THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

From: tyagI@houseofkaos.Abyss.coM (Hsi Wang Mu)
To: alt.magick
Subject: The A.'.A.'. (9408.the-aa-.hwm3)
Date: 49940814

Quoting: |gpeters@netcom.com (Gregory Peters) 
         |>Hsi Wang Mu
         |>|Gregory Peters

Do as you please, for this is my Law.
Only love can make love.

|From my experience, and from observing your particular method of 
|communicating, I would liken trying to speak with you about equal 
|to attempting conversation with Choronzon.  Do you have a particular 
|affinity with the number 333?

Yes, actually.  My Abyss would be so impressed. :>  Nigris = 333. 
Hey, I'm a nice demon.  If you pet me I purr.  If you growl then I 
get out these razor-sharp teeth.  Heeheehee.  Actually my bark is 
worse than my bite.  I still say that the Beast is a Svinehundt, tho.


|>|What do you mean by A.'.A.'.?  

|> ...I am not sure if the name precedes
|> Crowley, though I think I've read at least one viewpoint that it does.
|                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      
|That would be interesting to see -- please post the reference if you come 
|across it.  I can't recall any references to an organization called AA 
|that pre-dates Crowley.

Okeedokee.  Can't say my memory's very good on that one.  It is also
possible that 'AA' stood for something other than what is asserted by
Thelemites (i.e. Astrum Argenteum or whatever the horrid name was).  
It could have been 'Aurum Aeraculus' or something in real Latin! :D).


|I interpret the organization A.'.A.'., which is described in the three 
|documents mentioned below, and in Liber LXI, as a physical manifestation 
|of the so called 'Invisible Rosicrucian Order'.  This would include even 
|the Order of the Silver Star (ref. _One Star in Sight_).  In other words, 
|the A.'.A.'. is primarily composed of Initiates who are living in physical 
|bodies.  

Ok.  This gives us something to go on.  I'll try to keep this statement
in mind as we proceed.


|The authority for this physical manifestation of the Order would 
|apparently come from discarnate Adepti or Secret Chiefs of that 
|invisible, and I think nameless/eternal Order which lies behind all such 
|true organizations.  However, since I have never been in contact with a 
|"Secret Chief," or even a praeter-human intelligence such as Aiwass, I 
|can not substantiate this claim.

'Praeter-human'?  Ewwwwwwwww.  I'm not sure of this.  I'll keep the above 
in mind and I appreciate your candor.


|>|What is your understanding or conception of the Order?
|
|> This is a very broad question, and so I can only touch on some of the main
|> points.  I think that Crowley gives an adequate description of the AA within
|> his 'One Star in Sight'.  I've peered at this doc a few times and enjoyed
|> its ambiguity with respect to referent.
|
|In the past I think you've said _One Star in Sight_ was far from an 
|adequate description, even vague.  

Likely I said it was ambiguous.  I like OSiS very much, as I hope to make
quite clear to you.  I suspect it is perfect in very many ways.


|It clearly identifies the various 
|Orders which compose the A.'.A.'., and briefly describes each specific 
|Grade.  However, I do not belive this document attempts to describe that 
|eternal Nameless Order which lies behind A.'.A.'.

|So you and your superior are apparently members of the Great White 
|Brotherhood (for lack of a better name).  However, it does not appear 
|that the two of you are initiates of A.'.A.'. as manifested by 
|Crowley/Jones.  Do you see the difference?

Um, actually, no.  Here, let's let Crowley speak for me:

"One Star in Sight

"...

"A glimpse of the structure and system of the Great White Brotherhood."

Page 327 of _Magick_, Ed. Symonds/Grant.
_______________________________________________


|> I am instructed that the Order takes many forms, operates within many
|> different dimensions, and instructs in so many different ways that many
|> students don't even know that they are being educated.  Some *instructors*
|> don't even know that they are members.
|
|Again, the above appears to be a description of that invisible, eternal 
|Order which, from time to time, authorizes the creation of physical 
|vehicles to promote Its Work.  One such vehicle is the physical 
|organization called A.'.A.'.  (cf. _An Account of the Order_, Franz 
|Hartmann).

