Traditionalism further defined

o

After lot of contemplation I have finally decided to try to explain my position further, and also the underlying dynamics, in the wake of the current debate which has followed my previoius posting on this blog, and that of G.H. Fra. L.e.S.’ (or David Griffin’s). Peregrin Wildoak wrote a blog post that attempts to refute my position, taking a clear stance for and defending the militant reconstructionist advocates.

Because of the complex subject matter, and because of the nature of the different discussions that has going on since then, this following rebuttal touches on many varied subjects which I have grouped under different headings. The debate which followed after Mr. Wildoak’s blog post, on its comments section, reared a quite ugly countenance indeed, in the form of a choir hailing Mr. Wildoak’s and Mr. Farrell’s position and in certain instances flaming the traditionalist point of view. I will start off with addressing that particular inflamed debate.

The recent polemic

Since I actively joined the Golden Dawn Internet “community” in 2008 I soon came to realize that there was a great division between what I then referred to as “traditionalism” vs. “liberalism”. In an early blog post written in Swedish I concluded that there was little sense in trying to reconcile these two factions and that we all be better off minding our own business and leaving the other part alone to their own devices. But then for a while I tried to believe that there, at least in potential, was a chance of some form of tentative unity and mutual fraternal respect.

Sorry to say, that naivety of mine vanished permanently when I started to read Nick Farrell’s Mather’s Last Secret. Although I was outright upset by its contents (not counting the strong emotions surrounding the profanation of the rituals that I had performed with my Temple for the last one and a half decades) I tried to present a paper which had both a scholarly / historical and a magical ambition. I have come to realize that some individuals don’t agree with me that my review met these ambitions. Well that’s the best that I could produce. I made an argument against Mr. Farrell’s ideas and theories to the best of my abilities, sharing with you all my 14 years of magical experience with these rituals. I admit that I perhaps reacted a little bit passionately on one or two instances, of which I already have confessed in a honest and thorough manner.

Yes, I confess that I am a passionate person when it comes to things that are sacred to me. And yes, I did write ‘sacred’. Although the Golden Dawn and Hermetic Tradition is not a religion per se, it is my spiritual path of choice and that path is sacred to me like anyone elses path of choosing. Still I did nurture a hope that Mr. Farrell would post some kind of a more substantial and perhaps scholarly rebuttal than he actually managed to produce. He has clearly set the mark of how this so-called “community” deals with traditionalists like me. Fine no problem. Mr. Farrell has actually helped me in seeing the situation with much more clearer eyes now.

When he did react in this passionate way, I felt that I wasn’t obliged any longer to compose myself or hold back with my feelings. I also came to realize that I had been correct all along in my estimation of the “community” back in 2008. But now, Frater Barrabbas Tiresius had presented me (and the community) with a nice and compelling theory that could help me understand what I intuitively had felt three years ago. The term “reconstructionism” is quite new for me as well, but I immediately understood that it (as presented by Fra. Barrabbas) summarized my thoughts on the matter quite aptly, and in particular what I formely had referred to as “liberalism”.

But still, I don’t actually argue from a purely academic or anthropological point of view (which entails a dispassionate attitude) as does Fra. Barrabbas; I argue from a emotional and faith based position as well, as I cannot be anything but emotionally involved in my Tradition. The Golden Dawn Tradition, as well as the greater Hermetic Tradition of which it is a part, cannot be reduced to a strict academic discourse, at least not for an initiate like myself. It is after all a living Tradition, which best can be described as an entity. Early on in my initiatic career I was told that the Golden Dawn behaves as a jealous mistress; I belive it is a fair description. I am in love with her and thus cannot behave in a dispassionate way when it comes to our relation.

I do admit that it was me who invented the “Borg” metaphor in the first place, or that is was me who even made the first manipulated graphical image of Mr. Farrell dressed up in that cool Borg suit, but then again Fra. Barrabbas Tiresius has understood the underlaying psychology quite aptly when he later wrote that “the humor in this depiction…[is] done to deflect a real sense of outrage and anger, and I see that as constructive.”

Yes, I do admit that I have felt and are still feeling affected by this cabal. I feel affected by Mr. Farrell’s profanation of the secret and thus sacred contents of the Alpha et Omega rituals. I feel affected by his estimation of them (or rather of Mathers’s supposed “true” agenda behind them) as well in his so-called “analysis”. I feel affected by how he and in particular some of the commentators over at Mr. Wildoak’s blog have counter-reacted toward my honest reaction. To be even more honest, my stomach turned on itself when I read some of the comments there for the first time.

The fact is that I feel more fraternal bond with people in other traditions (inside as well outside of the strictly Rosicrucian / Hermetic community) than I do with the majority of the commentators over at Mr. Wildoak’s blog. It seems that I actually can understand and communicate with a traditionalist from an entirely different Tradition better than I can understand the mind of a post-modern Golden Dawn reconstructionist. But I also understand that this phenomena is actually beyond anything personal against anyone individual. The differences between me and the reconstructionists actually lies on the level of the paradigm, and in knowing this I have a much more willing ambition to let go of them and minding my own business; all I ask from any reconstructionist is to do the same, i.e. to let go of me as well and not actively trying to smash the very foundation upon which I stand (that is the still sacred and unprofaned parts of my Tradition).

