From tyagi Mon Oct  2 01:43:14 1995
Received: (tyagi@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) id BAA27857; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 01:43:13 -0700
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 01:43:13 -0700
Message-Id: <199510020843.BAA27857@jobe.shell.portal.com>
To: tyagi
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.magick.moderated,talk.religion.newage,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.christian
Subject: AA Interview 1.0 (LONG; THELEMA)
Followup-To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick
Approved: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (Xiwangmu)
Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (Xiwangmu)
Status: RO

49951002

Do as you please. 
_________________

Interview with an AA Member 

      Edited by Xiwangmu  (approved for public release by AA1)
     __________________________________________________________________


Preface

'The AA' is a topic of discussion among Thelemites (typically associated
with Aleister Crowley and his legacy of magical writings and organizations).
Its rather shadowed profile and the widely varying expressions concerning 
it and its relationship to esoteric bodies has been of some consternation 
to many an researcher of the arcane.  

In the hope that some small amount of light might be shed upon not only
this topic but upon any organization which might lie behind it, I am
conducting a series of interviews with people who claim to be members
of the AA or to have a special relationship with it, usually depending 
entirely on their honesty in the face of my queries and what they may
take it to be.

As most or all of these interviews will be conducted with people who will
remain anonymous, the reader must rely upon the honesty of this reporter
and my faithful rendering of the text given by the AA member in question,
passing it several times through an editing process which may make some 
parts of the conversation not only quite complex but somewhat abstruse.  
May we find palatable the fruits of our perseverance and exposure.  

Xiwangmu
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
_________________________________________________________________________


INTERVIEW WITH AA1


[AA1 begins speaking about the various documents written by Crowley....]

 Lets see... there is Liber XIII, Liber 185, and many of the order
 documents are published in MiTaP and the Equinox. Also, the back of Book 4 
 part 2 has the requirements of a student and a probationer in this 
 organization.

 What are you getting at, AA1?  I understand that these documents 
 exist.  Where in them does it indicate that the AA is a physical org?
 I claim there isn't a statement within them that indicates this.
 Now I ask you to disprove my statement.

 What do *you* think is required of a physical org?

 I think that in order for any AA to be legitimate, judging from 
 what I've read, it must have some manifestation in the physical plane.
 With this I have no quarrel.  However, I am not at all certain that 
 it has the extent of manifestation which would be called 'an order' 
 by human standards, as I tend to equate it directly with the Great
 White Brotherhood (GWB).

 What I think of it does not matter.  My claim is about Crowley's 
 assertions.

 So this is more of a definition thing. Whether the "order" Crowley
 describes is an "order" by your definition.

 Not exactly.  I want to know what, if anything, does exist which 
 associates with the AA.  AND, I'd love to be shown someplace where 
 Crowley legitimizes any organization as the AA.  And by 'organization' 
 in the last sentence I mean a physical, human chain.  Or a regular 
 human org (order), if you like.  I haven't seen that with COT/TOT either.

 ok.... two things: first... "something that ties the A:. A:. 
 to the physical plane"... how about the "neophyte word"....

 Elaborate please.

 This is something that does not affect your attainment in any way 
 to not know, but is important to link you to the order.  It is a word 
 in the initiation ritual (_Liber Pyramidos_) from prabationer to neophyte 
 that is only known by A:. A:. members

 Hearsay.

*AA1 laughs.  Well it is at least worth considering until you know otherwise,
 and my 2nd point: look at page 239 of _Magick in Theory and Practice_
 (_Book Four_, Dover, 'MTP'), where he goes through a bunch of administrative 
 stuff about not going to the next grade until your student has attained 
 behind you.  Also he talks about a "grand neophyte" who seems to have very 
 real physical duties.

Cited:
#	"No attainment soever is officially recognized by the 
#	 A:.A:. unless the immediate inferior of the person in 
#	 question has been fitted by him to take his place". 
 
 In other words, even if the person has "attained" to the position of 
 Magus, he or she will only be recognized by the *order* as a Magister 
 Templi until he or she has found a successor.

 Additionally, on p 230 of the same book (MTP),

Cited:
#	"Certain swindlers have recently stolen the initials 
#	 A:.A:. in order to profit by its reputation."

 and on page 122 of _Magick Without Tears_, (Regardie Ed, Falcon, 'MWT'), 

Cited:
#	"...the A:.A:. concerns the individual, his development
#	 his initiation, his passage from 'Student' to
#	 'Ipsissimus'; he has no contact of any kind with any
#	 other person except the Neophyte who introduces him,
#	 and any Student or Students whom he may, after becoming
#	 a Neophyte, introduce."

