The exoteric vs. the esoteric Golden Dawn

A LEADER of the counter-traditionalist “Golden Dawn Community” recently asked for textual evidence that S. L. MacGregor Mathers in fact had been in communication with the Secret Chiefs in the form of written letters from both MacGregor Mathers and presumably Lux e Tenebris. Not only has this leader taken this question out of its proper context and into an entire different field. He also betrays his profound ignorance of how esoteric orders are supposed to be worked. 

He wants to study academically that which cannot be studied academically, i.e. the existence of the Secret Chiefs and their Secret Collage. He wants to read letters written by them addressed to MacGregor Mathers. He will never be satisfied in this respect though as MacGregor Mathers was very clear about the fact that he communicated with them only in person, either in the physical or astrally. It wasn’t like they kept minutes from their meetings and such.

Instruction from the Third Order is always orally conferred. You only have your own notes and whatever you are able to remember in your head to rely on, something that must never come to the knowledge of the profane and in particular fall into the hands of academic scholars. Never. Period.

This was also the supposed intention of all proceedings in traditional esoteric Orders such as that of the Golden Dawn and the Alpha Omega. All personal notes were supposed to be returned on command and at least after the death of the initiate. Non of the G∴D∴ or A∴O∴ corpus were supposed to fall into the hands of academic scholars. In a similar manner, initiates shouldn’t substitute their status as initiates with that of being academic scholars, as the post-modernist generation of Adepts has succumbed to.

The moment that the G∴D∴ and A∴O∴ curriculum became published it was a grave error; something that was never supposed to happen. The Golden Dawn is not as Freemasonry or any of its bodies, including the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia (S.R.I.A.). Freemasonry (and the S.R.I.A.) represents a exoteric initiatory tradition. Historical research thus comes naturally within their own circles and most jurisdictions have research lodges. Freemasonry doesn’t represent a secret organization although their rituals are supposed to be.

The Golden Dawn and Alpha Omega once represented an esoteric initiatory tradition. The Order itself was supposed to be secret and all initiates prohibited to even mention its existence. The existence of the G∴D∴ and A∴O∴ was made semi-public (as with the Gold und Rosenkreutz Orden and the Asiatic Brethren) because they needed to attract a larger circle of members than they had previously, but beyond some ambiguous notes and references in occult magazines and publications, nobody was supposed to know what the words “Golden Dawn” or “Alpha Omega” actually meant or represented. The moment that Aleister Crowley, and soon afterwards Israel Regardie, profaned the G∴D∴ material, it became a exoteric tradition, to be treated as any Freemasonic body.

The irony of it all is that the author that I have reviewed here on this blog, Nick Farrell, who makes a dichotomy between “magical” Golden Dawn and “freemasonic” Golden Dawn, in falling in line with profaners such as Crowley and Regardie, is making the Golden Dawn even more Freemasonic, open to academic scrutiny. It seems as his own Order for all practical purposes is acting as a Golden Dawn research Temple. Why doesn’t all of this surprise me, knowing that the Freemasonic research society and counter-traditional organization known as the S.R.I.A. is the acting “Third Order” of the post-modernist “Golden Dawn Community”? Their own collage of the Adepti are making the Golden Dawn more and more exoteric by the month with their various publications, pushing it into Freemasonry in the process.

Returning to the main issue here raised by the post-modernist leader of the counter-traditionalist “Golden Dawn Community”. It was never a question about proving or disproving the existence of the Secret Chiefs, either in the flesh or the popular post-modernist view of angelic Secret Chiefs who can be channeled into any willing medium. The question which I am debating in my reviews of Nick Farrell’s books is whether MacGregor Mathers, Westcott or Brodie-Innes belived in physical Secret Chiefs or astral ditto, or both. 

However, as the Golden Dawn in the Outer and the R.R. et A.C. (at least to the level of Th.A.M.) since the last Century has been turned into a Freemasonic and exoteric Order, at least that can be researched with a basic level of academic rigour, something that my reviews has prooved is lacking in Nick Farrell’s books.

However, all esoteric levels of the system, i.e. beyond the 5°=6° and especially the true nature beyond the 8°=3°, cannot and will never be. This rules out all academic research about communication with the Secret Chiefs as that properly and still belong to the esoteric level of the Golden Dawn. This post-modernist Golden Dawn leader should know this, which makes his gambit look ridiculus, regardless if he is just playing his usual game of irony or if all of this simply expresses a profound ignorance typical of his generation.

Addendum (2013-07-12)

The Golden Dawn being exoteric up to and including the Theoricus Adeptus Minor (Th.A.M.) sub-grade of the 5°=6° only applies to the older general reformation of 1888. The latest general reformation of 1999 initiated by the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha Omega®, which is still continuing in intervals of decades, has had its purpose of remedying this fact. The reformed Outer Order is properly speaking in a state of “semi-exoteric” status, or “semi-esoteric” depending if you prefer to see a half-full or half-empty cup, as the old initiation rituals has been revised and all old pass-words abrogated and changed to secret (i.e. esoteric) ones. Also, there is currently secret teachings being transmitted to the Outer Order Grades as we speak which are older and predating the Rosicrucian Tradition, still within the Hermetic Tradition, and at the same time the origin and true basis for the later G∴D∴ practicies which are still used today and in the form as outlined in the General Reformation anno 1999, of which I have spoken of before on this blog. 