Although I and any of the reconstructionist initiates might perform some of the rituals in common, this is a simple and superficial likeness. How I interpret what I do with these rituals, and the greater context in which I place them, is entirely different from theirs. Taken on the egregoric level of Temple work, these differences are even greater. Reading Mr. Farrell’s book side by side with my rebuttal in two parts (first and second) will make this quite apparent, if you take the time to do this.

Now, Mr. Wildoak accuses me of thinking in a dualistic way. But hey, we do live in a dualistic world where everything is placed in opposites on a scale. I know perfectly well that the goal of the Alchemist is to transcend all opposites. But before any reconciliation or union between the “dual contending forces” may be accomplished, we must first separate the two principles from the Prima Materia and subject this matter to the alchemical process of putrefaction in the Nigredo stage. That entails identification of the principles, in this case the reconstructionist and traditionalist paradigms within the Golden Dawn / Hermetic community. This is the present state of the community – the stage of Nigredo and Putrefactio! Don’t blame me for being and thinking as an Alchemist!

Mr. Wildoak and others also rear their warning fingers against me in my judgements of how they supposedly work or how they view the Tradition, or against any kind of labeling in the Golden Dawn community. Although I have never seen the interiors of Mr. Farrell’s Temples or anything of his organization’s teachings, I still am able to assess his attitude on the Tradition from whatever I have read on various fora, blogs and last and not least from his latest book. Based on that I regard him to be a reconstrutionist in my book, period – but perhaps his Order is not? Well, Mr. Farrell has on several occasions stated that an Order takes much influence to its egregore from its Chief and that he has (re-) constructed his Order according to his own preferences. Based on this information I have a clear opinion of his Order, in the context of this discussion. However I don’t expect him to use my definitions, at all. He has his own, i.e. “magical” vs. “Masonic”, which I don’t agree upon and the latter which I find as derogatory as anyone would find the label “reconstructionist”.

Furthermore, I have been studying and working actively with the “Golden Dawn Tradition” for the last two decades, and during some years now corresponded and interacted with many people and several Temples practicing the “Golden Dawn Tradition” outside of my Order. I believe I am quite qualified in analyzing a community of which I am part, regardless if some individuals in it believe that I am part of a group of initiates that are considered by them to be the “bad apple” of the community, that the latter could easily be without.

To summarize this dicussion, today I prefer to refer to these differences of opinion with the terms “traditionalist” and “reconstructionist”, instead of “liberal” (although reconstructionists do take liberties with my sacred Tradition). The latter group I also refer to as “post-modern”. I believe that you may read enough in between my latest blog post and the ones by Fra. Barrabbas Tiresius, and what follows, to gain a quite clear definition of these terms.

That said, I don’t dislike nor do I disrespect any “reconstructionist” Temple or Order, if they don’t stoop down to the level of Mr. Farrell’s book Mathers’ Last Secret. It is this latter kind of behaviour that I strongly oppose in my latest blog posts and it is this kind of behaviour that I refer to as “Borgish”. And I want to emphasize what has already been said by G.H. Fra. L.e.S., that we don’t regard Nick Farrell as actually being a Borg (they are fictional for God’s sake!), but we regard certain of his actions comparable to how the Borg behave in Star Trek universe. We have to make a distinction between the man and his actions; this is basic psychological and behaviour science.

And as with all metaphors, they are not always optimal. I agree that the assimilation aspect of the Borg may be a bit improper to describe the behaviour of militant reconstructionism; they are not interested in assimilation, they simply want to destroy the very foundation upon which traditionalism stands (i.e. to profane and academically analyze). However, I do believe that reconstructionism may be compared to a contagion which has infested the Golden Dawn community far too long. It is that which I am trying to address, with (I admit) some provocation. I have also described why reconstructionism is so dominant in the community quite aptly in my recent blog post.

Reformation vs. reconstruction

There also has to be understood that reformation is not at all the same thing as reconstruction. Reformation is actually part of the Rosicrucian Tradition, which is supposed to adapt itself to the contemporary cultural context of its time each 111 years. But a reformation is always done with due respect towards the past, with the sights aimed at the future, and also guided by the Third Order or at least by Tradition itself. The original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was in fact the fruits of such a reformation in 1888. Exactly 111 years earlier the Rosicrucian Tradition reformed itself in 1777 to adapt itself to the contemporary Freemasonic frenzy. Exactly 111 years post 1888 our traditionalist Order chose to adapt the tradition in 1999 to meet the current “post-modern” or “reconstructionist” state of the community, in which so much had been profaned. With this we also made available even more older Hermetic and Rosicrucian traditions than that of the Golden Dawn for our Adepts in the Second Order.

Compared to most Golden Dawn organizations our traditionalist Order doesn’t fix itself only to any particular “Golden Dawn Tradition”. It also views the greater context in which that “Tradition” was “created”, especially tracing its roots back in time and Tradition. This is the very essence of traditionalism, to regard older traditions as purer and in most cases also better. Thus the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Outer Order of Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega®, is properly speaking a traditionalist Rosicrucian and Hermetic Order, not a “traditional Golden Dawn order” (whatever that may be).