 This, at least, gives reason to believe that someone can't just decide 
 that he or she is member of the A:.A:. without a sponser of some sort.
 To me, at least, these taken together argue quite well for Crowley 
 believing that there was a physical order.

 Ok.  This gives reason to severely scrutinize any org which lays 
 claim to the name.  He might have said the same thing about the GWB.
 Yet you seem to be saying that Crowley claims to have founded the AA.  
 If he FOUNDED it, why wouldn't he state it flatly?

 He does, in _Liber LXI_ (Regardie Ed., _Gems From the Equinox_,
 Falcon, p. 10).  Actually he says it was founded by VVVVV and VVVVV 
 initiated OM, DDS, and an unnamed 3rd to the upper triad.  
 OM => Crowley's 7=4 motto; DDS = George Cecil Jones' 7=4 motto.

Cited:
#	"29. Also one V.V.V.V.V. arose, an exalted adept of the
#	 rank of Master of the Temple (or this much He disclosed
#	 to the Exempt Adepts and His utterance is enshrined in
#	 the Sacred Writings.

#	"30. Such are _Liber Legis_, _Liber Cordis Cincti
#	 Serpente_, _Liber Liberi vel Lapidis Lazuli_ and such
#	 others whose existence may one day be divulged unto
#	 you.  Beware lest you interpret them either in the
#	 Light or in the darkness, for only in L.V.X. may they
#	 be understood.

#	"31. Also He conferred upon D.D.S., O.M., and another,
#	 the Authority of the Triad, who in term have delegated
#	 it unto others, and they yet again, so that the Body of
#	 Initiates may be perfect, even from the Crown unto the
#	 Kingdom and beyond.

#	"32. For Perfection abideth not in the Pinnacles, or in
#	 the Foundations, but in the ordered Harmony of one with
#	 all."

 (note that the whole document is given to probationers as a history 
 lection about the foundings of the A:. A:.).  The "preliminary lection" 
 talks about the GWB and the idea of "attainment" as a general phenomenon. 
 The "History Lection" then goes into the establishment of a "new" system 
 of attainment called the A:.A:., with the entire current initiated by
 VVVVV. To quote the "Curriculum of the A:.A:. in III:1:

Cited:
#	"(_Liber LXI vel Causae_) explains the actual history of 
#	 the origin of the present movement (i.e. the A:.A:.)."

 From a logical position....  If you need a "teacher" to be in the 
 A:. A:. which is stated in all the oaths, etc.  Then that teacher must 
 have also had one.  Taking this back to its extreme....  If VVVVV started 
 the A:.A:. (as in Liber 61), and initited Fraters O.M., D.D.S., and an 
 unnamed third.... then someone claiming to be a member of the A:.A:. 
 must be able to trace their lineage back to one of these three.

 IFF, true.  Why must that teacher also have had a teacher?

 So they could have been let into the order in the first place :>
 With the only exception being VVVVV who started the order.  Well this is 
 the order that Crowley seems to be talking about

 What is 'the Authority of the Triad' in v. 31 above? And what 
 *possible* meanings could it have?

 the three supernals.... if he calls the A:. A:. the highest grade 
 as well as the name for the entire order, then it could be that.  This 
 wouldn't be uncommon since the Golden Dawn was the name for the lower section 
 and the entire order. He could have been playing off that by naming his org 
 after the highest order instead of the lowest. Though in "One Star in Sight",
 Crowley is careful to call the upper order the "S.S." and not the A:.A:.

 Could it also mean that he 'brought them across the Abyss'?

 Sure; The "authority of the A:. A:." so to say :>

 So it is possible that he simply means that he initiated them into 
 the Magister Templi Grade?

 Sure, and if you take what he said from One Star in Sight (OSiS), 
 then this makes sense...;  on page 233 (MTP) he states, 

Cited:
#	"Members of the order (i.e. the S.S.) are each 
#	 entitled to found orders dependent on themselves 
#	 on the lines of the R.C. and the G.D. orders...."

 And
#	"All such orders must, however, be consistuted in 
#	 harmony with the A:.A:. as regards the essential 
#	 principles."