The reformed Second Order, or the Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.), is even more esoteric compared to the Outer Order, as the 5°=6° ritual in a similar manner has been revised as with the Outer Order rituals, while its 6°=5° and 7°=4°rituals are completely esoteric being based upon the old and true initiatory formula. The same goes for the curriculum of these Grades, the curriculum and training of the Adepti Grades. The 5°=6° still uses the published R.R. et A.C. formulae of the Magic of Light as parts of its sub-grades, while at the same time presenting age-old esoteric teachings and formulae constituting the majority of its reformed corpus, as well as secret Rosicrucian formulae coming from the 1777 general reformation. This even becomes more expressed in the 6°=5° Grade.

The biggest difference between the 1888 and 1999 reformations is that the First and Second Orders are completly public, compared to the semi-public state of the First Order and secret state of the Second Order a Century ago. This unfortunately has become a fact because of all the profanations made in the past and all of the resulting consequences that we are facing today. Serious students need to be aware of the existance of our Traditionalist Order in our post-modern age of the Kali Yuga, especially in the face of the real and serious danger posed by the Counter-Traditionalist and pseudo-rosicrucian organizations of the “Golden Dawn Community” so-called, who are basing their teachings on whatever that has been published in Golden Dawn related literature or on the left-overs of the New Zeeland branch of the Stella Matutina, collected by post-modernist scavengers, i.e. the abrogated reformation of 1888. In future essays on the Gyllene Gryningen Blog I will write about and properly define the difference between Tradition and Counter-Tradition. So stay tuned!

Addendum (2014-03-13)
 
Since writing this blog yours truly is no longer affiliated with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha Omega® (H.O.G.D./A+O®). However, my general view on this subject stays firmly unchanged, as expressed in the above written text, and what I have authored previously on the Gyllene Gryningen blog still represents my overall opinion. Any practices referred to in reference to the H.O.G.D./A+O® also apply to the Order that I am currently affiliated with, namely the Hermetiska Orden av Den Gryende Morgonrodnaden (“Hermetic Order of the Nascent Aurora”) or H∴O∴G∴M+R.

S∴R∴

Red herrings regarding the higher teachings of the A∴O∴ and its true Third Order

PAT ZALEWSKI made some comments about MacGregor Mathers’ Rosicrucian Order of Alpha Omega, the senior Grades and one hypothesis about the Third Order, back on the reconstructionist yahoo-forum a week ago, which has come to my attention just recently and that needs some further problematization on my behalf. I will address these issues as briefly as I can, as I don’t want to repeat myself; therefore you must indulge me to provide you with some links to previous postings by me on this blog. Now, Mr. Zalewski starts off saying, that:

In the enochian system, the tablets and serviant squares were ZAM [Zelator Adeptus Minor] and the Kerubics at THAM [Theoricus Adeptus Minor]. The calvary cross was most likely at PAM [Practicus Adeptus Minor] and the central cross at PhAM [Philosophus Adeptus Minor] and the Tablet of Union at AAM [Adept Adeptus Minor]. On the ritual study since the ZAM was a study of the 0=0 and the THAM a study of the 1=10 the rest of 5=6 sub-grades would be taken up by the elemental ritual. That leaves the Portal and 5=6 to be analysed, and that was most likely done at 6=5 and 7=4 level- if we follow the GD pattern. I very much doubt that any of this was followed through on.

While Mr. Zalewski is quite correct that the Second Order of the original Order of the G∴D∴ and the Rosicrucian Order of A∴O∴ seperated the in depth analysis of the Kerubic Squares from the Z.A.M. curriculum and reserved it for the Th.A.M., the rest is speculation on Mr. Zalewski’s behalf regarding the P.A.M., Ph.A.M., and A.A.M. sub-grades and the Enochian teachings, although there is some merit and logic to his suggestions. Regarding Elemental Grade analysis, I agree with Mr. Zalewski that this is most likely and that as the 1°=10° was the study of a Th.A.M., the 2°=9° should have been the study of a P.A.M., the 3°=8° of a Ph.A.M. and the 4°=7° of a A.A.M. However, we do not know if the Portal Grade also was not part of the A.A.M. curriculum.

I personally doubt though that the 5°=6° was supposed to be analysed at all in that same manner; the Ritual of the Portals perhaps, as it follows the same pattern as that of the Elemental Grades. But regarding the 5°=6° I seriously doubt this as it is of an entirely different nature. We know that the Ritual of the Portals was the precursor to the later 5°=6° Ritual, which created the first nominal Adepti Minori; although them two later becoming attached, the Ritual of the Portals being a species of preliminary “ritual of the paths” which lead the aspirant to the Vault of the Adepti, they are of entire different matters altogether. While the Ritual of the Portals belongs to the same type of rituals as that of the Elemental Grades, the 5°=6° belongs to entirely different types of rituals which sets it (and the other senior Adepti Grade Rituals) apart from the Outer Order formula.