Traditionalism isn’t the same thing as being a history reenactment group, trying to be true only to how things were done back in 1898; that is being a historical Order stuck in time. Traditionalism instead tries to retrace the steps all the way back to the origins, back to a Golden Age in an effort to present the essence of that Age to the modern man. Even the name “Golden Dawn” in the Hermetic Order refers to this, and to that General Reformation of mundane and divine things which tries to restore the world back to its spiritual and cultural roots; the very essence of the Rosicrucian manifestos.

Alchemy is by traditionalists as myself regarded to be the uniting language in various different traditions that have laid down the foundation to whatever the “Golden Dawn Tradition” later became. When working on the level of our Third Order, things are unchanged and eternal when it comes to Tradition. Only the Second and First Orders are subject to reformations and adaptations. But the source behind these must remain pure and unchanged for the lower Orders to be able to change and evolve. There is no contradiction in this actually.

Unfortunately, traditionalism is often conflated with Puritanism. Some modern (and reconstructionist) Temples proud themselves in presenting a pure “Golden Dawn tradition” purged from any “foreign” practices. Some even excel themselves in purging it from the use of the “foreign” Eastern Tattwas, etc. This is not traditionalism at all. It is Puritanism, which has many similarities with historical reenactment. In the comments section of Mr. Wildoak’s blog post we have seen examples of this strange notion expressed through the opinion that “if you practice only Golden Dawn technique in over two decades, that makes you a traditionalist”. It seems no-one wants to label themselves as “reconstrutionist” and that everyone regards themselves to be “traditional” Golden Dawn magicians.

Well check again. The Hermetic and Rosicrucian Tradition has always been open in integrating or assimilating other traditions. The Gold und Rosenkreutz Order merged with the seemingly foreign Freemasonic tradition in 1777. A decade later the Asiatic Brethren merged with the seemingly foreign Sabbatian Qabalah of the Frankist movement in Poland. In 1888 the Golden Dawn, which was a direct descendant and continuation of both the Golden Rosicrucians and the Asiatics, not only incoporated some seemingly foreign Eastern practices but also parts of the Martinist and Egyptian Freemasonic, as well as Royal Arch Freemasonic, traditions; the very nature of the Golden Dawn project was eclecticism, i.e. to try to unite various different sub-traditions of the Western Esoteric Tradition. One such typical example was the ambition to merge John Dee’s quite foreign system of Angel Magic with the Hermetic Qabalah, according to some for better and according to others for worse.

I have a hard time believing that the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn of W.W. Westcott and S.L. MacGregor Mathers, and later the Alpha et Omega under MacGregor Mathers, regarded themselves to be a “Golden Dawn Tradition”; they surely enough regarded themselves to be a Hermetic and Rosicrucian Tradition, their particular organization or reincarnation calling itself “The Golden Dawn”. Today many Golden Dawn groups nurture a bizarre self-image with has quite autistic or isolationist tendencies, which separates itself in absurdum towards other traditions, be it Hermetic or not. This they regard as being “traditionalist”.

Well, let me tell you something: some very traditionalist initiates regard the Golden Dawn Tradition, as it was manifested back in 1888 and 1892 (and in most cases still stands today), as a deviation from the true Tradition. We find an expression of this tendencey in the modern revival of the Salamonic Grimoire Tradition, which tries to retrace Ceremonial Magic from post-modernity and back to its roots. And when you try to fit older and more traditional teachings into the Golden Dawn paradigm, such as Alchemy, not by changing the Golden Dawn system but by changing the original Alchemical Tradition itself, then I certainly agree with these traditionalists. The Golden Dawn, even if it takes part of it, is not a perfect and most true representation of the Hermetic Tradition; its founders back in the 1890’s, even if they were the two most qualified British initiates of their generation, made several errors that needs to be corrected and checked against much older sources.

Traditionalism is not at all autistic nor does traditionalist fraternities isolate themselves to the contemporary esoteric community in which they work; traditionalist Orders are conscious of their particular sub-tradition’s roots and history, but also of other contemporary sub-traditions (which has roots back in history) to adapt itself to its times. They regard all these sub-traditions sharing the same root-tradition. Thus the Western Esoteric Tradition has never been hostile toward its Eastern brethren’s Oriental Tradition. On the contrary. I suggest looking up what the historical Sincerus Renatus wrote in his The True Preparation… about the Rosicrucian brethren finally leaving Germany for India, or regarding the alchemical significance placed to Indian topography and fauna in The Book of Lambsprinck, etc.

However, I do not equate reconstructionism with puritanism / reenactment either. What I said above is that some reconstructionist Orders also are puritans; not every Order. I don’t consider Mr. Farrell’s or Sam Webster’s organizations, to take but two examples, as puritan reenactment camps. On the contrary, I regard them to be both reconstructionist and reformatist. As a matter of fact there are even traditionalist Orders that act as puritans, perhaps because they have lost touch with their traditionalist source and therefore feel forced to cling to whatever they have left, because they are afraid to change anything without higher guidance. I can understand this prudence amongst traditionalists, but this may also easily develop into fundamentalism as well and keeping things as they once were to the letter.

