THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
49950808 Subject: Do as you please. _________________ Interview with an AA MemberEdited by Hsi Wang Mu (approved for public release by 'AA1') __________________________________________________________________ [AA1 begins speaking about the various documents written by Crowley....] Lets see... there is Liber XIII, Liber 185, and many of the order documents are published in MiTaP and the Equinox. Also, the back of Book 4 part 2 has the requirements of a student and a probationer in this organization. What are you getting at, AA1? I understand that these documents exist. Where in them does it indicate that the AA is a physical org? I claim there isn't a statement within them that indicates this. Now I ask you to disprove my statement. What do *you* think is required of a physical org? I think that in order for any AA to be legitimate, judging from what I've read, it must have some manifestation in the physical plane. With this I have no quarrel. However, I am not at all certain that it has the extent of manifestation which would be called 'an order' by human standards, as I tend to equate it directly with the Great White Brotherhood (GWB). What I think of it does not matter. My claim is about Crowley's assertions. So this is more of a definition thing. Whether the "order" Crowley describes is an "order" by your definition. Not exactly. I want to know what, if anything, does exist which associates with the AA. AND, I'd love to be shown someplace where Crowley legitimizes any organization as the AA. And by 'organization' in the last sentence I mean a physical, human chain. Or a regular human org (order), if you like. I haven't seen that with COT/TOT either. ok.... two things: first... "something that ties the A:. A:. to the physical plane"... how about the "neophyte word".... Elaborate please. This is something that does not affect your attainment in any way to not know, but is important to link you to the order. It is a word in the initiation ritual (_Liber Pyramidos_) from prabationer to neophyte that is only known by A:. A:. members Hearsay. *AA1 laughs. Well it is at least worth considering until you know otherwise, and my 2nd point: look at page 239 of _Magick in Theory and Practice_ (_Book Four_, Dover, 'MTP'), where he goes through a bunch of administrative stuff about not going to the next grade until your student has attained behind you. Also he talks about a "grand neophyte" who seems to have very real physical duties. Cited: # "No attainment soever is officially recognized by the # A:.A:. unless the immediate inferior of the person in # question has been fitted by him to take his place". In other words, even if the person has "attained" to the position of Magus, he or she will only be recognized by the *order* as a Magister Templi until he or she has found a successor. Additionally, on p 230 of the same book (MTP), Cited: # "Certain swindlers have recently stolen the initials # A:.A:. in order to profit by its reputation." and on page 122 of _Magick Without Tears_, (Regardie Ed, Falcon, 'MWT'), Cited: # "...the A:.A:. concerns the individual, his development # his initiation, his passage from 'Student' to # 'Ipsissimus'; he has no contact of any kind with any # other person except the Neophyte who introduces him, # and any Student or Students whom he may, after becoming # a Neophyte, introduce." This, at least, gives reason to believe that someone can't just decide that he or she is member of the A:.A:. without a sponser of some sort. To me, at least, these taken together argue quite well for Crowley believing that there was a physical order. Ok. This gives reason to severely scrutinize any org which lays claim to the name. He might have said the same thing about the GWB. Yet you seem to be saying that Crowley claims to have founded the AA. If he FOUNDED it, why wouldn't he state it flatly? He does, in _Liber LXI_ (Regardie Ed., _Gems From the Equinox_, Falcon, p. 10). Actually he says it was founded by VVVVV and VVVVV initiated OM, DDS, and an unnamed 3rd to the upper triad. OM => Crowley's 7=4 motto; DDS = George Cecil Jones' 7=4 motto. Cited: # "29. Also one V.V.V.V.V. arose, an exalted adept of the # rank of Master of the Temple (or this much He disclosed # to the Exempt Adepts and His utterance is enshrined in # the Sacred Writings. # "30. Such are _Liber Legis_, _Liber Cordis Cincti # Serpente_, _Liber Liberi vel Lapidis Lazuli_ and such # others whose existence may one day be divulged unto # you. Beware lest you interpret them either in the # Light or in the darkness, for only in L.V.X. may they # be understood. # "31. Also He conferred upon D.D.S., O.M., and another, # the Authority of the Triad, who in term have delegated # it unto others, and they yet again, so that the Body of # Initiates may be perfect, even from the Crown unto the # Kingdom and beyond. # "32. For Perfection abideth not in the Pinnacles, or in # the Foundations, but in the ordered Harmony of one with # all." (note that the whole document is given to probationers as a history lection about the foundings of the A:. A:.). The "preliminary lection" talks about the GWB and the idea of "attainment" as a general phenomenon. The "History Lection" then goes into the establishment of a "new" system of attainment called the A:.A:., with the entire current initiated by VVVVV. To quote the "Curriculum of the A:.A:. in III:1: Cited: # "(_Liber LXI vel Causae_) explains the actual history of # the origin of the present movement (i.e. the A:.A:.)