 This order created by Crowley/Jones/unnamed Third can therefore be seen as a
 single system of attainment that Crowley called the A:.A:., and the A:.A:. as
 an order was therefore only created when Crowley and others crossed the Abyss.

 Now I must make myself clear here.  What I am attempting to ascertain
 is whether Crowley specifically states that there is an 'official' AA.
 This would separate it distinctly from the potentially-physical GWB and 
 the Body of Christ (BoC: Body of Christ, similar if not same concept.  
 Christian mysticism, likely from where all this was stolen to begin with).
 
 Given that it is possible that he initiated people into an order 
 he claims was the AA....  what evidence is there that that Order 
 exists?  AND what evidence is there that you have contacted it?

 Not to mention, what evidence is there that Crowley ever made contact 
 with said Chiefs?

 The Problem: 1) The Body of Christ (BoC/AA/GWB) is a mystical concept.
 2) A large part of that mystical concept includes the great potential 
 for people who are in these respective bodies not to know they are 
 members, not to know that they are initiates.  3) To claim that any 
 particular social organization 'is' that body is somewhat difficult 
 to substantiate, as well as it is extreme in its content.

 Crowley identified the AA with the GWB.  Both the GWB and the BoC 
 have similar characteristics.  Part of this being that people can 
 be teachers without having been students.  Students without ever 
 knowing it.  I am not saying that a social AA is impossible.  Just 
 that Crowley formalizing it amounts to what I'd call a 'severe 
 restriction of the power of his formula'.

 To have it be *a* manifestation of the AA would be very reasonable.
 But then I'd like to find out as much as I'm able about it to determine 
 its source.  Not about what Crowley said, but about the physical org 
 as it stands.  So should I ever run across anyone who claimed to be 
 involved with a manifestation I would wish to know the source as clearly 
 as possible.

 And why did Crowley distinguish between the 'SS' and the 'AA'?  
 Also why did he write near the beginning of OSiS (MTP p. 230):

Cited: 
#	"A glimpse of the structure and system of the Great White
#	 Brotherhood."?

 First off, to my knowledge Crowley never called the A:.A:. the 
 BoC, and therefore I find it problematic when you try to assert that the 
 BoC, GWB, and A:.A:. can just be used interchangably. Secondly, I think 
 you are making a big jump when you use GWB and A:.A:. interchangibly as 
 well, even though Crowley called the A:.A:. a manifestation of the GWB. 

 For example, Crowley claims that the OTO continues on the lineage of the 
 Knights Templar. I agree with that, but that does not mean that you can 
 just say that the Knights Templar and the OTO are the same group. 

 Additionally, if someone who had the "Knights Templar Degree" in 
 Freemasonry decided to claim to be part of the OTO, that person might 
 soon find himself in court.

 Crowley also calls the A:.A:. a "Rosicrucian" organization. That does 
 not mean that the A:.A:. does the same things on a physical level as 
 the "historical" Rosicrucians, nor does it mean that any of the hundreds 
 of organizations calling themselves Rosicrucians can therefore also call 
 themselves A:.A:.

 The way I always saw it through reading Crowley's documents was that Crowley 
 was offering a system for attainment. He never says it is the *only* system.  
 By calling it the GWB, he could be saying one of two things.  He could either 
 be saying it is the one and only GWB, as you maintain (I think) or he could be
 saying that it is *a* system of attainment and therefore the GWB (believing 
 that ALL valid systems of attainment are the GWB).

 As for using S.S. instead of A:.A:. in OSiS, I can think of tons of reasons
 that would not necessarily imply a "metaphorical" society. The simpliest of
 them being that he just didn't want to confuse people.

 My impression (colored by many years and bias) was that he identified 
 them.  I think his writing about the AA is mystically perfect.  It admits 
 of both metaphorical meaning (personal application for a specific contact 
 directly from the Secret Chiefs (as Crowley himself claimed if I am not 
 mistaken) OR a literal meaning (social application for a specific 
 contact directly from one of his lineage as he lays it out in Liber 61).

 To claim one OR the other is, to my mind, an error.  But I wish to know 
 about any who have claimed either within their lives.  Now my understanding 
 is that the COT/TOT are 'in service to' the AA, and this could imply EITHER.
 I.e. either a literal or metaphorical interpretation.  I have pressed 
 people from their orgs on this and I continue to get relative silence 
 (admirably).

