PREFACE
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.-AL
I:40.
Welcome to yet another issue of Red Flame. I'd like to
begin by explaining the inspiration for this, our eighth
issue. For starters, the blame has to be two-fold. First, it
needs to be placed squarely at the feet of the vociferous
Robert Stein who, being a dear friend, not only suggested
this issue but worked heartily on the research with my
wife, Marlene. Second, the blame needs to be directed
toward my young son Faustus. Of the latter, it began
when I was trying to catch a few treasured winks while
resting on the couch. This is when Faustus would walk up
and scream in my ear, "Wake up!" Most of the time I did
not realize the subtly of his message while being jolted
back into reality but it's from the mouth of young babes
that profound Wisdom often comes. It is no secret that
humanity exists in a continual state of sleep even when it
believes itself awake or conscious. What I'm implying is
that complacency, like all forms of restriction, is
dangerous to the central tenets of Thelema. I have only to
thank my son for constantly reminding me of this
whenever I close my eyes. Yes, I tend to read into
everything more than there really is, but I believe the Gods
work in strange ways to teach us our lessons-if one only
has an ear to appreciate the source of their divine
guidance.
Since I feel indebted to the Gods, my intention is to
repay their kindness by passing on their Wisdom,
therefore I yell-"Wake up!" Hopefully I've just
metaphorically rousted you off your couch and out of your
slumber. In doing so, together, we can reflect upon Liber
AL vel Legis commonly known as The Book of the Law.
This is the most sacred book of all Thelemites or
individuals who follow the philosophy behind True Will. I
want to begin by reminding you that as Thelemites you
should never be a slave who blindly follows a religious
dogma, your own, others, or even that of the old man
himself, Aleister Crowley. Question everything! I strongly
feel that everyone must continually examine his or her
beliefs in an attempt to understand who they are and what
has drawn them to the New Aeonic teachings of Liber AL
vel Legis. We can not become indifferent. The birth of
New Aeon is young, still in its infant stage. The Slave-
Gods of the old as well as their minions, some under the
guise of calling themselves Thelemites, are constantly
wanting to control us and hold us back from emerging as
individual Stars. Freedom of Expression is only a phrase
thrown around in some Thelemic circles and has little
bearing on reality.
It was a difficult task at first to determine how we
should begin this issue but it became apparent after
talking with Frater AB. He once mentioned that what we're
attempting to do was considered sacrilegious by Motta's
A.·. A.·. lineage and Frater Hymenaeus Beta. Yes, it's no
secret that the unofficial policy of Ordo Templi Orientis is
that The Tunis Comment must be honored to the letter.
That no one should discuss or interpret anything in Liber
AL vel Legis in an open forum. Liber AL has become
noticeably absent in recent years compared to Frater
Hymenaeus Alpha's reign. Rarely do you find a study
being published on a verse or articles appearing which
discuss anything to do with the book in general. If any one
disregards the OTO's policy they stand a chance of be
branded a 'centre of pestilence.' Realizing the possibility
of this type of intimidation being thrown around gave us a
starting purpose. We decided that if this issue was going
to discuss Liber AL vel Legis it is important to correctly
understand the Comment which according to certain
individuals, like Frater Hymenaeus Beta, proves we
should be shunned for doing so. In other words, since
The Tunis Comment is used by him and others as a
weapon against what they believe are heresies it becomes
important to begin this issue here.
Now for honesty. We must deeply apologize right up
front and say that most of the information in this issue
about certain beliefs held high in Bill Breeze's branch of
the A.·. A.·. will probably be 100% inaccurate within a few
months of the release of Red Flame No.8. To this you
might say, "Dah?" I can only reply by saying that I have
known him for almost twenty years and I am amazed at
how often, when caught in an anomaly, his stories mutate.
This is why he rarely puts anything down in writing. He
knows and has laughingly joked with me on a few
occasions that such, quote, "comes back to haunt you."