." From a logical position.... If you need a "teacher" to be in the A:. A:. which is stated in all the oaths, etc. Then that teacher must have also had one. Taking this back to its extreme.... If VVVVV started the A:.A:. (as in Liber 61), and initited Fraters O.M., D.D.S., and an unnamed third.... then someone claiming to be a member of the A:.A:. must be able to trace their lineage back to one of these three. IFF, true. Why must that teacher also have had a teacher? So they could have been let into the order in the first place :> With the only exception being VVVVV who started the order. Well this is the order that Crowley seems to be talking about What is 'the Authority of the Triad' in v. 31 above? And what *possible* meanings could it have? the three supernals.... if he calls the A:. A:. the highest grade as well as the name for the entire order, then it could be that. This wouldn't be uncommon since the Golden Dawn was the name for the lower section and the entire order. He could have been playing off that by naming his org after the highest order instead of the lowest. Though in "One Star in Sight", Crowley is careful to call the upper order the "S.S." and not the A:.A:. Could it also mean that he 'brought them across the Abyss'? Sure; The "authority of the A:. A:." so to say :> So it is possible that he simply means that he initiated them into the Magister Templi Grade? Sure, and if you take what he said from One Star in Sight (OSiS), then this makes sense...; on page 233 (MTP) he states, Cited: # "Members of the order (i.e. the S.S.) are each # entitled to found orders dependent on themselves # on the lines of the R.C. and the G.D. orders...." And # "All such orders must, however, be consistuted in # harmony with the A:.A:. as regards the essential # principles." This order created by Crowley/Jones/unnamed Third can therefore be seen as a single system of attainment that Crowley called the A:.A:., and the A:.A:. as an order was therefore only created when Crowley and others crossed the Abyss. Now I must make myself clear here. What I am attempting to ascertain is whether Crowley specifically states that there is an 'official' AA. This would separate it distinctly from the potentially-physical GWB and the Body of Christ (BoC: Body of Christ, similar if not same concept. Christian mysticism, likely from where all this was stolen to begin with). Given that it is possible that he initiated people into an order he claims was the AA.... what evidence is there that that Order exists? AND what evidence is there that you have contacted it? Not to mention, what evidence is there that Crowley ever made contact with said Chiefs? The Problem: 1) The Body of Christ (BoC/AA/GWB) is a mystical concept. 2) A large part of that mystical concept includes the great potential for people who are in these respective bodies not to know they are members, not to know that they are initiates. 3) To claim that any particular social organization 'is' that body is somewhat difficult to substantiate, as well as it is extreme in its content. Crowley identified the AA with the GWB. Both the GWB and the BoC have similar characteristics. Part of this being that people can be teachers without having been students. Students without ever knowing it. I am not saying that a social AA is impossible. Just that Crowley formalizing it amounts to what I'd call a 'severe restriction of the power of his formula'. To have it be *a* manifestation of the AA would be very reasonable. But then I'd like to find out as much as I'm able about it to determine its source. Not about what Crowley said, but about the physical org as it stands. So should I ever run across anyone who claimed to be involved with a manifestation I would wish to know the source as clearly as possible. And why did Crowley distinguish between the 'SS' and the 'AA'? Also why did he write near the beginning of OSiS (MTP p. 230): Cited: # "A glimpse of the structure and system of the Great White # Brotherhood."? First off, to my knowledge Crowley never called the A:.A:. the BoC, and therefore I find it problematic when you try to assert that the BoC, GWB, and A:.A:. can just be used interchangably. Secondly, I think you are making a big jump when you use GWB and A:.A:. interchangibly as well, even though Crowley called the A:.A:. a manifestation of the GWB. For example, Crowley claims that the OTO continues on the lineage of the Knights Templar. I agree with that, but that does not mean that you can just say that the Knights Templar and the OTO are the same group. Additionally, if someone who had the "Knights Templar Degree" in Freemasonry decided to claim to be part of the OTO, that person might soon find himself in court. Crowley also calls the A:.A:. a "Rosicrucian" organization. That does not mean that the A:.A:. does the same things on a physical level as the "historical" Rosicrucians, nor does