What we also do know is that its symbolism was analysed in The Book of the Tomb, on an relatively early level of the study of the Minor Adept, perhaps even at the level of Neophyte Adeptus Minor. (There exists an entirely different analysis, similar to that of the Book of the Tomb, attached as an appendix to the A∴O∴ 5°=6° Ritual, which suggests this.) I seriously doubt that senior Adepts such as Westcott was priviliged to any higher knowledge of what was actually going on in the 5°=6° Ritual, beyond the obvious and its symbology; that knowledge was reserved for the Third Order initiates such as MacGregor Mathers who understood it in the light of the rituals of the 6°=5° and 7°=4°, which are part of an entire and interlinked initiatic cycle. Beyond this information, I cannot venture any deeper into this subject matter without breaching initiatic secrets; I have given you enough hints to understand that it is impossible to “analyse” the 5°=6° Ritual in the same manner as you will find it in Mr. Zalewski’s Golden Dawn Rituals and Commentaries. Thus I do agree with Mr. Zalewski that not that much was followed through on. Then Mr. Zalewski continues:

The GD tarot for the AO was never completed and they used the S[tella] M[atutina] cards -from what I was told. Enochian chess was never finished nor the governors of the tablets nor the seal. There was a great deal left undone.

As I said, I tend to agree with Mr. Zalewski on this one, that a great deal was left undone. However, his suggestion that the A∴O∴ initiates were using Felkin’s version from the Stella Matutina is quite ludicrous. If anything, the initiates of the A∴O∴, as was the case with that of the original G∴D∴, were using the current published decks, such as Papus’ The Tarot of the Bohemians which my earlier short essay on the confusion of Strength vs. Justice attributions suggests. I am also quite content in believing that the G∴D∴ and later the A∴O∴ used Tarot Keys drawn up for the various Rituals used in the Temple and Vault. However, I do agree with Mr. Zalewski that it was not very likely that these Keys were copied to any greater extent by the initiates themselves. However, this doesn’t at all suggest that an entire esoteric Tarot Deck was not existent in the A∴O∴. Mr. Zalewski then continues:

I tend to side with Nick Farrell on the higher levels of the AO under Mathers. If Berridge only reached 6=5 then it very in the AO few made it to 7=4, only chiefs. Tony Fullers Idea (which he delivered a paper on some years ago at the first GD conference) of the Sun order being a defacto Third order of the GD has much merit. As far as those GD members were concerned, in all probability what was lacking in the GD and AO could be found in the material in the Sun order. So there was no real need to go to the higher GD levels to obtain this information when the Sun order provided it.

If Tony Fuller once held this highly speculative idea, it seems he doesn’t any more. I don’t blame him for changing his mind as this idea about the Sun Order (also known as he Cromlech Temple) being the Third Order of the G∴D∴ is even more ludicrous than then previous one. The Sun Order was originally an entirely different Order, which saw dual membership between the A∴O∴ and the Sun Order as beneficent. Some of its teachings of the Aura seems to interact quite well with the teachings in the G∴D∴ regarding the Sphere of Sensation. However, this doesn’t at all mean that the Sun Order was an acting Third Order for the A∴O∴. At the very most, the Sun Order and its Cromlech Temple served to be a species of “side degrees”, which is a quite common concept in Freemasonry. That is, degrees which is not required but is regarded to bee looked in favour to further the understanding of the formal degrees.

Thus, to a certain degree, the Adepti of the A∴O∴ could have regarded the Sun Order to act as a side order, adding some to the core teachings of the R.R. et A.C. This is also a analysis which I seem to share with the late Francis King, the author of Ritual Magic in England which was the first literary work discussing and publishing Sun Order material. Besides, nothing suggests that anything produced in the Cromlech Temple relevant to the A∴O∴ reached any higher Grade than that of the 7°=4°, which negates it being any “Third Order” which obviously operates Grades beyond that of the Adeptus Exemptus. I already addressed this topic four years ago in my essay on the sexual teachings of the Alpha et Omega and its supposed relation to the Cromlech Temple and already then concluded that the Sun Order is a dead end in understanding the Third Order of the G∴D∴ and A∴O∴.

According to the same Mr. Fuller which Mr. Zalewski cites as a source for his own pet theories, MacGregor Marthers had set up an “Adept Collage” which consisted of the R.R.et A.C. and the Sun Order as the “two Sister Rosicrucian Orders in Britannia”; thus the Sun Order wasn’t regarded to be superior to but equal to the R.R et A.C. (Second Order) of the A∴O∴, which negates it being put upon any pedestal (i.e. a Third Order). Even Mr. Fuller himself was much hesitant in 2008 to assert that this was a general attitude within the A∴O∴, although some Adepts of the S∴M∴ might have believed this to be true. I went over all of this in 2008 and my short essay entitled The Amity of the Alpha et Omega and the Stella Matutina, and in 2009 in my follow-up on the higher teachings of the Alpha et Omega and the Solar Order. Finally, Mr. Zalewski choses to write thus:

I's [sic.] like to add one very important point here about Astral masters in the SM and Sun Order. Felkin’s chiefs of the Sun Order (some call the Sun masters) were also spitting information on the GD as well. The Sun masters were interchangeable with the GD guides.