The B.O.T.A. (of which I have personal experience) I find as a typical example of a traditionalist puritan society; they used to have a connection with their traditionalist source (i.e. “Master R”), or so they claim, but since the death of Ann Davies some of their initiates state that they have lost this contact and nowadays are afraid of changing even one letter from the courses written by Paul Foser Case or Ann Davies, or to reform their initiatic structure, etc. This may also have been the case with the Whare Ra Temple during the last years of its existence. I suppose also that some reconstructionist Temples or Orders (perhaps of the non-militant variety) become puritan as they in a similar manner don’t trust their own personal intuitions or inner guidance in reforming the tradition. So the term or label “Puritanism” can be attached to either a reconstructionist or traditionalist Temple / Lodge / Order. Whatever the reason is for being a puritan, it often leads to rigidity, dryness and uncreativity.

Scholarly debate

And now some words regarding scholarly debates before I proceed with Mr. Wildoak’s critique. The fundamental attitude of traditionalism is quite simple: The Golden Dawn Tradition, or any other genuine Rosicrucian Tradition, should never had become the subject of academic research in the first place. But because of the profanations that repeatedly have been made during the last century by various individuals (initiates and non-initiates alike), it has unfortunately become a subject of outsider study, also in the academic world.

Reconstructionist initiates have eagerly jumped on this bandwagon and published their own works, some quite good and some quite awful. Thus sometimes even a traditionalist Order must put out something to set the record straight from its own paradigm-point-of-view. This is exactly what happened when Mr. Farrell published his latest book. This however doesn’t mean that traditionalists as myself are willing to debate matters sacred to us and secret for an outsider meeting scholarly criteria set by reconstructionist scholars.

Our Tradition is supposed to be experienced in a traditional and hermetically sealed Temple setting, not through some book in the armchair. I believe the most sensible comment made at Mr. Wildoak’s blog was when someone said that we should all leave the Internet and go back into doing our Magical Work. Damn right! We shouldn’t even be discussing this here at blogosphere at all! Instead we should all try to excel ourselves in providing top notch initiations and first class instruction for our members. I know that this sounds extremely archaic or antiquated, but then again I am a Traditionalist criticizing the post-modern esoteric community in which we are working.

Tradition vs. post-modern reconstruction

In his blog post Mr. Wildoak briefly explores the traditionalism of René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon and Ananda Coomaraswamy, emphasizing the “philosophia perennis” of the traditionalist school, which according to Mr. Wildoak holds that Tradition ultimately is transcendent and beyond the temporal, having its ultimate sourced in the divine. This perennial tradition expresses itself to humanity and becomes manifest in temporal existence via religion or spirituality. It follows, says Mr. Wildoak, that each religion and each temporal spiritual tradition is based on the same transcendent source and the same metaphysical principles. But then he also criticizes the traditionalist school for their antipathy towards modernity. Well, in my opinion, that is the actual essence of traditionalism that he is arguing against, that it regards the ancient cultures and their philosophy as more pure and thus truer compared to the post-modern society, from a spiritual sense.

Traditionalism goes in direct contradistinction with modern and scientific – Marxist materialist dialectic – interpretation of history. Instead traditionalist philosophers see different ages or aeons moving in fluctuations, from a peak or zenith down to nadir and back to the peak again. These peaks represent the “golden ages” while the nadirs represent the “iron ages”, if using the ancient Greek terminology, or “Kali Yuga” if using Hindu. This was the central thesis of Julius Evola (see picture), which was perhaps the most brilliant, and also the most controversial or notorious because of his radical and reactionary opinions, of all traditionalists. However few people know that besides being a scholar of tradition and contemporary society, he was also a true initiate and practicing alchemist of the Hermetic Tradition.

I personally adhere to this traditionalist analysis of history. In the context of this present discussion this also makes it imperative for a traditionalist to keep his Tradition in connection or close proximity with the supposed Golden Age of that Tradition and thus to preserve its purity. He sees it as important to never loose track of its earliest history, where gold is to be found, to be able to steer towards the future. The Third Order represents this Golden Age of the Tradition which always oversees it and its current manifestation in the Outer Order.

In the way of the initiate, in the context of the traditionalist Order as reformed in 1999, he or she initially encounters the modern form of the tradition in its First (or Outer) Order, such as presented in its current contemporary context (as for example the modern British occult tradition) through various published litterature. Thus today, the “esoteric” tradition of the Outer Order is in all practical concerns actually exoteric. Somehow most occultists have forgotten the original definition of the word “esoteric” and now given it a new (and reconstructed) definition, whatever that may be. For a traditionalist esotericism actually means secret teachings hidden from the pale of the outer world, in the literal sense.

Now, when the initiate enters the Second (or Inner) Order he or she not only experiences a more detailed exposition of the usual R.R. et A.C. material, but also a pre-modern (that is pre-Golden Dawn) version of the Rosicrucian and Hermetic Tradition, through the Theurgical and Alchemical formulae as typified in the Rosicrucian currents of the 17th and 18th Century. As these latter traditions still are mainly reserved for closed or semi-closed collections or libraries, and at the most have a very limited circulation outside of a small circle of scholars and initiates, these older Rosicrucian, Hermetic and Alchemical traditions in all practical concerns can be considered to be esoteric, or at least semi-esoteric, in certain aspects of the teachings. However, there are forces that has the ambition to publish also these older forms of the Tradition, in the wake of the 1999 reformation and the debates that has followed since. Be there as it may, the Adept nowadays also encounters a Tradition steeped in a form presented several Centuries prior to the modern magical tradition that he or she has been accustomed to through various private studies and published books.

