The moral obligation to defend the tradition

o

THE FOLLOWING is based on a comment that I wrote on another blog. It is a response to the usual tactics used by my detractors of placing themselves on a moral high ground. One such talking point is to deny the right of Traditionalist initiates, such as yours truly, to defend the honour of their Fraternity or anscestors when they are being maligned by post-modern initiates and even Chiefs of Reconstructionist Orders. They say it is morally wrong to question authors of books who uses their works as a political vehicle against the Traditional Alpha Omega current. With a patronizing polemic they also inform Traditionalist initiates that they cling to “terrestrial emotions” and that any “true spirituality” implies that one must be above such things (as defending the reputation and honour of the Fraternity) and only seek the “spirit”.

Let me first address the misconception regarding “clinging to terrestrial emotions”. Why does a person make such a presumption that a defensive behaviour always is rooted in Yesod, the automatic consciousness? When you project negativity on a person without any real reason, that often has its origin in Yesod. But the use of Severity don’t always have to be based on the “foundation” or the automatic consciousness. There is the concept also of the Severe or Stern aspect of the Divine, the “Left hand emanation” of God. An Adept may also invoke the Severity of God, or Holy Wrath so to speak.

In most pagan religions you will notice that the martial god or goddess also is part of the assembly of gods. Even the judeo-christian mythos has its martial Arch-Angel in Michael. Remember the great lesson of equilibrium in the Grade of Neophyte that “unbalanced force is evil, unbalanced mercy is but weakness, unbalanced severity is but oppression”. It stresses the fact that unbalanced mercy “would permit evil to exist unchecked, thus making itself as it were the accomplice of that evil”. Meditate on those words and you will see that sometimes it is called for to react with Force and Severity against an aggressor.

The other presumption is that is has to do with emotion in the first place. What if it has its true origin in spiritual principles? A good martial artist fights without passion and with fullest equilibrium in both body and mind. Although he may evoke the aid of emotion he still attaches it to a higher principle. This should be the aim, to unite the spiritual principle with the emotion as its throne or foundation. Besides, without “earthly emotions” or “passions” your will never reach the summit of the Great Work; it will dry up in intellectual abstraction and sterility. This kind of dualism (between body and soul, matter and spirit) isn’t fit for a student of the Royal Art.

Regarding morality and etics, it is true that it is always a question of spiritual morality and ethics, and especially in this context a question of morals and ethics of initiates. A true initiate neither reveres nor ridicules past brethren and sisters, especially past Chiefs of the R+C Order. A true initiate never profanes the records or secret documents of the R+C Order either, regardless of age. Neither does a true initiate deride nor deny the source of the Hermetic Tradition, i.e. the ancient Fraternity which protects the Tradition and acts as its Steward (what in the Golden Dawn is referred to as the Third Order). A true initiate has the DUTY to defend all of these points if any initiate or supposed initiate breaches them. It is not unethical to call such bad (read unmoral) behavior of a fallen initiate. It is not bullying (at a stretch it is as a “bullying of a bully”).

The Neophyte Obligation is quite severe on this particular point, and whatever I have expressed in the past in way of personal opinions 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 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.

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. Compassion is a very important part of being an accomplished Adept 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. Let me also 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.

Traditionalist initiates are not afraid to take up a battle against abusers of the Tradition or teachers abusing their students. We did this with Robert Zink and his New Age version of the Golden Dawn. We don’t fear to call the behavior of counter-traditionalists either who are trying their very best to undermine the existence of traditionalist Orders. We did not ask to be maligned in printing. We simply want to provide the traditional alternative to fast food spirituality of post-modernism, where everyone seeks immediate gratification of the needs of the ego. And we are being honest about it. This honesty is obviously to much for some individuals in certain quarters of the Golden Dawn community.

Will traditionalist initiates subject themself to these few voices of the community (which arrogantly has taked it upon them to represent the silent majority of it) and should they adapt to what in our post-modernist paradigm is deemed as accepted opinion-wise? I say: no chance! There are individuals that are seeking the true Light in this current confusion we call the post-modernist age. Thus there must be organizations which truly can present a viable alternative to fast-food spirituality for the post-modern soul in his genuine search for the that Light. Whatever the nay sayers state.

Update anno 2014-05-01
 
This blog post has been sanitised, corrected and merged with parts of another blog from 2011-06-16 which has been removed since its publication. I have retained this text as I still stand behind these words.

S∴R∴