This is a pure speculation on behalf of Mr. Zalewski. I doubt that Felkin had anything to do with the Cromlech Temple at the time of his “Sun Masters” phase. This confusion between the Sun Order and the “Sun Masters” has also been suggested by Nick Farrell in his book King over the water, which I have addressed in a review. It’s pure coincidence; the reference to the Sun being of such a universal significance that this kind of confusion is easily made. Mr. Fuller suggests that even Felkin himself later made this confusion. This entire subject of astral masters has nothing whatsoever to do with the real Secret Chiefs of the true Third Order, which is the custodian of the ancient teachings of Internal Alchemy. Nothing contained in the teachings of neither the Sun Order nor the “Sun Masters” suggest any connection to these ancient alchemical teachings. Thus, Mr. Zalewski’s suggestions, faithfully “corroborating” that of Mr. Farrell’s, is simply a red herring. Nothing more.

S∴R∴

Is morality important to succeed in your occult practice? Says who?

Peregrin Wildoak, our own Internet police officer, today took his higher moral ground yet again and from his ivory tower communicated a telegram criticizing the emphasis on advanced practices, a message which was written as a general survey but actually is targeted at the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha Omega®, using his usual “holier than thou” attitude. What betrays him is the following line:

Magic – even the most intense and ‘powerful’ advanced, secret-third-order-sex-magic – is not enough.

Mr. Wildoak is referring to the idea that practices by themselves are not enough but that the right attitude and motives renders them effective, which amongst else entails:

…morality, compassion, altruism, …and community service...

As Mr. Wildoak is using writings on the Internet as a measuring stick for the level of spiritual development, I wonder if he considers epithets such as “anti-Christian nutters”, “clowns having a bad acid trip”, “a few olives short of a pizza”, to name but a few, thrown by him at people who disagrees with his worldview being a true sign of compassion?

Contrary to him, I damn well know that you cannot judge a character from his writings, especially not on the Internet. Commonly, people writing acid on the Internet are the direct opposite in their everyday interaction with their neighbour. It seems that Internet has a tendency to bring out the worst of us all, even in Peregrin Wildoak that Great Compassionate One, which is quite obvious, especially when reading his often sarcastic and ironic comments on other peoples blogs. So he has the benefit of the doubt on this one; I will bite my tongue and take this line of though no further.

But one thing is for sure: He has developed something like an allergy against anything penned by a member of the Alpha Omega®. Now he tries his very best to undermine the value of the fact that the Alpha Omega® in fact has something very solid to present for its Adepts, especially the senior ones, such as a fully working initiatory system and curriculum for all the Grades of our Second and Third Orders. So to legitimise his own reconstructed franchise, he has to assassinate our and other traditionalist fraternities who make it their task to actually present something solid and traditional.

The latest thing is that the lack of the right attitude – which of course has been defined by Mr. Wildoak himself – nullifies any advanced practices. Let me tell you what the greatest error is in his reasoning: As any reconstructionist, he doesn’t belive that magical and alchemical practices has any tangible (as in physical) effects but only affects us mentally and “spiritually”; the belief that spiritual developement is a mental thing and primarily show its signs in “right” thinking and behaviour. Magic is reduced to a species of occult psychology. So, with this line of reasoning, it must be the right or wrong mental attitude which decides a certain outcome of the technique, not the techique itself. That is, any mental attitude as defined by Mr. Wildoak and his spiritual idols.

Well, I might surprise some of you with what I am about to say, but pardon me if I feel the urge to simplify matters somewhat just to create a balance in the discussion. Though things that I will bring up here might apparently go contrary and seem contradictory to what I have said regarding attitude and magic before on this blog, this is actually not the case if you care to look closer and read beyond sheer semantics and refrain from splitting hairs; although I today believe that magic and alchemy is more closely linked as well in nature, i.e. together constitute objective sciences. Thus, any practice will be effective regardless of your attitude. The only qualities that actually are required, besides the knowledge of the formula itself, is determination, discipline, concentration, courage and will, and last and not least silence. Tranquillity and equilibrium of mind and emotion is of course good to gain success. But ethical and moral qualities are not required to gain success in magic and alchemy, especially not in alchemy.

Disclaimer: I am not saying that ethics and a morality aren’t important in occultism. It is of course important as this constitutes a signpost of spiritual unfoldment. What I am saying is that you don’t have to be moral or ethical prior to experiencing effects from spiritual exercises. That was also my punch line in my previous essay on this matter, that attitude must be allowed to developed over time and with our own internal understanding or gnosis of the technique we are performing, not from any external sources.