 However, most others who've claimed association with 'the AA' don't have 
 much to tell me that isn't hearsay.  I think that hearsay is valuable, 
 mind you, especially if the confidante be trusted and says what she knows 
 and what she cannot express to me and why.

 What do you think of this assertion re: metaphor/literate?

 I agree with your assertion that the AA is mystically perfect and 
 that it had at least a metaphorical connection with the secret chiefs.
 I think that all valid systems of attainment do and thats what I would 
 call the GWB.

 I meant that Crowley's description has a metaphorical REFERENT, as 
 well as a literal one.  That his text describes the GWB and the BoC as 
 one approaches it from an individual standpoint, interacting directly 
 with a Chief who is not physical AS WELL AS describing a *potential* 
 social org.

 And this social org may be composed of people who don't know anything 
 to seed a conscious organization of physical humans (as was his 
 egotistical and perfectionistic bent).

 What thereafter I need to know from anyone who claims that they have a 
 connection to 'the AA' is what kind of 'AA' is it that you are connected 
 to and what evidence you have for your presumptions.

 But I would argue that this describes the GWB perfectly, and the 
 system that Crowley set up with all the grade curriculums and the oaths 
 and whatnot are the A:. A:., which is the GWB in one form.  

 Do you really believe (or think Crowley believed) that the grade 
 curriculums and the oaths he created for the A:.A:. was the only way to 
 attainment?

 Yes, I think he fabricated them perfectly such that they were mystical 
 formulae which reflected metaphorically upon the various stages of the 
 Journey.  At least they appeared to me to reflect what I'd seen described 
 of the GWB and also conformed to my own experience of this org.

 I agree.  In my experience people have meant two things when they 
 have said that. Either they come from a tradition that traces itself back 
 to Crowley, Jones, and unnamed guy, (and follow all the tasks prescribed 
 in the system), or they just follow the tasks without being able to trace 
 themselves back to Crowley. But in both examples they are following an actual
 system (not a metaphorical one).

 There is another option.  More than one, actually.  1) That a person 
 has secured a relationship with a nonphysical Secret Chief, whom I refer 
 to as a 'Celestial Master', for example,  OR, 2) that one is unconscious 
 of the fact that they are in the AA, the mystical and unorganized GWB 
 of Case.

 But do you think that the GWB can only be joined by following the 
 instructions Crowley set forth for the A:.A:.?

 Yes, but they are like the 8-fold path of Buddhism.  So ambiguous as 
 to be applicable across the strata of the spiritual realm.

 The A:.A:. is just a single mnifestation for this. On one level 
 AA = GWB, but only so much that ALL systems of attainment make up the GWB.
 On another level though, the A:.A:. is a path for attainment. I don't 
 think Joe Shmoo is automatically a member just because he says he is. I 
 don't even think the Dalai Lama is a member of the A:.A:. (though he 
 might be :>).

 Its the difference between calling someone a Buddha and saying they are a
 Buddhist. You are affirming that all systems of attainment eventually arrive 
 at the same goal, but this is different then specifically saying what system 
 so-and-so followed to get there. So therefore, when Crowley calls Blavatsky a
 Magister Templi, he is not saying she is a has used the A:.A:. system of
 attainment, he is instead affirming that all systems of attainment eventually
 lead to the same place and is putting her attainment in terms of the A:.A:.
 grade structure. Thus the Dalai Lama might well be an ippsissimus, but he is
 not a member of the A:.A:. Crowley might well be a Buddha, but that doesn't
 mean he is a Buddhist, etc.

 Actually, I think it is comparable to when I say that the only way to 
 learn is with the Scientific Method.  There are TWO things going on: a
 single manifestation, religious Buddhists, materialist modern scientists,
 and CJAA members; and a transcendental process: the esotericist/buddhist,
 the true scientist, and GWB/AA members.  These latter are all names for
 the same energetic 'initiates'.

 But, as you say, "there are TWO things going on". I'll try to make 
 myself a bit clearer with a question.  Do you agree that the A:.A:. is 
 reflected by the order documents as written by Crowley and presented in 
 the Equinox 1, etc.?

 I agree that Crowley's sight was clear as far as I know these 
 documents, especially with regard to the METAPHORIC, NONPHYSICAL AA, yes.

 Ok.  Well then do you think the GWB is limited to people taking 
 oaths and such as are prescribed in Crowley's documents? Do you think 
 it is limited to the instructions of practices that are in the documents?