When the initiate finally enters the Third Order he or she experiences the unspoiled and unsullied original form of the ancient (and pre-Rosicrucian and pre-Freemasonic) Hermetic Tradition of the Egyptian and Sumerian cultures (i.e. the previous Golden Ages of the Occident). These teachings, partly transferred orally and taught by example, is truly esoteric by the original meaning of the world. So, in conclusion, the way of the initiate can, in a traditionalist Order, be likened to the work of an archeologist. I fear that in reconstructionist Orders the way of the initiate goes in reverse, towards a yet more modern and recent interpretation / extrapolation of the Golden Dawn Tradition as previously presented in published litterature.

Regarding philosophia perennis I fully embrace that model of thought as well. But here we must understand that in many cases, such as between the Hermetic, Qabalistic, Gnostic, Trantric and Daoist Traditions, Alchemy is the common language (the language of the birds) that actually unites them all. Alchemy is the proto spiritual tradition which is behind many (if not most) esoteric as well as exoteric creeds and teachings.

Furthermore, what is yet behind this Alchemical proto-tradition or universal language is the Shamanic Tradition. I developed these thoughts in my previous blog essay on historical research and anthropology. If anything, the various Shamanic traditions spread all over the world have a common archetypal form which unites them all together; this uni-form is what I refer to as the Shamanic Tradition (in singular). All spiritual traditions and techniques derive from this atavistic form of spirituality. Alchemy is a direct descendent of Shamanism and the next logical step. From this Hermeticism, Tantra and Daoism emerged which refined the Tradition further.

The Hermetic Tradition further states that all the Alchemical Traditions of the world have a common source in a cultural and geographical sense, not only in a spiritual one. I won’t go into much detail on this last account as my obligations prevents me, but I only wanted to state this so that the reader understands that philosophia perennis not only can be reduced to a spiritual and inner sense, but also be understood in a outer and inter-human / cultural context as well.

I am fully aware that I have absolutely no, or at least scarce, academic and scholarly research that can back up this proposed temporal view of philosophia perennis. But being an initiate of the Hermetic Alchemical Tradition and reading books such as David Gordon White’s The Alchemical Body makes this quite evident for me. The more I read about Tantra and Hatha Yoga, etc., the stronger is my conviction that this premise of a common Alchemical Tradition behind all spiritual esotieric traditions is true. I’m convinced as well that all exoteric theologies and religious practices have an esoteric origin; thus Alchemy is the uniting language of all spirituality that has proceeded beyond the shamanic phase. Thus, it is not uncommon to find Christian metaphors in classical alchemical texts. Even the great Master Fulcanelli used them extensively to describe the process of the Great Work, as well as trying to prove that the old cathedrals preserved old alchemical imagery.

Accusations of antagonisation

Mr. Wildoak further states that to him it seems that I am using (or exploiting) the writings of Frater Barrabbas on reconstruction and tradition to promote a dichotomy where traditionalism is seen as ‘good’ and reconstructionism as ‘bad’. I admit that I would have preferred if the Tradition wasn’t profaned in such a way that it has been in the past and present, to be picked up by non-initiates, which has created this mess of a situation in the first place. I also openly admit that I strongly oppose any further profanation made by modern initiates in the name of scholarly resarch; that looks as the typical behaviour of reconstructionists.

That said, I have in fact come to terms with the current situation created by ex-initiates such as Aleister Crowley and Israel Regardie. I have also fully accepted that Temples are being created without any formal authority or lineage, besides what is empowered in the published works of former initiates and the personal magic of the founding Chiefs. I even recognize the lone and hard work made by solo practitioners of the Golden Dawn Tradition.

Furthermore, I also try to help any of these independent “Regardie based” Temples, as well as self-initiates, to the best of my ability and time limits. Thus I don’t regard reconstructionists themselves as “bad” per se, at least if they are being found in or forced into this position involuntary and at the same time trying to uphold the hallmarks of our Tradition, including the veil of secrecy. I do believe that there are involuntary reconstructionists that sooner or later start to act and think as traditionalists, believing in the myths appended to the Tradition, and even trying to dig back into pre-Golden Dawn forms of it in their effort to work the higher Grades and beyond the published literature (which ends at the level of Theoricus Adeptus Minor). Some of them even struck “gold” in their research and actually attach themselves to the living Tradition, receive genuine initiation and thus become or transform into full fledged traditionalists.

Though, let this be clear once and for all: What I am strongly opposing, and openly admit viewing as “bad” in the truest sense of the word, is the behaviour of militant reconstructionists. I have named them so that there is no doubt as who I’m talking about, to prevent any confusion and misattribution. I don’t want anyone to believe that I am accusing them of anything which they actually doesn’t deserve or that I am confusing them with people who does really deserve it.

Severity and Mercy

Mr. Wildoak, although recognizing the humour factor, not only opposes the label “reconstructionist” being put on anyone, but also strongly opposes of me and G.H. Fra. L.e.S. having graphically identifying these individuals (Mr. Zalewski and Mr. Farrell) with the Borg, “the most implacable of enemies within the fictional Star Trek universe” to use his own words. Other than me being offensive he cannot see any other motivation behind these actions “since they, along with ad hominem comments, seem designed to attack the person and not simply critique the ideas people promote”. He furthermore holds that I have breeched “basic fraternal and academic courtesy” and cannot understand “why it is not shown by Adepts as advanced as Magister Templi”.