My personal view on this is that maybe if he and others
just told the truth right up front they wouldn't have dance
so often and wear out their shoes. As an example of what
I'm implying. In our last of Red Flame we openly
discussed how the A.·. A.·. splintered into numerous
branches or lineages during Karl Germer's reign and how
Motta's A.·. A.·. is not the only A.·. A.·. but merely one
lineage of many within our Order. It is safe to say that they
were not happy puppies with the release of this
information.
In the early fifties when I was a young boy out hunting
with my father in the Florida swamps I remember him
telling me, "Never underestimate the ability of cornered
animal trying to survive." With time I realized it was a
common sense lesson about life itself. The last
Areopagus Meeting of the OTO was held about six
months after Red Flame No.7 was released or on April
29th 2000. Frater Hymenaeus Beta waltzed in and gave a
two hour history on his personal views of the A.·. A.·. and
the O.T.O. and disputed the claims made on our previous
issue of Red Flame. He flatly denied the existence of
lineages. He explained how both of these Orders were
once tightly connected or entwined in Aleister Crowley's
time but the connection became broken during Karl
Germer's life. The A.·. A.·. went its own way and was
being run by one of Germer's students named Marcelo
Motta while the OTO, on the other hand, nearly slipped
into obscurity. He explained that the Orders are now
coming back together under his reign. I think this new
version of the story can best be summed up by someone
who heard the above and replied, "Oh gag me please you
blithering minstrel." What Frater Hymenaeus Beta failed
to point out is that Germer and Grady were both A.·. A.·. &
OTO initiates. Therefore, common sense dictates that
neither of these gentleman could loose the connection
between the Orders unless they had split personalities.
What Frater Hymenaeus Beta was attempting to do by
using the 'Broken Connection Theory Conspiracy' was to
sell his new and improved belief that the A.·. A.·. never
'splintered' into lineages, it just temporarily moved away
from the OTO. It got a new address and didn't write home
for awhile. With this belief he desperately tried to dispute
the claims made in Red Flame No.7. Of course, many
people did not buy his story and agreed with the
statements made in our previous issue which said that
there are many branches of the A*A* worldwide.
Basically what I've been leading to is to simply
acknowledge that all the information in the issue regarding
Motta's A.·. A.·. is completely accurate 'now' but is subject
to change due to myth-makers gagging at more of their
own discrepancies being pointed out in a public forum.
With time their stories will undergo yet another
transformation and they'll have to buy more shoes. Now
don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should despise this
lineage for its personal proclivities or folly. I'm just saying
that the buyer should beware and don't necessarily
believe that what they're saying today reflects yesterday's
views or even tomorrow's.
In my own branch of the A.·. A.·. we want our students
to approach every subject as if they were a scientist. They
should leave no stone unturned in their quest to
understand the New Aeon. To some it might seem like
this issue of Red Flame is doing little more than disputing
the point-of-view of others. However, we feel the Pit of
because is often an excuse imposed by others who don't
want you to write, reason or think. It is important for you to
understand that the whole idea behind this issue is to
show humanity how you must approach every subject. In
the end, each individual must make up their own mind. Be
genuine to their TRUE WILL and let those be damned to
the dogs who demand that you believe in only them by
saying, follow me "because." If you listen to any one's
reasoning and follow them blindly like a slave, then Power
becomes weakness and into the pit you'll fall. This
includes even what we're saying. This entire issue of Red
Flame is merely offering tidbits of thought. Whether right
or wrong, it is up to each of you to decide for yourself. It is
important to remember that Thelemites believe in
certainty, not faith. However, certainty requires study and
serious study. You should pit every opposite against itself
until all vanishes into Nothingness. The bottom line is that
the over-all purpose of this issue is to simply make you
aware that Liber AL vel Legis is a controversial
manuscript filled with inconsistencies, uncertainty and
innocuous quirks. What we discuss in this issue is only
the tip of the iceberg. We want you to realize that there
are many other interpretational problems with the original
manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis which scholars
seemingly ignore or have excuses why you should. To us,
all these problems do not negate the book's authenticity.