it mean that any of the hundreds of organizations calling themselves Rosicrucians can therefore also call themselves A:.A:. The way I always saw it through reading Crowley's documents was that Crowley was offering a system for attainment. He never says it is the *only* system. By calling it the GWB, he could be saying one of two things. He could either be saying it is the one and only GWB, as you maintain (I think) or he could be saying that it is *a* system of attainment and therefore the GWB (believing that ALL valid systems of attainment are the GWB). As for using S.S. instead of A:.A:. in OSiS, I can think of tons of reasons that would not necessarily imply a "metaphorical" society. The simpliest of them being that he just didn't want to confuse people. My impression (colored by many years and bias) was that he identified them. I think his writing about the AA is mystically perfect. It admits of both metaphorical meaning (personal application for a specific contact directly from the Secret Chiefs (as Crowley himself claimed if I am not mistaken). OR a literal meaning (social application for a specific contact directly from one of his lineage as he lays it out in Liber 61). To claim one OR the other is, to my mind, an error. But I wish to know about any who have claimed either within their lives. Now my understanding is that the COT/TOT are 'in service to' the AA, and this could imply EITHER. I.e. either a literal or metaphorical interpretation. I have pressed people from their orgs on this and I continue to get relative silence (admirably). However, most others who've claimed association with 'the AA' don't have much to tell me that isn't hearsay. I think that hearsay is valuable, mind you, especially if the confidante be trusted and says what she knows and what she cannot express to me and why. What do you think of this assertion re: metaphor/literate? I agree with your assertion that the AA is mystically perfect and that it had at least a metaphorical connection with the secret chiefs. I think that all valid systems of attainment do and thats what I would call the GWB. I meant that Crowley's description has a metaphorical REFERENT, as well as a literal one. That his text describes the GWB and the BoC as one approaches it from an individual standpoint, interacting directly with a Chief who is not physical AS WELL AS describing a *potential* social org. And this social org may be composed of people who don't know anything to seed a conscious organization of physical humans (as was his egotistical and perfectionistic bent). What thereafter I need to know from anyone who claims that they have a connection to 'the AA' is what kind of 'AA' is it that you are connected to and what evidence you have for your presumptions. But I would argue that this describes the GWB perfectly, and the system that Crowley set up with all the grade curriculums and the oaths and whatnot are the A:. A:., which is the GWB in one form. Do you really believe (or think Crowley believed) that the grade curriculums and the oaths he created for the A:.A:. was the only way to attainment? Yes, I think he fabricated them perfectly such that they were mystical formulae which reflected metaphorically upon the various stages of the Journey. At least they appeared to me to reflect what I'd seen described of the GWB and also conformed to my own experience of this org. I agree. In my experience people have meant two things when they have said that. Either they come from a tradition that traces itself back to Crowley, Jones, and unnamed guy, (and follow all the tasks prescribed in the system), or they just follow the tasks without being able to trace themselves back to Crowley. But in both examples they are following an actual system (not a metaphorical one). There is another option. More than one, actually. 1) That a person has secured a relationship with a nonphysical Secret Chief, whom I refer to as a 'Celestial Master', for example, OR, 2) that one is unconscious of the fact that they are in the AA, the mystical and unorganized GWB of Case. But do you think that the GWB can only be joined by following the instructions Crowley set forth for the A:.A:.? Yes, but they are like the 8-fold path of Buddhism. So ambiguous as to be applicable across the strata of the spiritual realm. The A:.A:. is just a single mnifestation for this. On one level AA = GWB, but only so much that ALL systems of attainment make up the GWB. On another level though, the A:.A:. is a path for attainment. I don't think Joe Shmoo is automatically a member just because he says he is. I don't even think the Dalai Lama is a member of the A:.A:. (though he might be :>). Its the difference between calling someone a Buddha and saying they are a Buddhist. You are affirming that all systems of attainment eventually arrive at the same goal, but this is different then specifically saying what system so-and-so followed to get there. So therefore, when Crowley calls Blavatsky a Magister Templi, he is not saying she is a has used the A:.A:. system of attainment, he is instead affirming that all systems of attainment eventually lead to the same place and is putting her attainment in terms of the A:.A:. grade structure. Thus