I can only speak for myself, from the not so exalted position as that of Magister Templi or the 8°=3° Grade. Yes, I admit to using humour in this way to publicly condemn the actions or behaviour made by these gentlemen, which I have indentified as being the hallmark of militant reconstructionism. I have personally felt deeply offended by Nick Farrell’s book Mathers’ Last Secret. I do consider it as being an attack on the integrity of both the historical and current revived incarnation of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. The deliberate and tasteless character sniping and ad hominem attacks against MacGregor Mathers’ person (which we respect in the A∴O∴ for being our original founder) is outright insulting to read by any Alpha et Omega initiate.

Even though the rituals performed by my Temple are not at all verbatim or faithful carbon copies of those as published in Mathers’ Last Secret, there are parts in these that has now been deliberately profaned, which has until now been beyond the pale of the outer world and that truly have had an exclusive empowering effect on the particular egregore of the Alpha et Omega. Doesn’t anybody surmise that this offends me or any initiate of our Order deeply? No-one has even considered why I or G.H. Fra. L.e.S. has reacted in this way. No-one, besides Fra. Barrabbas Tiresius, even tries to understand. Instead people, obviously biased against the Alpha et Omega and politically motivated, has reacted against our honest and in my opinion quite adequate reactions.

If I may use another metaphor, it’s like accusing a victim for being abused by the perpetrator. Damage has been done to the Alpha et Omega egregore through this willful profanation, even though it isn’t irreversible and our egregore surely will cope with it, not the least because it is being backed up the Third Order. But to express my personal deep disappointment I have resorted to using humour in channaling my feelings. As being a victim of this kind of conduct, I evoke my right to express my feelings in this way. In my opinion Mr. Farrell has crossed the line of what is expected from any initiate and offended the very principle of the foundation upon which the Rosicrucian fraternity rests. The Neophyte Obligation is quite severe on this particular point, and whatever me or G.H. Fra. L.e.S. has expressed in way of personal opinions on our respective blogs pales in comparison to the last paragraph of that sacred obligation, and in particular the sentiments of a profaner being:

…a willfully perjured wretch, void of any moral worth, and unfit for the society of all right and true persons…

Remember that these are not my own words but the words that expresses traditionalist opinions regarding the breach of our sacred vows of silence. I am certainly not the right person to administer judgement on Mr. Farrell’s soul, or on any profaner, in this severe manner as that expressed in our obligation. But I do not only have the right to feel offended by this kind of conduct, I also have the right to express my own feelings if being treated in this way. And this I have done according to my own ingenuity, transforming these feelings into humour in various blogs. But now I’m beyond any humour; now I express my feelings in a straightforward and honest manner.

The Neophyte Ceremony teaches us to check against unbalanced mercy, as well as against unbalanced severity. In my opinion, Severity should in most circumstances be directed towards one’s own self and behaviour, in checking the Evil Persona. But there are rare moments when someone other than yourself acts in a way in which Severity is the only adequate measure to be used against that kind of destructive behaviour. I have made a judgment call and decided to use this principle of Severity against the current actions of the militant reconstructionists. And considering the behaviour expressed by them, I believe that my Severity is quite tempered. Regardless of any exoteric Christian sermons made against my conduct, I consider my spiritual integrity to be intact.

Compassion is a very important part of being an accomplished Adept, as has been pointed out, but this doesn’t mean that Adepts should act as milksops, devoid of any courage to stand up for their beliefs. Remember what Jesus did at the Temple, against the money makers, profaners, etc, for God’s sake! Christ came to this world holding a sword in one hand and his heart in the other, or to quote the Master himself from Matthew 10:34:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

Christ not only brings Love but administers Judgement as well. That is the image of Christ we as Adepts should emulate. When someone slaps me on the right side of my face, or the side of my compassion or love, I will turn my other or left cheek (the side of my severity) against him instead. I say this because in an attempt to admonish me to better my ways Mr. Wildoak has been kind enough to quote that famous sentence from Jesus’ sermon at the mount, as presented in Matthew 5:38-39:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

What has stricken me as odd with that statement, which exoterically is interpreted as a pacifist credo, is that if you read the rest of that sermon Jesus actually talks about the completion of (not resistance against) the commandments and presents more extreme interpretations that goes far beyond that of the letter, for example:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say to you, That whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.

This whole subject becomes more understandable if Master Jesus’ words are placed in its historical and cultural context. Notice that he says that if someone slaps you on your right cheek you should instead turn your left to him. These “left” vs. “right” directions are crucial. For a right handed person to strike you on the right side of your face, he has to use the back of his hand. The social mores of Jeusus’ times dictated that an upper cast member could only strike those of subservient with a backhanded blow. To do otherwise would be to acknowledge them as being equal in social standing; turning the other cheek was to leave your aristocratic attacker with no target to strike. Thus in this context Matt. 5:38-41 sounds to me as a form of passive aggression against social injustices:

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Both these actions would actually ridicule the abuser, i.e. critically challenge the relation between the master and his servant. Only rich people sued their neighbors, not peasants. When any member from the privileged class sued someone poor the aristocrat could only claim his cloths (the only thing he owned), leaving him with his underclothes. Jesus says to also give them your underclothes, i.e. to strip yourself naked, so that you would publically shame not only the suer but the entire caste system. Soldiers were also allowed to conscript civilians to carry their packs, but not more than one mile. For a peasant this of course could have disastrous economic consequences as that ruined one whole day of work. Going two miles brings ridicule on not only to the soldier but to the entire system as well. It also has certain humoristic undertones. Thus humour and ridicule is a good way of expressing and channeling aggression, says the Master.