 The GWB involves people taking oaths, yes, but these oaths may not 
 be consciously acknowledged.  My understanding of the oaths which I have 
 seen is that they are accurate to my experience of the Order and what 
 I'm told about it.  I figured we'd get to the 'oaths question' sooner 
 or later.  Suffice it to say that my understanding is that 'oaths' also 
 participate in this 'metaphorical meaning' as compared to a literal 
 meaning.

 Yet, if this is true, why set them out in this form. If meant on 
 a metaphorical level, these oaths would limit the aspiriant by placing
 unnecessary limitations on him or her.... if only in just the fact that 
 he or she doesn't have free reign to write the oath as he or she sees fit. 

 Whereas, if the A:.A:. is a physical organization, then the oaths are 
 taken because of a certain system of attainment that you have found it 
 your will to align yourself with. Also, when the oaths tell the aspirant 
 that he or she can leave the organization at any time he or she wishes, 
 it seems more in line with the requirements of a physical organization 
 then a metaphorical one. Why leave the organization if it is metaphor 
 for attainment itself? Once won, can true attainment ever be lost? 

 This idea seems supported even more when you notice that some of the 
 oaths tell the aspirant that during these grades he or she should *not* 
 leave the order. Why allow it sometimes and not others if it is all 
 a metaphor?

 Hey, slow down. :>  First, I think, as has often been said to me in
 OTO, that discipline (of various forms) is an important part of the path,
 whether this is designed by one's accepted teacher or by oneself.  Some
 people need the rigidity of feeling 'compelled' to perform, and this is
 one reason why oaths such as you describe would serve some (the ones who
 need a physical org) but not others (those who are more self-motivated
 and/or already have a connection to the nonphysical AA).

 Second, the 'oaths' that you are talking about are quite vague in their
 statement, issuing mythical and important proclamations of will.  You
 are in error to state that the *oaths* tell the aspirant about leaving
 the AA (at least within _Liber Collegii Sancti_; Gems, pp. 1109-34)). 

 Those are the *Tasks* of the Grades, which precede the Oaths proper.
 Be that as it may, I don't see why severing one's association with a 
 *nonphysical* AA is any more unlikely than with a physical org of the
 same name but wider scope, and besides these writings are by *Crowley*.

 That is, they are his expression of the GWB as I understand it, perhaps
 translated into an 'Outer Order' (as I've defined previously).  Your
 question about allowing withdrawal at some points and not others may
 well point to a very important part of what Crowley thought the metaphor
 to be.

 I agree with a lot of your last paragraph. The A:. A:. is an 
 expression of the GWB as Crowley understood it.  He set this down with a 
 series of oaths/tasks and created an entire library of documents for his 
 order.  That does not mean that the A:.A:. and the GWB can be used 
 interchangably, anymore then it means the AMORC and the Golden Dawn are 
 interchangible (being two separate orders which claim to represent the 
 Rosicrucians). 

 As for whether or not Crowley conceived of the A:.A:. as a physical org, there
 is a quote I've been trying to find for you all night (I know its a footnote
 somewhere in MiTaP).... maybe you remember where it is.  It refers to 
 attainment in the A:.A:., and says that someone might well have attained, in 
 fact might for all intents and purposes be a Magister Templi, but if they have
 a nervous twitch and can't sit still they will never pass their Neophyte 
 testing on Asana.  And therefore never be recognized in the A:.A:. as being 
 any higher irrespective of their "true" attainment.

 Yes, I remember that.  There is still a metaphorical referent possible,
 though I admit that there is a possible literal interpretation and 
 application.  I have never denied a possible physical and social application 
 of Crowley's words.  I have just never come upon anyone who was able to 
 describe for me their experience in such an org with credibility.

*Mu does not desire to believe any such thing, but is interested in what you 
 claim about your connection to the AA proper.  I'd prefer it if you were 
 quite precise.  Saying exactly what you know from experience, saying what 
 you have heard from your superiors, etc.

 I don't know what exactly you want to know.

 Ok, then I'll phrase it in specific questions.

 ok, though I'll say now that I don't know how much I can say that 
 will convince you either. Its not really something I'm interested in, 
 since it is something I joined for my own attainment and not to prove 
 to people or brag about. I'm willing to tell you that I'm in the A:. A:., 
 but I don't really know how else to convince you short of sending you 
 copies of my signed oaths.

 I consider my work in it of the most personal nature to myself, and 
 since I can't tell you who my immediate superior is (at least I think it 
 would be impolite without asking), then I don't know how I can prove to 
 you things about it that do not deal with a personal level."