Finally, I'd like to thank those who have helped make
this issue possible. Especially Marlene Cornelius, Frater
ZLA, Frater Maaz, Kalil, Robert Stein, Clive Harper, Keith
Richmond and, of course, much thanks goes to Robert
Palmer. Your help was greatly appreciated and I guess
when all is said and done, if we, the authors and editors of
this issue of Red Flame, are to be called 'centres of
pestilence' ... then we accept this tumultuous role with
glee, after all, we have all been called worse.
Love is the law, love under will.-AL I:57
Frater Achad Osher
[Editor's note: All articles are written by Frater Achad
Osher 583 unless otherwise noted.]
The Latest Dance Craze,
The Tunis Comment Shuffle
"Marcelo Motta was an enigma ... he was a legitimate A.·. A.·. member
who had attracted and trained serious students. I was one, but within
months of commencing work with Motta he published his commentary to
Liber AL and I cut contact with him (cf. the 1925 EV 'short'
Comment)." (1)
Frater Hymenaeus Beta
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.-AL
I:40
On Feb.7th of this year a question presented itself to
Frater Sabazius Xth Degree and head of OTO for the
United States. I will not go into all the gruesome details
but it suggested that although Frater Hymenaeus Beta
claims he quit or cut contact with Marcelo Motta's branch
of the A.·. A.·., in truth, Motta had actually expelled him.(2)
Therefore, the question to Sabazius was, "How could
Frater Hymenaeus Beta be one of three individuals who is
in charge of running a lineage of our Order?" The
response centered around whether or not Motta had the
authority to expel Frater Hymenaeus Beta. Frater
Sabazius replied by stating what HB had told him, "Motta
lost his authority to govern A.·. A.·. when he published his
commentaries on Liber Al, in violation of the Class A
Comment. This authority then passed to the next most
senior initiate, even if he did not wholeheartedly accept it
until some time later, after Motta's insanity had
progressed even further." In other words, Motta had no
authority to expel Frater Hymenaeus Beta because his
authority had been taken away years 'earlier' and given to
another even though the latter had not realized it yet.
Basically, what they want you to believe is that Class A or
The Tunis Comment granted them the authority not only
to judge, but to over-throw Marcelo Motta, their own
teacher, whom they claimed was head of the A.·. A.·..
They will tell you that when their teacher published his
personal commentary to Liber AL vel Legis in 1975(3) he
automatically lost all his authority and that another person
named Frater K.N. 4=7 automatically assumed the
position as head of our noble Order.
However, what does 'not wholeheartedly accept it'
mean? We know that Frater K.N. remained loyal to Motta
for almost five years after the latter had published his
Commentaries. Then, according to Motta, difficulties
arose and Frater K.N. withdrew voluntarily from the Order
in writing. In other words, he resigned. However, it now
seems Motta was completely wrong. Frater K.N. didn't
resign, he merely left Motta when he realized Motta had
become a centre of pestilence and, in leaving, he took his
master's authority with him. If such is true, why was this
story never made public until after Motta's death on
August 28th 1987? Could it have anything to do with the
fact that Motta most likely would have been rather hostile
to the idea that he was no longer in charge? What rebuttal
of facts might have he disclosed? Nevertheless, this
branch of the Order's interpretation of how 'authority
shifts' is what this essay is all about because such views
are not shared by any other branch nor is such even
reflected in the views of Aleister Crowley. Many of us look
upon the view of this lineage as an attempt by them to
justifying their quest for existence, authority and the
domination of our Order as a whole. In other words, they
are merely 'creatively interpreting' The Tunis Comment in
order to proselytize their own personal views and to
explain how individuals, like themselves, who either quit or
resigned were actually still in the Order.
I'd like to start by saying, "Maybe there is a verse in
their Tunis Comment which is not in mine?" Yes, I agree,
The Tunis Comment says, "Those who discuss the
contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres
of pestilence." But if they believed that their teacher had
gone insane and became a centre of pestilence why didn't
they simply follow the Comment's advice, walk away and
shun him? Where in the Comment, or for that matter
anywhere in the volumes of Crowley's A.·. A.·. literature,
does it say that when you quit and walk away from your
teacher you have the right to take his authority with you?