Wow, I'd really like to hear why you think of this in such strictly
dualistic terms.  Not only does Crowley state flatly in _One Star in
Sight_ that he is describing the GWB, but the description of the AA 
appears to include an ambiguity which allows description of the 
'invisible, eternal Order' (albeit a particular mapping thereof).

I don't have a copy of Mr. Hartmann's text and I'm unlikely to procure
one any time soon.  If you'd like to quote, I'd be much obliged.  By
the way, who is Franz Hartmann and why should I care what he has to say?


|>|What is your conception of the A.'.A.'. *prior* to Crowley?  
|
|> This of course depends on what you mean by 'the AA'.  If you mean Crowley's
|> particular social, physical organization, then I have no idea about its
|> history (or its present state, I might add).  This is something I'd like
|> to find out from *you*.
|
|This is what I've been trying to determine: when you say "A.'.A.'." you 
|appear to be talking about the Great White Brotherhood per se -- 
|something which I do not feel is properly called A.'.A.'.  It is the Sun 
|behind the Sun, so to speak.

Well, I hear you, I just don't know why you are saying it and where you
are coming up with this stuff.  As I read Crowley you're way off, but I
do see that you could interpret it narrowly.  It's just that I don't see
why you do so.

So if you wouldn't mind it too much I'm going to begin asking you questions
again.  Why do you think that the GWB is not the AA?  Note that I am not
asking you why you think that the organized human AA is not the GWB.  
I'm willing to grant that.  What I'm asking is why you aren't willing to 
posit that Crowley is *also* describing the GWB in OSiS.  He says he is.  
Why shouldn't we believe him?


|> If you mean the Order which Crowley was describing that transcends mere
|> social chains, then my understanding is that it has been around as long
|> as humans have formed societies, instructing and reflecting our innermost
|> Mysteries to those who have the eyes to see.  
|
|How did you come by this understanding?  

Random reading, inspiration, conversations with Kali, blatant imagination,
etc.


|It is interesting, and certainly romantic.  

Apparently it is shared by a few others too.  Granted this doesn't matter
much, but some of these people are even involved with an organized human
AA.  ::shrug::


|Since you call it an "Order," perhaps you could describe how it is 
|organized.  

I think Crowley did a good job in _One Star in Sight_.  You can also
check out _The True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order_ and I'm sure that
there are innumerable mystical Christian docs which describe the various
configurations of the Body of Christ.  I haven't surveyed the field yet.
I'm still attempting to determine what other docs may be pertinent.  For
all I know, for example, Plato's _Republic_ is a good example.


|Apparently your superior (Kali?), is an actual "member" of this group?  

Of this I cannot be sure.  By Crowley's description (among others),
what my HGA says does seem to conform.  Unfortunately She is rather
ambiguous in Her expressions, so I cannot confirm this.


|What has she told you about it?

Not much more than I've said to you in public, and that in ways which
are not easy for me to comprehend, always.  You see, She speaks in a
tongue which does not easily break down into logical trains, though as
I interact with Her I am able to glean hints and, eventually I think
I'll be able to reflect from Her some harder data on the subject.


|> I know very little about it.  I am presuming here that you mean the
|> social organization initiated by Crowley.  I don't really know... 
|> much about Achad and would love to hear more.  I gather (from recent
|> interviews with AAmembers, out of which I may make a series of
|> articles) that Crowley is purported to have initiated several people
|> for a social AA.  This is what I figured you were talking about and
|> what I'd like to know more about generally.
|
|I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say a "social AA."  Is 
|this something different from the Order which Crowley and Jones were 
|instructed to manfiest as A.'.A.'.?  I would hardly call A.'.A.'. a 
|social organization.