the Dalai Lama might well be an ippsissimus, but he is not a member of the A:.A:. Crowley might well be a Buddha, but that doesn't mean he is a Buddhist, etc. Actually, I think it is comparable to when I say that the only way to learn is with the Scientific Method. There are TWO things going on: a single manifestation, religious Buddhists, materialist modern scientists, and CJAA members; and a transcendental process: the esotericist/buddhist, the true scientist, and GWB/AA members. These latter are all names for the same energetic 'initiates'. But, as you say, "there are TWO things going on". I'll try to make myself a bit clearer with a question. Do you agree that the A:.A:. is reflected by the order documents as written by Crowley and presented in the Equinox 1, etc.? I agree that Crowley's sight was clear as far as I know these documents, especially with regard to the METAPHORIC, NONPHYSICAL AA, yes. Ok. Well then do you think the GWB is limited to people taking oaths and such as are prescribed in Crowley's documents? Do you think it is limited to the instructions of practices that are in the documents? The GWB involves people taking oaths, yes, but these oaths may not be consciously acknowledged. My understanding of the oaths which I have seen is that they are accurate to my experience of the Order and what I'm told about it. I figured we'd get to the 'oaths question' sooner or later. Suffice it to say that my understanding is that 'oaths' also participate in this 'metaphorical meaning' as compared to a literal meaning. Yet, if this is true, why set them out in this form. If meant on a metaphorical level, these oaths would limit the aspiriant by placing unnecessary limitations on him or her.... if only in just the fact that he or she doesn't have free reign to write the oath as he or she sees fit. Whereas, if the A:.A:. is a physical organization, then the oaths are taken because of a certain system of attainment that you have found it your will to align yourself with. Also, when the oaths tell the aspirant that he or she can leave the organization at any time he or she wishes, it seems more in line with the requirements of a physical organization then a metaphorical one. Why leave the organization if it is metaphor for attainment itself? Once won, can true attainment ever be lost? This idea seems supported even more when you notice that some of the oaths tell the aspirant that during these grades he or she should *not* leave the order. Why allow it sometimes and not others if it is all a metaphor? Hey, slow down. :> First, I think, as has often been said to me in OTO, that discipline (of various forms) is an important part of the path, whether this is designed by one's accepted teacher or by oneself. Some people need the rigidity of feeling 'compelled' to perform, and this is one reason why oaths such as you describe would serve some (the ones who need a physical org) but not others (those who are more self-motivated and/or already have a connection to the nonphysical AA). Second, the 'oaths' that you are talking about are quite vague in their statement, issuing mythical and important proclamations of will. You are in error to state that the *oaths* tell the aspirant about leaving the AA (at least within _Liber Collegii Sancti_; Gems, pp. 1109-34)). Those are the *Tasks* of the Grades, which precede the Oaths proper. Be that as it may, I don't see why severing one's association with a *nonphysical* AA is any more unlikely than with a physical org of the same name but wider scope, and besides these writings are by *Crowley*. That is, they are his expression of the GWB as I understand it, perhaps translated into an 'Outer Order' (as I've defined previously). Your question about allowing withdrawal at some points and not others may well point to a very important part of what Crowley thought the metaphor to be. I agree with a lot of your last paragraph. The A:. A:. is an expression of the GWB as Crowley understood it. He set this down with a series of oaths/tasks and created an entire library of documents for his order. That does not mean that the A:.A:. and the GWB can be used interchangably, anymore then it means the AMORC and the Golden Dawn are interchangible (being two separate orders which claim to represent the Rosicrucians). As for whether or not Crowley conceived of the A:.A:. as a physical org, there is a quote I've been trying to find for you all night (I know its a footnote somewhere in MiTaP).... maybe you remember where it is. It refers to attainment in the A:.A:., and says that someone might well have attained, in fact might for all intents and purposes be a Magister Templi, but if they have a nervous twitch and can't sit still they will never pass their Neophyte testing on Asana. And therefore never be recognized in the A:.A:. as being any higher irrespective of their "true" attainment. Yes, I remember that. There is still a metaphorical referent possible. Though I admit that there is a possible literal interpretation and application. I have never denied a possible physical and social application of Crowley's words. I have just never come upon anyone who was able to describe for me their experience in such an org with credibility. *Mu