How laughable is this? Do you really think Aleister
Crowley would have put a 'clause' in his fraternity so that
every Probationer on up could usurp future leaders simply
by stating that it is their belief they had gone mad or
violated a particular line from The Tunis Comment?
Furthermore, using their own interpretation to the letter,
we should renounce Frater Hymenaeus Beta because it's
easy to find numerous places in the introductions,
footnotes and the articles where he discusses or
comments upon the contents of certain verses from Liber
AL vel Legis. Even Frater Sabazius is not exempt from
this folly. He, too, has written pieces in which he
interprets verses from Liber AL vel Legis. When
confronted about this, Sabazius was quick to respond,
"Some may consider my use of supportive or illustrative
quotes from Liber AL to be 'pestilential' commentary on
Liber AL, and according to a very strict definition of
'commentary,' they would probably be right. But then,
according to a very strict definition of 'commentary,' every
public reading of Liber AL would have to be considered
commentary as well. Every vocal inflection, every
emphasis of one word and de-emphasis of another, every
facial expression and hand gesture, would convey
meaning beyond that contained in the printed text itself.
HB is not concerned with the very strict definition of
commentary, though." He is correct on many points. It's all a
'commentary.'
So, where do we draw the line and who is to judge what
is and is not a commentary? Sabazius has made it very
clear that he'll accept Frater Hymenaeus Beta, in his
authoritative capacity as both leader of OTO and as one
of the heads of his A.·. A.·. lineage, to make those
decisions for him, to either approve or to disapprove what
is a 'commentary.' This may sound all well and good but if
Frater Hymenaeus Beta can 'approve' his own
commenting on Liber AL vel Legis, or that of others, why
couldn't Marcelo Motta do the same when he published
his commentaries in 1975? After all, Motta being the head
of his A.·. A.·. lineage should have had the same authority.
The bottom line is this. You can not state that your
predecessor is guilty of a crime and exempt yourself of
the same due to the position which you now hold,
especially when the position is the same as he held when
supposedly committing the same offense. If it's good for
the goose then it's good for the gander. Is it me, or are
there are too many inconsistencies which imply someone
is stretching facts as they go along to justify their own
authority, rather than facing phantoms they're creating
and being caught at?
Yes, I've heard the argument that Motta simply
commented upon too much by addressing the entirety of
Liber AL vel Legis in his book while others are only
casually mentioning a verse here or there. However, The
Tunis Comment doesn't discriminate between discussing
one verse or all, or exactly in what context. You're simply
told that those who discuss or comment upon the
contents of this Book are to be shunned. Cut and dry. So,
verily, should we reject both these gentleman as centres
of pestilence? In truth, I think not. Let's be serious. How
many authorities, writers and leaders in the world would
fall by the wayside if this foolishness notion was
enforced? Dear readers, I'll let you judge for yourself as to
how ludicrous this all sounds. There must be something
more to The Tunis Comment.
However, for the record, I'm not saying that these A.·. A.·.
individuals did not have the right to walk away if they
honestly believed their teacher had gone mad. I'm not
even saying that I'm against the over-all idea that they
could not continue on their own in creating their own
lineage from scratch. I honestly believe, if they make the
connections, that they can and I accept them with open
and honest arms in their noble quest. The only thing I find
really ludicrous, or just plain hard to understand, is how
Frater Hymenaeus Beta can interpret The Tunis
Comment to imply that it gives him and others the power
to over-throw the source of their lineage while claiming
'they' are the "traditional authority."(4) I can not fathom nor
stretch my imagination far enough to comprehend their
logic, unless they're implying that traditional authority is
synonymous with anarchy and revolution. If so, they best
keep their backs to wall, a watchful eye on all their
Probationers and trust the lesson they've been taught is
not passed on.