Much of what we consider to be ethical or moral behaviour or attitude is not the same thing as true ethics or true morals. Almost all of our opinions regarding this subject matter have been ingrained into our minds, and especially onto the subconscious levels of the mind, since even before we could crawl. Our superego has been developed out of fear of reprisals and social excommunication. But “fear is failure” to use the words of the Hiereus. True ethics and true morals cannot be based on fear of experiencing shame. Morality must come from within, regardless of any expected external responses good or bad; true morals and ethics often goes against the common opinions of what constitutes moral and ethical behaviour.

To use the psychology of Sigmund Freud, the superego – which hosts our morality and code of ethics and conduct – is actually built up from the energies belonging to the death drive. That’s why the superego tries its very best to suppress or repress our personality. The superego is the despotic tyrant which has usurped the throne of our True and Higher Self; it cloaks our vision of the Self beyond the Abyss. In the worst case scenario a person might take his own life when the power and pressure of the superego becomes to heavy a burden to carry; the usual cause of suicide is motivated by the urges of the superego. That ultimate act of desperation of course goes contrary to anything originating in the True Self.

Compassion is paramount as a sign of spiritual unfoldment. But it cannot be based upon fear – such as having a pharisaical Mr. Wildoak pointing his finger at me and saying what a naughty boy I am, writing this – to be properly defined as a true compassion or a real sign of spiritual development. It has to come from within, from that source of power many of us call “God”. Or as Socrates, according to Plato, would have put it: “What is dear to the gods is pious” – not what is dear to men. Plato further believed that the knowledge of moral truths springs from intelligence, and by “intelligence” Plato wasn’t referring to the ordinary rational faculties of mortal men but the eternal intellect of God. It is with this intelligence, Platon informs us, that we may perceive the ideal forms. These ideal forms also entails morals and ethics.

So compassion, or any morality, cannot be based upon conditioning, submission or adaptation to the requirements of any contemporary society’s paradigm. I doubt that any person who hasn’t experienced the divine presence of compassion, which traditionally is attributed to Chesed and the Grade of Adeptus Exemptus, is able to comprehend and even less express true Compassion. It must come from an experience from within or be born out of an internal understanding. Compassion in reality has its origin in the experience (not some lofty philosophical concept) that we all are part of the All; that we all are as One.

The difference lies between extreme morality and radical morality, two contrary concepts. The former is that kind which has been ingrained into us through society’s program of conditioning, that kind which comes from the outside of the individual and represses him; the latter is that morality which comes from within or from the divine source – a gnosis which liberates. “Extreme” means “outermost” and has its etymological origin in the Latin word exter (“external”); exoteric. “Radical” means “coming from the source” and has its etymological origin in the Latin radix (“root”); esoteric. (I am indebted to the Swedish sufi Mohamed Omar for this etymological significance and interpretation.)

This is why the esoterical path, at least of the kind which is the most radical, often is regarded to be antinomian in nature, as we as students of the Hermetic path must shed the coatings that has been pasted onto us through the process of upbringing and fostering – the family is the primary institution of society’s mental conditoning. How many true esotericists hasn’t been stoned, burned or crucified to death because of their radical and antinomian behaviour and message? Martyrdom goes hand in hand with being a radical esotericist. To really transcend the Abyss into the realm of the Supernals you have to make sacrifies of all of your pet opinions and the very paradigm in which you are living; you have to kill your darlings so to speak, even (and especially) the most precious ones. 

That is why I find Mr. Wildoak’s proposition, that we should make community service for our initiates mandatory, to be ridiculous and based on a fallacy. Why should his students be forced to do that? Because he tells them to? Is that a good way to gauge a moral behaviour, to force someone to behave in a certain ethically accepted way out of fear of reprisals (i.e. being barred from advancement in Grade)? Is that to develop morality and ethics? I would rather say that it is unethical to require any such behaviour from your students based upon contemporary attitudes on morality and ethics. Perhaps Mr. Wildoak want to train a flock of meek sheep; I personally want to train future shepherds. I want my students to be radical in the truest sense of the word.

But let us not digress to far, as this short piece actually wasn’t intended to address morality per se but magical practice and to answer if morality is a prerequisite for its performance; this little digression just came to me as a true inspiration while writing. So, is a moral attitude and conduct a prerequisite for a successful practice? No, it’s the other way around actually. Moral attitude and conduct (which often goes contrary to what we expect to be moral in our contemporary society mind you!) is the outcome of proper practice; one of the major signposts that you are doing it right.

Magic and alchemy isn’t primary a mental thing, i.e. a mental manipulation of your thought patters or a reprogramming of a sorts – NLP and all that behaviouristic crap based upon manipulation techniques and chock doctrines. There is some of that as part of occult study; there is a certain orthodoxy and dogma also in occultism that has to be digested and integrated. But it has nothing to do with practice, although theory is a good start in understanding what you are doing practically. But it is not essential for any successful outcome; and understanding will develop over time anyway.