does not desire to believe any such thing, but is interested in what you claim about your connection to the AA proper. I'd prefer it if you were quite precise. Saying exactly what you know from experience, saying what you have heard from your superiors, etc. I don't know what exactly you want to know. Ok, then I'll phrase it in specific questions. ok, though I'll say now that I don't know how much I can say that will convince you either. Its not really something I'm interested in, since it is something I joined for my own attainment and not to prove to people or brag about. I'm willing to tell you that I'm in the A:. A:., but I don't really know how else to convince you short of sending you copies of my signed oaths. I consider my work in it of the most personal nature to myself, and since I can't tell you who my immediate superior is (at least I think it would be impolite without asking), then I don't know how I can prove to you things about it that do not deal with a personal level." Just answer my questions and I'll be satisfied. I've not had any of you AA folx sit still long enough to do this, which is hilarious in itself. Ok, go on then. You say that you are a member of the AA. True? Yes ...with the understanding that I am refering to the A:.A:. as the entire system of attainment described in OSiS, and not the third order which, in that text, is entitled S.S. How is it that you have come to this membership? Through personal contacts? Via snail mail contact? Random delivery? :> I wrote to the person (I will find out, but I'm not sure if he minds if I just tell you his name). Via email, it's quicker. :) *Mu hopes to make this conversation public, so perhaps his name wouldn't do. Wow, email. Ok, and then what happened? And then I was sent some material about the org, including my oath, and I signed it. Via snail mail.... its more official. :> So this is a 'by-snail-mail' initiation?" Yup. And you never met your initiator? Physically or in cyberspace? Initiation in the AA is very different then the OTO... it is more like going from 4th grade to 5th in elementary school.... it doesn't really say much other then you've finished the work from the grade before. Some intitations involve a physical initiator, and some don't. Yes, GD-style. I think I understand. I guess becoming a "student of the mysteries" is seen as completing the work necessary to even get to that point. Ok, did you have to do anything to qualify for that initiation? What did you do that qualified you for what grade(s)? Once again, initiation is "qualified for" by completeing all the work of the grade before it and passing the tests satisfactorily. Apparently, to become a student, the work and tests are actually finding the order and deciding you want to join. Ok, and are there successive grades beyond the first grade?" See Liber 13 for the qualifications for the other grades. It tells quite a bit in there. Beyond student, there is probationer, neophyte, zelator, etc. Ok so they go along Crowley's described lines?" To my knowledge. And do they give written tests? I.e. via snailmail to you? Or how do they ascertain that you've done the work? Tests are of all sorts. For example to become a student, I didn't have to pass any real written test. Right. You found the org. But what about after that? I should also ask, what grade are you presently? That's not important. Even if it is, its something I don't feel I'd like to disclose. :> I'd rather not talk about specific work, since for me the "silence" encompassing that is very important. It's important for me magically at this point. Ok. Fine. What other types of tests have they given you in order to qualify for your next grade? Besides written? I'll try to tell you everything I know about the order, which, as you can read yourself in the oaths at the end of Gems, is a very important part of the A:.A:..... but I find that separate from telling you about my personal work/tests. For myself I draw a distinction between "secrecy" and "silence". This first relates to the strictures of an entire order and the second is a decision made personally. I don't believe in "secrecy", but I sometimes find use in "silence". Ok, how do you know that you've encountered the AA and not some people who merely claim it for their benefit (and possibly yours)? Were any claims made about the lineage (i.e. of O.M. or D.D.S. or whatever)? Or even association with Crowley?" Because I asked the person before I joined. I also have been told by outside sources (outside of this particular branch) that it was. In fact that is how I found out about it in the first place. Told by someone reliable? 