It may not seem important as to why we had to mention
this controversy but it is because Frater Hymenaeus Beta
and others will try to tell you that our branch of the A.·. A.·.,
like Motta's, has become a 'centre of pestilence' merely
because we've dared to do what Aleister Crowley warned
us against. We interpret and comment upon certain
controversial aspects of Liber AL vel Legis in a open
forum, meaning this issue of Red Flame. They're going to
try to cite Crowley's Tunis Comment to you as evidence of
our inappropriate behavior. They'll even try to convince
you that this issue of Red Flame proves that we have all
gone mad and that we no longer have any authority within
the A.·. A.·.. Therefore, if this issue of Red Flame is going
to discuss principles found in Liber AL vel Legis it is
important to correctly understand the Comment and
whether or not it says we should be shunned ... as some
Thelemic scholars would lead you to believe. In other
words, since The Tunis Comment is used by some
Thelemic raconteurs as a weapon against what they
personally believe are heresies, it becomes important to
begin this issue here. Sadly, a heresy to some merely
implies a contradictory view point which should be
tolerated from a Thelemic standpoint, to others.
Love is the law, love under will.-AL I:57
The next question we need to ask ourselves is,
"What authority did Motta really have that could be taken
away?"
An Open Epistle on Motta's Degree
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.-AL
I:40
Karl Germer published his edition of Aleister Crowley's
Liber Aleph, The Book of Wisdom or Folly in September
of 1961ev. On the inside A.·. A.·. title page where it lists
those individuals involved in the publication, Motta's
'symbol' is there alongside 6=5 and followed by the title
of Imperator. This title literally means an individual whose
primary function is the responsibility of 'hands-on'
management of the Order on a mundane level subject to
the authority from above. Motta was obviously helping
Germer with getting Liber Aleph published and there is
little dispute of this fact. However, Frater Hymenaeus
Beta would have you believe that Karl Germer
acknowledged Motta as being an Adeptus Major, working
magickally and spiritually out of the Qabalistic sphere of
Geburah. But is this true? You'll note in Red Flame No.7
pg.xv, we mentioned the claim that Motta was 6=5
without openly attacking it but since the publication of our
last issue there are new 'developments' which force us to
clarify some facts. We didn't want to reveal this
information but under the circumstances we've been left
with no alternative.
Rather than taking Frater Hymenaeus Beta's word for it,
lets look at what Motta wrote in regards to his own
magickal accomplishments. He wrote (in the third
person), saying: "After some initial correspondence, Motta
visited the Germers personally and was offered the
alternative of either joining the A.·. A.·. or the OTO. He
chose the former at once: He had read One Star in Sight,
which describes exactly the kind of organization he had
been looking for since he was eleven years old. It took him
seven years and much tribulation to pass from
Probationer to Neophyte."(1) Motta tells us this first
meeting with Germer occurred in 1953. However, if it took
him seven years to make Neophyte, that would place his
taking such a degree around 1960. In other words, when
he was working on Liber Aleph with Karl Germer he was
not a magickal 6=5 but only a Neophyte by his own
admission. To further substantiate this, in the summer of
1962, the year after Liber Aleph was released and three
months before Germer's death, Motta admits that he
finally "passed through the Zelator Initiation."(2)
Now here is the Truth. Frater Hymenaeus Beta needs
you to believe that Motta's 6=5 was a 'magickal
attainment' to signify that he was indisputably the highest
ranking A.·. A.·. initiate when Karl Germer died but this is
nothing more than a distortion of historical facts. Consider
this parallel. J.F.C.Fuller is listed in many A.·. A.·.
manuscripts as N.S.F. 5=6 Cancellarius. The initials
N.S.F. refer to Fuller's motto, Non Sine Fulmine.
Everyone acknowledges that this 5=6 was only an
'Honorary Degree' for publishing purposes. In truth, Fuller
never got the past 0=0 degree or Probationer. Should
we consider Fuller's 5=6 a magickal accomplishment
now that he has died? Absolutely not! The same goes for
Motta. His 5=6 is merely an 'Honorary Degree' used
only to signify his efforts in publishing Liber Aleph. It's
NOT magickal, much less a leadership position.
