a clever strategy, but once you've seen the robber in the mirror, it's hard to un-see it, and you realise that you can neither advance or retreat, and standing still isn't a possibility either. Deliberately remaining aloof from the game can also be no more than another game if we do it deliberately so as to not play the game, that is to say, if we do it with the objective of improving ourselves in our own or the eyes of others. The movement must be spontaneous, something that you can't get by trying.

 Having been 'on the path' now for while I am more than familiar with all of the tricks. I’ve used a good many of them myself, and probably still do. Even my pointing out how we are all hopelessly lost in this game could simply be another attempt to one-up the competition with my apparent self-awareness. There does seem to be a gap, a way out, action that is non-action, what Castaneda called 'not-doing', and the Taoists call 'Wu wei'. But how to practice this? Paradoxically, there are methods, or habits to acquire. I am still very much a beginner in this myself, but I hope to write a little about it in future posts.

Love is the law, love under will.