However, a kind soul also reminded me of the Qabalistic theory, stemming from the Sepher Zohar, about the right and left sides of Godhead, the right being the side of Mercy and the left the side of Severity. Thus, in the context of an esoteric reading, Jesus is actually admonishing us to behave severely against our aggressor, invoking the left hand emanation of God, i.e. that force which is represented by the Hiereus, his Sword of Severity and Judgement, and the Banner of the West in the Hall of Neophytes. This is exactly what I am doing here. Capish?

Christian metaphor running amok

Speaking of Christian philosophy, unfortunately Mr. Wildoak has also misinterpreted or misattributed my use of the Christian metaphore that I used in my previous blog post, i.e. the Catholicism vs. Protestantism likeness. With the latter I was actually addressing Lutheranism and Martin Luther’s vision of a reformed Church; I believed that this was quite obvious with me posting the image of Martin Luther besides the image of the Pope that excommunicated him.

I certainly don’t address the modern evangelical sects that have emerged since the 18th Century, and especially during the last two Centuries, such as the Church of the Latter Days Saints or the Jehova’s Wittnesses, etc. I used this metaphor to address the issue of Alpha et Omega vs. the Stella Matunita, and that both were traditionalist bodies. Instead Mr. Wildoak tries to conflate the terms “protestant” with “reconstructionism”, obviously ignoring what I have actually said.

What I actually said was that not only the “Catholic” but also the “Protestant” Church is traditionalist, i.e. based on the traditions of the past. Martin Luther even tried to reform the Church back to its original roots, and thus acting as a true traditionalist, rejecting his contemporary Catholic Church as diluted and perverted with its worship of Saints, etc., straying too far from the original and thus traditional teachings. Peregrin aslo uses the “Pope” metaphor to ridicule my Order and in particular to insult my Chief, who remember is a pagan adhering to the tradition referred to as l'Arte Eccelsa, commonly known as Stregheria, that has been experiencing severe persecution from the Pope’s own inquisitors.

I already said from the very beginning that me choosing this metaphor was a bad idea, but I certainly didn’t expect that it would be mis-used in this way and my original meaning twisted beyond recognition. As I said, I’m emphasizing the spirit of Ecumenism and not any deranged ideas expressed by the current Pope. Granted, I invited the reconstructionists to use graphical humour and metaphors against traditionalists as myself, as long as it was used with a good sense of humour. To be honest I was expecting this to be directed towards my own person as it was me who started to use the Borg metaphor against the reconstructionists in the first place. Besides, likening G.H. Fra. L.e.S. with Pope Ratzinger doesn’t show any sense of good (if any) humour in my book. Instead Mr. Wildoak could have identified me with any of the Pope’s Cardinals; that would have been more fun. After all, I was born and raised a Catholic. But you have to admit that Catholic priests aren’t any way near as cool as the Borg…☺

And just to make it clear once and for all, so to prevent any further misunderstandings and misrepresentations regarding this issue in the future: There cannot ever be any “Pope” of the Golden Dawn. We cannot undo over one Century of separation between the different Orders. What we can have though is a (con-) federation of independent initiatic fraternities, in which all the different Chiefs sit as equals at the table round. This has been done in the past between other Hermetic and Rosicrucian bodies and can be done again between the different Golden Dawn orders, although my Chief is much more optimistic about this concept than myself. Books like Mathers’ Last Secret don’t particularly contribute to the spirit of Ecumenism in the Golden Dawn community. And to even imply that I am advocating a “papacy” in the Golden Dawn community doesn’t help that either.

Regarding the higher mysteries of the Tradition

When it comes to the belief in the Secret Chiefs or the possibility of a real Third Order acting behind the traditionalist Order, Mr. Wildoak simply regresses and says that as long as traditionalist Orders cannot provide any proof – well aware that their traditionalist stance on the sanctity of obligation and secrecy prevents them – there cannot ever be any real debate about this. That which is a reality for the traditionalist will continue to be a myth for the reconstructionist, and for the militant reconstructionist a dangerous legend. Regarding the teachings supposedly stemming from the Third Order or which has its direct origin from the core of the Tradition, Mr. Wildoak writes:

I know various groups hold, and some claim to hold, bug fucking amazing techniques. These are all fine and dandy and I am blessed to have received many myself, but ultimately there is enough out there already for the sensible magician to use. Most Orders have gone way beyond claiming they alone hold the essential techniques for transformation and even the equivalent cannot be found elsewhere. Though some still claim to have ‘the fastest’ processes…

I don’t know what advanced Alchemical techniques (that is more advanced than Golden Dawn style Theurgy) Peregrin actually has received or is addressing here, but regarding the Western Esoteric Tradition there definitely isn’t enough out there as he claims, far from it. If he means Eastern (which I suspect that he does, taking into account other discussions I have seen with him) yes there exists Hatha Yogic, Tantric, Tibetan and Daoist techniques (such as those proposed my Mantak Chia and various modern yogis) that definitely can enhance the work of a Ceremonial Magician. But a Western Hermetic Order should present Occidental techniques of Internal Alchemy for Hermetic initiates, don’t you think? The fact is that there actually exists a living Tradition of Alchemy in Europe.