There is one major reason why Frater Hymenaeus Beta
wants you to believe that Marcelo Motta's 6=5 degree
is magickal. Take into consideration what Karl Germer
wrote to Jane Wolfe in a letter dated June 24th 1952. He
tells her, "You know that I have a high regards to P's
attainment. I'm sure she has gone through 5=6 some
time ago. I'm sure she is under guidance." Germer is
referring to one of the most dedicated, if not brilliant A.·. A.·.
initiates in the history of our noble Order, Phyllis
Seckler. She was initiated as a Probationer on June 3rd
1940, taking the magickal motto of Tenax Propositi. (later
Meral) On July 1st 1952 Soror Meral obtained the
Knowledge & Conversation of her Holy Guardian Angel.
She shared this belief with Karl Germer in numerous
correspondences and he acknowledged it in one letter
dated, July 7th 1952, "Dear child, your questions go to the
bottom of one of the deepest problems that have puzzled
and tortured all initiated men and women from time
immemorial ... I suppose it is the conflict with being
human with a body of flesh, and the fact that you have
risen to or above Tiphereth where the voice of the Secret
Chiefs is gradually taking over and begins to speak to
your soul." As you can see, she has a strong claim to the
attainment. This implies that when Karl Germer died in
1962 she was obviously holding a degree above that of
Zelator which was claimed by Marcelo Motta. This is why
Frater Hymenaeus Beta needs you to believe that Motta's
6=5 degree is magickal and not honorary. This way he
can tell you that Motta held one degree higher than Phyllis
and it justifies his claim as to why Motta assumed head of
the A.·. A.·. and not Phyllis. However, his claim is simply
not true. So, we ask, what authority really "passed to their
next most senior initiate" after Motta had gone insane by
publishing his Commentaries?
Love is the law, love under will.-AL I:57.
OTO Initiations or The Tunis Comment?
"We have contradictory injunctions from AC himself on this, 'study is
forbidden' in the Comment, 'study constantly' in the Minerval. This was
either an error on AC's part, or he did it for a reason. I prefer to
give him the benefit of the doubt. Everyone can come to his or her own
conclusions as to what that reason might have been."
Frater Sabazius
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.-AL I:40
At this point I'd like to confirm my status as one who
enjoys going against the mainstream, if I haven't already.
Yes, I believe it is no secret that Liber AL vel Legis is a
remarkable little book and that Thelema today, as a whole,
is bathing in an unbelievable amount of solidified
dogmatic bull-shit hardened by the Sun into putrefying
masses throughout the world, even more than most
religions accumulate over centuries. I've said it time and
time again, as it stands, the ultimate legacy of our faith
will not be judged historically by the greatness of our
spiritual leaders but by the apparent in-house fighting
which we're constantly doing amongst ourselves in an
attempt to prove who is the true authority. At times I feel
like yelling, "Children! Go to your rooms!" Aleister Crowley
warns us of this insanity which overtakes anyone who
dares to study Liber AL vel Legis. The ego manifests to
such an extent that it screams, "Not only do I know the
Truth, I am the Truth and you will follow only what I say!"
It is on that note that I should remind the reader and
reiterate Crowley's haunting words from the Tunis
Comment. "The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise
to destroy this copy after the first reading." Sadly, it does
seem like sound advice but, from a Thelemic perspective,
something is tragically wrong with this statement. Are we
not a philosophy supposedly founded on Universal
Freedom which implies many views should be allowed
and tolerated? Unfortunately it seems some Thelemic
leaders, past and present, want you to believe that they
have cornered the market on our faith as they stand proud
and high on their pile of 'smelly dogma.'
Rather than falling prey to rigid dogmatic interpretations
of The Tunis Comment, I tend to agree, in part, with
Grady McMurtry. I can still hear him laughing during one
of his lectures, saying that this was one of those great
Crowley paradoxes to test us all. He told us that Crowley
believed if we 'blindly follow' him or anyone, then obviously
we're not a Thelemite and so, yes, we should burn the
book! I'm not quite sure that this was Crowley's intention
when he wrote The Tunis Comment but it sounds noble.