 Just answer my questions and I'll be satisfied.  I've not had any of 
 you AA folx sit still long enough to do this, which is hilarious in itself.

 Ok, go on then.

 You say that you are a member of the AA.  True?

 Yes ...with the understanding that I am refering to the A:.A:. as
 the entire system of attainment described in OSiS, and not the third order
 which, in that text, is entitled S.S.

 How is it that you have come to this membership?  Through personal 
 contacts?  Via snail mail contact?    Random delivery? :>

 I wrote to the person (I will find out, but I'm not sure if he 
 minds if I just tell you his name).  Via email, it's quicker. :)

*Mu hopes to make this conversation public, so perhaps his name wouldn't do.
 Wow, email.  Ok, and then what happened?

 And then I was sent some material about the org, including my oath, 
 and I signed it.  Via snail mail.... its more official. :>

 So this is a 'by-snail-mail' initiation?"

 Yup.

 And you never met your initiator?  Physically or in cyberspace?

 Initiation in the AA is very different then the OTO... it is more 
 like going from 4th grade to 5th in elementary school.... it doesn't really 
 say much other then you've finished the work from the grade before. Some
 intitations involve a physical initiator, and some don't.

 Yes, GD-style.  I think I understand.

  I guess becoming a "student of the mysteries" is seen as 
 completing the work necessary to even get to that point.

 Ok, did you have to do anything to qualify for that initiation?
 What did you do that qualified you for what grade(s)?

 Once again, initiation is "qualified for" by completeing all the 
 work of the grade before it and passing the tests satisfactorily. 
 Apparently, to become a student, the work and tests are actually finding 
 the order and deciding you want to join.

 Ok, and are there successive grades beyond the first grade?"

 See Liber 13 for the qualifications for the other grades.  It tells 
 quite a bit in there.  Beyond student, there is probationer, neophyte, 
 zelator, etc.

 Ok so they go along Crowley's described lines?"

 To my knowledge.

 And do they give written tests? I.e. via snailmail to you?
 Or how do they ascertain that you've done the work?

 Tests are of all sorts.  For example to become a student, I 
 didn't have to pass any real written test.

 Right.  You found the org.  But what about after that?  I should 
 also ask, what grade are you presently?

 That's not important.  Even if it is, its something I don't feel 
 I'd like to disclose. :>

 I'd rather not talk about specific work, since for me the  "silence" 
 encompassing that is very important.  It's important for me magically 
 at this point.

 Ok.  Fine.  What other types of tests have they given you in order 
 to qualify for your next grade?  Besides written?

 I'll try to tell you everything I know about the order, which, as 
 you can read yourself in the oaths at the end of Gems, is a very important 
 part of the A:.A:..... but I find that separate from telling you about 
 my personal work/tests.  For myself I draw a distinction between 
 "secrecy" and "silence".  This first relates to the strictures of an 
 entire order and the second is a decision made personally. I don't  
 believe in "secrecy", but I sometimes find use in "silence". 

 Ok, how do you know that you've encountered the AA and not some 
 people who merely claim it for their benefit (and possibly yours)?
 Were any claims made about the lineage (i.e. of O.M. or D.D.S. or 
 whatever)?  Or even association with Crowley?"

 Because I asked the person before I joined.  I also have been told by 
 outside sources (outside of this particular branch) that it was.  In fact 
 that is how I found out about it in the first place.

 Told by someone reliable?  'Being told' is kinda ambiguous.

 Someone who I consider reliable.  He was told by a member (head?) 
 of another branch which doesn't claim to be decended from Crowley, but 
 does claim to do all the same work.  It would seem to me that this person 
 would have nothing to gain by saying someone else is descended from 
 Crowley's lineage if the person isn't.

 Ok, it seems that's as far as I'm gonna get with specifics about 
 legitimacy.  My other questions have to do with why you've given me the 
 responses you did.

 Why do you think that retaining secrecy about the person and your work 
 and the tests is valuable to you, or to the org or to me?

 To answer why I've given the responses I did, they are the best answer 
 I know how to give at the present. They describe the A:.A:. to the best of 
 my knowledge of it.  I'm trying to follow a sentiment that is shown in 
 all the oaths published in _Liber Collegii Sanctii Sub Figura CLXXXV_.

*Mu nods, not assuming otherwise.