What is the purpose of magic and alchemy then? To transform your vehicle, that is your body (physical, energetic and astral) into a pure cup or calice so that it at length might receive that Solar spirit and illuminate your soul. How is this vehicle transformed? Through energetic manipulation. A magical exercise must have a direct energetic effect on your vehicle to have any value in the work. This also involves meditation, as that attracts energies as well and creates direct bodily changes. Only thus may we become aware of the true morals and ethics which comes from within, and develop a true moral and ethical orthopraxy.

So how are we then to address the compelling metaphor used by Mr. Wildoak:

Though a robe be washed a thousand times, how can it be clean if it is washed in dirty water?

This metaphor is compelling because it does convey a certain truth. But is the “water” actually the “context, the motivation and environment in which we practice”? That of course depends on what you define as context and environment. But Mr. Wildoak addresses the “right” and “proper” mental attitude here, not the actual place of working. This metaphor is workable if we by “robe” mean “vehicle” and by “water” refer to “energy”. We must always invoke the highest names of God and choose our forces invoked with due care, as well as be tranquil and equilibrated, and stay focused, while we conduct the operation. Thus may we wash the robe with clean water.

But if we by “robe” mean “morality” (or rather that vehicle which holds it) and by “water” refer to “context”, I would say that “dirty water” is the equivalent of conditioned social expectation and superficial knowledge while “clean water” is a reference to gnosis coming from the spring of God. So what we have to do as serious students of the occult arts and sciences, is to throw out that dirty water from our basin (the vehicle) and make us receptive for the pure and fresh water of life to be poured into it. This may be the esoteric or radical significande of the symbology which is expressed by the baptism of the Christian and Gnostic sacrament, and the purification by water and consecration by fire in the Golden Dawn. According to the gospels the baptism by John marked the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Jesus of Nazareth, which the Gnostics declared was his awakening unto the Christ force. For me, the “Christ force” is a Christian interpretation of what occidental alchemists refer to as Solar consciousness. And with that level of spiritual unfoldment comes naturally a true Compassion carried with the rays of the Sun.

Addendum (2014-05-04)
 
Since writing this blog yours truly is no longer affiliated with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha Omega® (H.O.G.D./A+O®). However, my general view on this subject stays firmly unchanged, as expressed in the above written text, and what I have authored previously on the Gyllene Gryningen blog still represents my overall opinion.

S∴R∴

Were there no Egyptian mysteries?

Peregrin Wildoak, in a response to my blogpost on the Primordial vs. Temporal Traditions, wrote a couple of days ago:

The way ancient and pre-modern folk understood the world is very different to the way we understand it.

We cannot easily escape our culture and the paradigm with live in, no matter how much we try.

To down play on the Traditionalist concept of original Egyptian Mysteries, referring to it as a “overlaying the mythic Egypt atop the historical Egypt”, he cited his own buddy Caroline Tully, what he refers to as the “Pagan scholar”, and her book Ten Years of Triumph of the Moon, in which she critizies the authencity of McGregor Mathers’ Rites of Isis in Paris, which she refers to as a “reconstruction of the Egyptian Mysteries”. She writes:

Undoubtedly inspired by Herodotus’ application of the Greek term ‘mysteries’ to Egyptian religion (Histories. 2.171), Diodorus’ erroneous claim of an Egyptian origin for the Greek Mysteries of Eleusis when in fact it was the other way around (Lib. 1.29.2,4; Martin 1987: 78), Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (11.21–6), and Plutarch’s mention of Isis and Osiris initiations and mystic rites (De Iside. 2, 25, 28), the main problem with the Mathers’ attempt at creating this initiatory system was that there were no Egyptian Mysteries to begin with.

While there certainly were Graeco-Roman mysteries of the Hellenised Isis, the idea that there were ancient Egyptian ‘mysteries’ originated with Greeks like Herodotus misunderstanding the Egyptian cult of Osiris at Abydos and interpreting it as ‘mysteric’ because it was carried out by specially consecrated priesthood, unlike the part-time priests of Greece (Burkert 1987: 39–40; Lefkowitz 1997: 93). While access to the inner recesses of the Egyptian temple was limited to the priesthood, festivals were open to the public, not restricted to groups of initiates (Morenz 1973: 89–90).

Mr. Wildoak’s punch line is that the Golden Dawn, for the same reasons as Golden Dawn founder and Chief MacGregor Mathers’ Rites of Isis is a “reconstruction”, actually don’t use any Egyptian Gods. He says: 

Really there are only modern interpretations and adaptations of Graceo-Coptic Gods. And some of those adaptations were based on Mathers’ personal assumptions and mindset of what Egypt was.

First of all, it is true that we are all prisoners of the cultural paradigm in which we are living. This also equally applies to academics, scientists and scholars. Somehow there is this myth floating around that a scientist and scholar, in virtue of his academic education and merits, is exempt from this paradigm. This is of course utterly false.

Today we live in a post-modernist paradigm in which all “truths” are thrown out with the bath water and everything is relativized. We also live in the paradigm in which we, as members of post-modernist humanity and society, believe us to know more than humanity ever has, especially compared to the “superstitious” ancients, in virtue of our modern scientific methods.