However, in a typical “Golden Dawn” manner Mr. Wildoak cares less or at least tries to downplay on the significance of this discovery. Contrary to what he believes, these higher mysteries are generally available only through traditionalist Orders that – remember – draws their existence and inspiration from the core of the Tradition. And with this I’m not at all only referring to the Order which I represent but to several European fraternities that are legitimate trustees of these higher Hermetic mysteries. The fact is that many of these techniques as taught through these initiatory bodies have no match in their Eastern counterparts. Thus the Hermetic Internal Alchemical Tradition is well worth preserving, and traditionalist Orders (such as Ours) has taken upon them the task to do exactly this.

Conclusion

As expected, Mr. Wildoak do not want to be associated with anything “un-traditional” and thus questions the validity of any such division that I have presented. In doing so he evokes philosophia perennis in the sense of something which transcends anything human created or temporal traditional and reaches for the true essence behind all symbols and traditions. As much as this is a valid approach, this still expresses a half truth from the viewpoint of a traditionalist who claims that there is also a primordial manifested (or human) tradition that has been passed on since the times of ancient Sumer and Egypt and is visible through both the current Occidental and Oriental traditions, which I have already mentioned, united in a common Alchemical sub-context. To have access to the keys to unlock the Alchemical significance of exoteric as well as esoteric symbolism you have to receive genuine initiation.

Tantric schools are proud about their unbroken line of initiators (lineage), as is any traditionalist Hermetic Order. The idea that through continuous practice of Golden Dawn ritual and meditation on its symbolism you may reach to these keys all by yourself is a reconstructionist (or post-modern) idea, as for example expressed in Mr. Farrell’s Mathers’ Last Secret and as examplified through the works of Mr. Zalewski.

In the same manner Mr. Wildoak believes that I somehow regard Tradition as static and unchangning when I support the division between traditionalism and reconstructionism. No traditionalist questions the principle of change (which in fact is one of the universal principles stating that “everything moves, nothing stays still”). However the traditionalism that I (and my Order represents) also state that this can be likened to the revolving wheel; you experience most movement at the rim in contrast to the hub which almost seems to stand still.

In Mr. Wildoak’s explanation of philosophia perennis the hub represents God or the All, while the rim represents all human made and temporal traditions. Again this is a half truth as the image of the wheel may be applied to the living and practiced tradition as well. In the Golden Dawn context the rim represents the Outer or First Order, while the hub represents the Third Order; the Inner or Second Order may be likened to the spokes of the wheel. Thus traditionalist Orders as ours do claim that there exists a preserved and unchanged tradition (hub) that has survived since ancient Egypt, which has used different outer vehicles for its semi-public manifestation (rim).

This idea is not a “myth” but constitutes concrete reality for a traditionalist initiate. The Golden Dawn is but one of these outer rims. Thus in reality the Hermetic Tradition can bee likened to a great wheel where each spoke represent the lineage that manifests the particular part of the rim that constitutes one of many different rim parts (Orders or sub-traditions) which share one and the same hub. To make that likeness even more colourful, we can paint each spoke in its unique colour (in the rainbow scale) to separate the different sub-traditions between each other, the rim being black and the hub white (see picture at the head).

Here again we must make a separation between reconstruction and reformation, the former (in the best case scenario) being motivated by someone acting on a Second Order level of understanding (but still from the limited understanding of that particular sub-tradition), represented by the spoke, whereas a reformation is supposed to be guided from the Third Order level of understanding representing the hub of the wheel.

That said, I don’t want to invalidate anything modern and (re-) created on the level of Second Order understanding, through the personal magical efforts of any Adept. That also constitutes a important part of the individual work of an Adept which also may become valuable for the Order, reconstructionist or traditionalist alike. However, the traditionalist Order distinguishes between any personal intuitions or revelations made and the original tradition that has been passed on since antiquity from initiator to initiate. Any personal revelations have to be checked against this true measuring stick of Tradition for it to have any use in the greater context of an entire Order’s teachings. And even thus, most of these revelations coming from individual Adepts cannot be anything more than “unofficial” teachings, in the same spirit as the Whare Ra Temple distinguished between the different categories of documents being handed out. Let me again quote Rubaphilos Salfluere:

The kinds of material that were given to W. R. initiates were of three kinds ... (1) core (virtually orthodox) lectures and rituals, (2) additional written material that was both official and unofficial, and (3) oral. The core documents were of a similar kind that many GD students would be familiar with from Regardie’s publications. ‘Traditional’ instruction, if you like. The additional material (2) was entirely non-traditional, and was composed of all kinds of information, some technical and some almost casual.

And with this last quotation we have reached a full circle and the ending of this particular essay / rebuttal /refutation / or whatever… Thank you for taking the time in reading and I hope that you now will understand or at least try to understand my true motivation in the recent blogging. Perhaps I am expecting to much but hopefully things will now settle so that we all, traditionalists and reconstructionists alike, can move on doing that what we do best – initiate candidates into our glorious Tradition!

S∴R∴