If nothing else it was Grady's way of patronizing the
masses who were both initiates and outsiders at the
lecture he was giving. A far more convincing rant came in
private after a group of us had taken First Degree initiation
on the following evening. He told us that if we adhere to
the letter of this Comment, or "The study of this Book is
forbidden", it violates our Minerval Obligation in Aleister
Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis. He reminded us that
while he was acting as our initiator he said that we must
study it (Liber AL) well; for it is the Charter of Universal
Freedom. And now that we've continued on by taking First
Degree Initiation he made a further recommendation, as
in the former occasion, to study constantly The Book of
the Law. He stressed the grave dangers of violating
anything which we've sworn under Oath. No one can say
how or when the effects of breaking an Oath may occur
since no two individuals are alike. It may not be
immediate, nor tomorrow, a month or a year away and
maybe not even in one's present incarnation but,
karmically, "we'll have Hell to pay." I won't get into the
gruesome details of what happened to Karl Germer on his
death bed but it was one of Grady's favorite examples of
karma taking its toll on one who violated their Oaths,
especially the Minerval.
Studying The Book of the Law is a well known
problematic statement made within the initiation chambers
of the OTO which seemingly defies the Tunis Comment.
This dilemma was white-washed by Frater Sabazius who
has stated, "We have contradictory injunctions from AC
himself on this. 'study is forbidden' in the Comment,
'study constantly' in the Minerval. This was either an error
on AC's part, or he did it for a reason. I prefer to give him
the benefit of the doubt. Everyone can come to his or her
own conclusions as to what that reason might have been."
However, Sabazius fails to point out that all the rituals of
the Ordo Templi Orientis were written long before the
Tunis Comment. Which probably means, like many things
which Crowley had previously written, that parts of the
rituals are no longer authoritative due to his later
injunction and should have either been up-dated or
discarded. Sabazius' logic would rather have us believe
that this contradiction between Tunis Comment and the
initiation rituals was not an 'error' on Crowley's part. This
is a noble aspiration but it implies that he believes there
was a conscious reason on AC's part for allowing the
commandment of studying The Book of the Law to
remain in the OTO initiation rituals. But where is the
support for this belief? There is nothing written amongst
Crowley's papers to imply that this was the case. The
truth of the matter is, Crowley never updated anything
previous to The Tunis Comment. We can look back in
hindsight and say otherwise, but it would only be personal
speculation and nothing more.
However, Sabazius must take this middle-of-the-road or
fence-sitting stance. If he comes out too strongly against
The Tunis Comment he attacks the A.·. A.·. lineage which
is presently ruling OTO. The same lineage which claims
that this document gave them the right to over-throw their
teacher. Furthermore, one of these individuals made
Sabazius Xth Degree, Head of OTO for The United
States. So how willing is he to disagree with their beliefs?
On the other hand, if he follows the Tunis Comment to the
letter, he probably had to ask himself a more serious
question. Should he admit that the initiation Obligations &
Oaths are no longer valid and should be disregarded if
we're to consider ourselves true Thelemites? Obviously
these archaic Obligations & Oaths were not updated by
Crowley to reflect the principles found in The Tunis
Comment. Therefore it can be justifiably argued that
anyone who takes initiation within Ordo Templi Orientis
and follows its obligations is in grave danger of being
shunned as centres of pestilence according to the
commandments given by our prophet, Aleister Crowley.
Sabazius wisely avoids taking sides on this issue and
does the infamous 'Tunis Comment shuffle' by claiming
both sides are correct. He then drops this dilemma into
your lap to figure out. However, it's a vile policy of
leadership to tell others that they must come to their own
conclusions on what Crowley's "reason" for leaving in this
contradiction between the OTO rituals and The Tunis
Comment. Especially as there is no such reason to be
found in his writings.