Golden Dawn God-Form

I don’t know about you, but I personally trust the paradigm of the ancient Greeks, such as the pioneering historians Herodotus, Diodorus and Plutarch, long before the likes of Tully, Hutton, et al. The old Greek scholars surely lived much closer to the ancient Egyptians and their traditions that we post-modernist occidentals do. The possibility of them having intimate (i.e. first hand) knowledge of the subjects they were researching, or even being initiates themselves, is severely higher compared to our post-modern scholars☺

It is also very obvious for all serious students of the Golden Dawn Tradition that the God-Forms, as they are deptictied in the so-called “Z” document and attached papers, are a modern magical adaptation. But that doesn’t imply that there still aren’t any traces left from original ancient concepts. As I said in my original blog post, in the God-Forms of the Golden Dawn we see a temporal tradition. But behind this cultural coating there is an essence which breaths the Primordial Tradition into the outer temporal shells. The “Z” document surely enough is based upon the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The fact is that this document, and its teachings on the Egyptian God-Forms, originated from the Third Order; it wasn’t MacGregors’ own invention. And this same Third Order happens to be a true custodian and lineal descendent of these original Egyptian Mysteries. 

The Rites of Isis

Secondly. I bet that Caroline Tully hasn’t seen any copies of the Rites of Isis, as written by MacGregor Mathers. In fact very few have been so fortunate who are still living today, even though it is still possible although only to a select group of initiates. So how can Caroline Tully even say anything of its varacity? Non in my opinion. She simply assumes that it all was a reconstruction in MacGregor Mathers’ mind, as she regards anything pagan today. A pet theory of hers and that of Hutton, et al.

Being children of the post-modernist era, occultists and scholars alike of today don’t believe in a authenic and living tradtion. They are driven by a relentless scepticism and have a natural tendency of being hostile against any notions contrary to what academically may be proven. Most of them believe that there are no other initiatic traditions or organisations other than those that have already been made public. I.e. Golden Dawn post-modernist students believe that the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and its initiatic system up to and including the Adeptus Minor Grade was the final contribution and crowning of the system, and that it was reconstructed by W.W. Westcott and S.L. MacGregor Mathers. Any notions of an authentic source more advanced that the Second Order of the R.R. et A.C. are considered to be baroque. 

This also counts for MacGregor Mathers’ revival of the Rites of Isis which are regarded to be a reconstrution. But only because Aleister Crowley did an actual reconstruction of the Eleusinian Mysteries in his Rites of Eleusis, which was nothing of the kind but rather a series of Planetary invocations using classical Ceremonial Magic as a framework, although I bet that Crowley were inspired by MacGregor Mathers and his Rites of Isis, the post-modernist students and scholars assume MacGregor Mathers to have done something along the same lines as Crowley.

Mind you, the actual Isiac mysteries are alive and well in Europe, limited to a small group of initiates. Considering the level of MacGregor Mathers’ initiations, including that continental and ancient fraternity referred to by MacGregor Mathers as the Third Order, I doubt that he didn’t have any access to these as well.

Hermanubis

Regarding the Greek vs. the Egyptian Mysteries, there is some merit to what Caroline Tully is describing. The problem is that it is only a half truth; or a half lie depending how you see it. It is not a sensation for historians that Hellenistic culture represents a mix of both Greek and Egyptian civilization, as shown in its philosophy and theology, and also concerning its mysteries. The most foremost examples of this being Serapis, being composed of the Egyptian Osiris and Apis bull, and the Greek Hades (or Roman Pluto); as well as Hermanubis, being a blend of the Egyptian Anubis and Greek Hermes (or Roman Mercury). This syncretistic approach was very common during and after the Ptolemic dynasty in Egypt.

So I consider it to be but a deliberate red herring used by Mr. Wildoak when he claims the Egyptology of the Golden Dawn, and its associated traditions, to have a Greek origin. In fact they are at least Hellenic, which is a blend of Greek and Egyptian traditions and concepts. I must stress this; Hellenism isn’t solely a Greek phenomenon – it is a Graeco-Egyptian one. We are actually talking about the era of the Ptolemic dynasty of Egypt, while being the result of a Macedonian take-over still integrated fully with the original Egyptian civilization and culture, taking care not to oppose the highly conservative Egyptian population.

Concerning the Egyptian origins of the Eleusinian Mysteries, it seems that there is no such consensus amongst scholars as Mr. Wildoak would like you to believe. I.e. in his rhetoric we see yet another example of the use of red herrings. Let me quote from one source:

In the early part of this century, [Paul François] Foucart theorized, on the basis of statements by classical authors (e.g., Herodotus Bk. 2) as well as the discovery at some Mycenaean sites of Egyptian figurines and small artifacts, that the cult of Demeter in Greece originally derived, in whole or in part, from Egypt. Further support for this hypothesis comes from certain remarkable parallels between the myth of Isis (especially in the version presented by Plutarch in his Isis and Osiris, chs. 15 and 16) and that of Demeter (as recounted in the “Hymn to Demeter,”). Among the details of these parallels are episodes in both stories involving infant princes who almost gain immortality—but not quite—at the hands of the respective goddesses.