 As for why secrecy, its valuable to *me* on many levels.  First off, it 
 makes sure I don't begin to work within the A:.A:. for reasons that are not 
 solely for my own personal attainment.  I.e. that I don't start wanting 
 degrees for some sort of imaginary prestige.

 Secondly, its for a very basic psychological reason. Its like YHVH, if 
 the word was said every day, it would be nothing special right now. Since 
 the word was keep hidden, it is considered a word of "great power". 

 Similar connects can be drawn with words like love.... If I tell someone 
 I love them everyday, then the word tends to become less and less meaning 
 for to hear, yet if I never say it, then it was a great effect when said. 
 The same with personal magical work. It seems to hold greater psychological 
 effect to someone who keeps it to him or her self.

*<(Guest)> thinks telling someone you love them everyday makes it more 
 powerful.

 Perhaps. I've had the opposite experience.  I find my self searching 
 for words that even surpass "love" when I say it too much.

 Have you taken oaths that bind you to secrecy regarding these 
 particulars (tests, works, teachers, etc.)?

 Nope.

 If you were to tell me about them would your instruction/membership 
 be terminated?

 Not to my knowledge.  In fact, even Liber Resh is expected to be 
 done with your grade sign, even when you are *in public* as Crowley 
 states in MWT.

 If you were to find out that the org/teacher with which you've 
 become associated was a fake, would it matter to you?

 Yes and no.  First, I'm still uncertain about my position on 
 whether groups that follow the A:.A:. curriculum, but don't have lineage, 
 still have the right to use the name "A:.A:.", but is a lot more.

 My reason for joining the A:.A:. is that in all my experience of searching 
 through systems, this seems to fit what I'm looking for the best.  Whether 
 its called A:.A:. or not is irrelevant to me.  Its what it does thats 
 important.  So perhaps I wouldn't call it the A:.A:. anymore, but it would 
 still be a useful system to me. 

 There is a second point.  I'm not sure about this, but I'm guessing that 
 there are a lot of unpublished instructions that Crowley passed down with 
 branches. An example of this is the adoration said after Liber Resh, which I
 know exists. Whether I ever see this or not is irrelevant to my attainment, 
 but its something that would, at the very least, satisfy my intellectual 
 curiosity. If the org I belong to suddenly said it was not part of the A:.A:.,
 I might be disappointed for the reason given above, but it would *definitely* 
 be something I could live with.

*Mu grins.  Do you mind if I post this conversation to Usenet?"

 I'd like it if you sent me a copy of the cutting you make of this 
 (considering all the netsplits and whatnot) before you do just so I 
 can see it.   Assuming I'm satisifed that everything is in the right 
 place, then sure.

[We subsequently sent the file back and forth through four editings. 
 I have left everything within AA1's text as he edited it.  - Mu]

 I'd be happy to pass a copy of the text through you prior to posting.
 Do you want your name to appear in it, or even more, your noncyber name?

*Mu offers the temptation of fame to AA1.

*AA1 laughs.  I'd rather not, but its something I need to think about. I'm 
 not "ashamed" of anything I said, I just think that its not important.  It 
 also misses the focus of the discussion which is one person's view of the 
 A:.A:. to the best they see it. This could be any person, and every 
 inititate will probably have a differnet view.

 Oh, I see . :>  Well, I'd be happy to make you 'AA1' if you like.  
 Then perhaps it would turn into a series."

 Sure.

 AA1, thanks for your time and honesty.  I think that many people will 
 benefit from your willingness to take chances with addressing such 
 questions as I've asked you.

 I hope what I said at least gives you some information you didn't 
 have before.

 It does.  I've only heard intimations regarding social orgs called 
 'AA', and I've done damn little study of the subject.  Mostly because 
 I didn't see it was worth my while.

 I guess I really like the system, and I figured I might as well 
 join, even if I have to learn "in spite of" my teacher :>  Though ideally 
 Crowley always said there such be as little contact with the "teacher" 
 as possible, as that has seemed true to me so far in my exprience.

*Mu gives AA1 the signs of departure and honored respect.

*AA1 returns the sign

*Mu terminates the log.

========================================================================

Free love, right now!

Mu

----------------------------------------------
1995 (C) nagasiva, tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com

All rights reserved.  Publication electronic
may be carried out so long as no money exchanges
hands, this copyright notice remains intact, 
and all reasonable efforts have been made to 
secure the most recent edition of the document.