More importantly, according to magickal principles, if
one set of Obligations or Ordeals are not fulfilled, or
disregarded, it sets into motion a foundation whereby all
become totally useless. You can not pick and choose,
Oaths are either all or nothing. This was the tragedy
behind the fall of a fraternity known as The Hermetic
Order of the Golden Dawn. Crowley wrote their "ordeals
were turned into contempt, it being impossible for anyone
to fail therein ... In short, the order failed to
initiate."(1) I
tend to agree with Aleister Crowley and Grady McMurtry
that any Ordeal, regardless of what, when it's promised to
be accomplished while under Oath, must be adhered to
by the letter. If the leadership of any fraternity fails to
teach this magickal principle then it is in grave danger of
going the same way of The Golden Dawn by becoming
little more than the patronization of egos, some one's
money making scheme, or both. In other words, an OTO
member must study The Book of the Law.
Some OTO leaders agree with what I've said and have
admitted with a deep sigh, that initiates can study this
book because they gave their 'word' during their initiation
but they are quick to point out, "But don't comment upon
anything you discover in writing." In other words keep
everything hush-hush so no one really knows you're
studying The Book of the Law. This way you can not be
called upon as defying The Tunis Comment and you can
still fulfill your magickal obligations given under Oath. Yet
this is a half-ass way of condoning part of the Comment
rather than facing its apparent contradictions. The
Comment clearly says the study of this book is forbidden
and does not distinguish between a private or public
pursuit. The next line clearly warns us, "Whosoever
disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These
are most dire." There are no exceptions mentioned.
However, one final note on this subject, Grady would
often point to one of the last lines in The Tunis Comment,
"There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt." This, in itself,
should tell an individual to reflect upon what Crowley has
just written and then pursue what you must if you're a
Thelemite. After all, "Man has the right to write as he will"
(Liber OZ) ... a line which is not followed by, 'but don't
comment upon The Book of the Law.'
Like Grady, I think The Tunis Comment is a beautiful
thing. It clearly shows how to separate the nuts from the
Tree and I'll leave the reader to assume what that implies
amongst modern Thelemic circles.
Love is the law, love under will.-AL I:57.
Endnotes
The Latest Dance Craze, The Tunis Comment Shuffle
- Frater Hymenaeus Beta, The Crowley Copyrights, The Magical
Link, Vol. 6 No.3, Fall 1992, p.3.
- Marcelo Motta & Aleister Crowley, The Equinox, Vol. V No.4
Sex and Religion (TN: Thelema Publishing Company, Nashville
1981) p.xiii.
- Aleister Crowley & Marcelo Motta, The Commentaries of AL; The
Equinox Volume V, No.1 (NY: Samuel Weiser, Inc. New York 1975).
- Frater Hymenaeus Beta, Consider the Source, The Magical
Link, New Series No.2 Spring-Fall 1998ev p.10.
An Open Epistle on Motta's Degree
- Marcelo Motta & Aleister Crowley, Magick without Tears,
being The Oriflamme Vol. VI No.3 1983, p.476-477.
- Ibid p.498.
OTO Initiations or The Tunis Comment?
- The Equinox Vol.III No.1 Liber Causae (New York:
Samuel Weiser, Inc. 1973) p.57
This on line version contains only the pages i-10. Pages 11-140, also
the original manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis and The Tunis
Comment are not reproduced. Please refer to the paper version.
Also by Jerry Cornelius:
An Apology (Red Flame No.7)
Introduction (Red Flame No.7)
An Open Epistle Regarding Francis King's Book The Secret Rituals of the OTO
Thoughts on Metzger
The Warrior-Troubadour, The Life & Times of Grady Louis McMurtry (Red Flame No.1)
Myths of the Solar Lodge Revisited (The Scribe, Vol.1 No.7 1997)
Chronology of events leading up to the lawsuit filed by the Ordo Templi
Orientis on Sept. 12th 1990 against Alameda County & the City of Berkeley.
KALIL and the Thelema93-l Tango
An Open Epistle on the Expulsion
Visit the Cornelius Homepage
The 'Caliphate'
O.T.O. Phenomenon navigation
page | main page
| Aura of the O.T.O. Phenomenon
| mail
What's New on the O.T.O. Phenomenon site?
|