On the basis of these correspondences, Foucart and his followers concluded that the Mysteries at Eleusis originally must have come from Egypt (Foucart 2-23; Magnien 44-46). Yet the fact that the sanctuary ruins in Eleusis evidently go back centuries earlier than the Hymn itself, and that excavations have unearthed no Egyptian artifacts there from that period, militates against this hypothesis (Mylonas 15, 276). On the other hand, since we know that Greek colonists and mercenaries had settled in Lower Egypt by the seventh century BCE (Leclant 245), it is reasonable to surmise that these Greek and Egyptian fertility goddesses had already begun to penetrate each other’s cults and mingle in the minds of worshippers, perhaps by way of Cretan influences. There is still no consensus about this and it remains a topic of lively debate.

My personal opinion regarding this cross-cultural mixing, based upon the traditional history that I have been taught, is the following: The mysteries of Egypt were overly patriarchal and centered around the cult of Osiris. Isis was an important character in this story, but only in a supporting role as the faithful wife and restorer of Osiris’ life so that he might be resurrected to fulfil his destiny.

The hellenicised Isis

On the other hand, the mysteries of Greece were overly matriarchial and based on the earlier shamanic mother goddess cults. Both mysteries were agricultural, based on the Solar cycles of death and resurrection, the former centred on the Solar force itself, the latter on the terrestrial and Lunar (as receivers of the Solar currents), althought there is evidence to assume Osiris also to be a earth ferility god. During the Hellenistic period these two mysteries met and cross-pollonized. By now the Eleusinian Mysteries may have taken up influences from the Egyptian Isis, if not earlier. On the other hand perhaps the Isiac mysteries grew in prominence in Hellenistic Egypt and Greece because of the influences of the Eleusinian Mysteries. They surely were related.

Thus, it is fruitless to look upon this as a one way transmission; it is more fruitful to see it as a reciprocal influence, typical of the Ptolemaic dynasty. The proper academic stance on this subject is that we may never know the truth regarding who made who, simply based on archaeology and study of classical literature. The best position is to suspend judgement and be open-minded to either possibility.

Granted, the mystery plays of the pre-hellenistic Egypt were public, while the Eleusinian Mysteries in Greece were secret. Still the Egpytian plays did conveyed a mystery to the spectators. Remember that Egypt was a theocracy and involved the entire population in its state sanctioned cults; magic was a common and everyday event. Still not all of that was open do the public. Not even the public festivals were that public, as can be seen in this quote from another source:

At these times, ordinary people might witness the procession of a deity, although it would most frequently be from a distance and usually the actual image of the god would not be visible to them.

The daily cult ritual was a secluded and secret affair, reserved to the priests who held the images of the gods locked up in special shrines, called naos. Thus like with the religious cult of Israel (which clearly drew its inspiration from the Egyptian cults, not only in this respect), the Holy of Holies or Sanctuaries were prohibited territory for the common Egyptian. Thus secret practices were reserved for the priests and priestesses, as is shown in this source which I quote:

The involvement of the general public in the temple ceremonies was small. Ordinary people had no access to the inner regions of the temples which could only be entered after elaborate purification rituals. Offerings to the gods, food, flowers, or votive stelae, could be made in the outer temple courts.

Also concepts of the Egyptian theology amongst the priests and priestesses were different compared to the popular views held by the common Egyptians. There surely was a secret lore that was only reserved to the priestly caste and the royalty. In the New Kingdom priesthood was, like royalty, hereditary. Many priests and priestesses were members of the royal family even. Magic was closely associated with the priesthood, although there existed a popular or common form of magic as well. Thus, as the daily cult ritual – which used a magical formula – was a secret affair, there truly was an esoteric tradition in Egypt.

The Naos of the Edfu Temple which housed the image of Horus

However, the esoteric tradition extended beyond that of the daily cult rituals. There also existed an alchemical tradition, mainly reserved for the royalty in its inception (in a similar way as there also existed an Daoist internal alchemy reserved for the Chinese Emperor), although it later became part of the innermost initiatic secrets of the priestly caste.

Egypt was very exotic and commonly regarded as mysterious, and magical, amongst the surrounding ancient peoples, not only to the Greeks and Romans. The Babylonian Talmud, as an example, says the following:

Ten measures of sorcery descended to the world; Egypt took nine and the rest of the world took one.

Many of the greatest Greek philosophers travelled to Egypt and brought with them a new wisdom, such as Thales, Pythagoras and Plato, at least if we are to believe their own accounts and that of their disciples. Greek philosophy as we know it wouldn’t had been the same without the Egyptian influence. Even the New Testament states that:

...Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds. (Act 7:22)

So there is absolutely no empirical basis for the post-modernist concept that there were no esoteric and secret initiatory mysteries surrounding the priests and priestesses of Egypt prior to the Hellenistic era; the empirical information rather supports the opposite view. And now, when this fallacy has been disproven what more will we see coming from the post-modern reconstructionist “scholars”? That there were no magical nor any alchemical tradition in Egypt as well? Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised…

S∴R∴