'Being told' is kinda ambiguous. Someone who I consider reliable. He was told by a member (head?) of another branch which doesn't claim to be decended from Crowley, but does claim to do all the same work. It would seem to me that this person would have nothing to gain by saying someone else is descended from Crowley's lineage if the person isn't. Ok, it seems that's as far as I'm gonna get with specifics about legitimacy. My other questions have to do with why you've given me the responses you did. Why do you think that retaining secrecy about the person and your work and the tests is valuable to you, or to the org or to me? To answer why I've given the responses I did, they are the best answer I know how to give at the present. They describe the A:.A:. to the best of my knowledge of it. I'm trying to follow a sentiment that is shown in all the oaths published in _Liber Collegii Sanctii Sub Figura CLXXXV_. *Mu nods, not assuming otherwise. As for why secrecy, its valuable to *me* on many levels. First off, it makes sure I don't begin to work within the A:.A:. for reasons that are not solely for my own personal attainment. I.e. that I don't start wanting degrees for some sort of imaginary prestige. Secondly, its for a very basic psychological reason. Its like YHVH, if the word was said every day, it would be nothing special right now. Since the word was keep hidden, it is considered a word of "great power". Similar connects can be drawn with words like love.... If I tell someone I love them everyday, then the word tends to become less and less meaning for to hear, yet if I never say it, then it was a great effect when said. The same with personal magical work. It seems to hold greater psychological effect to someone who keeps it to him or her self. *<(Guest)> thinks telling someone you love them everyday makes it more powerful. Perhaps. I've had the opposite experience. I find my self searching for words that even surpass "love" when I say it too much. Have you taken oaths that bind you to secrecy regarding these particulars (tests, works, teachers, etc.)? Nope. If you were to tell me about them would your instruction/membership be terminated? Not to my knowledge. In fact, even Liber Resh is expected to be done with your grade sign, even when you are *in public* as Crowley states in MWT. If you were to find out that the org/teacher with which you've become associated was a fake, would it matter to you? Yes and no. First, I'm still uncertain about my position on whether groups that follow the A:.A:. curriculum, but don't have lineage, still have the right to use the name "A:.A:.", but is a lot more. My reason for joining the A:.A:. is that in all my experience of searching through systems, this seems to fit what I'm looking for the best. Whether its called A:.A:. or not is irrelevant to me. Its what it does thats important. So perhaps I wouldn't call it the A:.A:. anymore, but it would still be a useful system to me. There is a second point. I'm not sure about this, but I'm guessing that there are a lot of unpublished instructions that Crowley passed down with branches. An example of this is the adoration said after Liber Resh, which I know exists. Whether I ever see this or not is irrelevant to my attainment, but its something that would, at the very least, satisfy my intellectual curiosity. If the org I belong to suddenly said it was not part of the A:.A:., I might be disappointed for the reason given above, but it would *definitely* be something I could live with. *Mu grins. Do you mind if I post this conversation to the Usenet?" I'd like it if you sent me a copy of the cutting you make of this (considering all the netsplits and whatnot) before you do just so I can see it. Assuming I'm satisifed that everything is in the right place, then sure. [We subsequently sent the file back and forth through four editings. - Mu] I'd be happy to pass a copy of the text through you prior to posting. Do you want your name to appear in it, or even more, your noncyber name? *Mu offers the temptation of fame to AA1. *AA1 laughs. I'd rather not, but its something I need to think about. I'm not "ashamed" of anything I said, I just think that its not important. It also misses the focus of the discussion which is one person's view of the A:.A:. to the best they see it. This could be any person, and every inititate will probably have a differnet view. Oh, I see . :> Well, I'd be happy to make you 'AA1' if you like. Then perhaps it would turn into a series." Sure. AA1, thanks for your time and honesty. I think that many people will benefit from your willingness to take chances with addressing such questions as I've asked you. I hope what I said at least gives you some information you didn't have before. It does. I've only heard intimations regarding social orgs called 'AA', and I've done damn little study of the subject. Mostly because I didn't see it was worth my while. I guess I really like the system, and I figured I might as well join, even if I have to learn "in spite of" my teacher :> Though ideally Crowley always said there such be as little contact with the "teacher" as possible, as that has seemed true to me so far in my exprience. *Mu gives AA1 the signs of departure and honored respect *AA1 returns the sign *Mu terminates log. ======================================================================== Free love, right now! Mu ---------------------------------------------- 1995 (C) nagasiva, tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com All rights reserved. Publication electronic may be carried out so long as no money exchanges hands, this copyright notice remains intact, and all reasonable efforts have been made to secure the most recent edition of the document.
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|