I'm sorry if my terms are confusing for you.  I am quite unused to
talking about this subject and have not found many with broad understanding
who were able to instruct me on the finer points.  What I mean by 'social'
is that physical human beings consciously coordinate under an assumed
label 'AA'.  That is, whether in chains or in groups or whatever, there
is an organization which is consciously managed by human beings and
is related to the term 'AA'.  Clearer?  I've now switched to 'organized 
human AA'.


|>|What is your interpretation of: _Liber 185_, _Liber 13_, _One Star in 
|>|Sight_, and what do you feel their relationship or relevance is to 
|>|A.'.A.'. (specifically, the Crowley/Jones A.'.A.'.)
|
|> I will not give an evaluation of these documents here.  It is too great
|> a task to seriously analyze them.  I will say that I'm not sure I've ever
|> read _Liber CLXXXV_, since I can't find it in my library,
|      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|Try the very back of _Gems From the Equinox_.  

Thank you!  I've been taking glances at this document for years and yet
when someone referred to it and I looked in my Gems the damned thing
didn't have its Appendix listed!  Fooey!  And all my sources said it
should be in there too.  Well, that's done with.  Yes, I'm familiar with
that document, thanks.


|Well, by your own admission you are not too familiar with the 
|instructional and organizational documents of A.'.A.'.  

Please allow me to rephrase this more accurately.  I am, as I said, a
poor student where (my conception of) the AA is concerned.  That is,
I do not consider that I have even begun to scratch the surface of this
study.  The documents you reference, while important, are not necessarily
authoritative on the subject as far as I can see (and given my particular(?)
meaning for the name) as it spans very many traditions and time-periods.

In other words, Crowley MAY have given a valuable description of the org
and he might have screwed up badly in points for all I know.  I do not
presume to know this and it seems, from what you say, that you don't
either (where the GWB/et al are concerned).  

I do understand that you like the CJAA.  I have yet to see where you
or anyone else has demonstrated to me that my understanding about this
org in its relation to these other rather mystical (inner?  hidden?
whatever) bodies is in any way flawed.  You may claim that you are 
involved with the particular human chain which Crowley may have begun,
yet this says nothing about the greater Macrocosm of which this is but
an organized particular.

While I may well agree that I am not entirely familiar with Crowley's
works, I think I know them well enough to quote them and hope that you
will do so in showing me why you feel what you do about what they say
if you feel them to be authoritative.
 

|If you are seriously interested in learning about the Order, I would 
|think you should begin by becoming familiar with the official documents 
|which make up the literature of the Order.

My gods but you are dedicated! :>  I would like it if you would allow for
*both* of our interpretations to be possible for the moment.  I have yet
to meet a 'member of the AA' who wasn't sideways sliding me into the
fold.  What I'd like is for you to understand that for me what you are
talking about is a particular on a much grander scale.  Perhaps other
postings in this newsgroup will explain this further.

In the meantime I do appreciate that you consider these documents by
Crowley to be important.  You have not yet said *why* you consider them
so, except that they may well be important to the people who run the
organized human AA(s?) of which you may be part.
 

|If, however, (again apparently by your own admission), you are in the 
|Great White Brotherhood which is "behind" A.'.A.'., I imagine you really 
|have no need for such things?

Eeek!  I'm not sure I really qualify as being IN it.  My understanding
is that my HGA is one of the Celestial Masters, and that this is another
name for the GWB/Secret Chiefs/AA.  I don't think that this yet qualifies
me for the Office, especially since my predicament is best described at
present as 'residing in the Abyss' (as a Black Brother), not 'sitting on
its Other Side as a Magister Templi.' ;>

As I've given up on knowledge, I cannot of course claim to know anything.
Perhaps this is something you imply by your query? :>
 

|> As for the relevance of Crowley's writings on the AA, as I have said
|> above I think it all depends what sort of AA you are talking about.  You
|> seem rather set on the CJAA (Crowley/Jones).  Fine.
|
|Correct.  

Why?  Why doesn't the rest (GWB/et al) interest you, if it doesn't?
Why have you decided (if you have) that the documents you mention
don't *also* describe a pattern in metaphor for the GWB?


|...Just about everything you need to learn more about 
|A.'.A.'. is in print.  This will give you a good academic, armchair 
|perspective of what the Order is all about, how it functions, and so 
|forth.  

I'd appreciate it if when you spoke with me in public and private you
were to specify that you either 1) ALWAYS mean the CJAA when you say
"the A.'.A.'.", or 2) will use "CJAA" when you mean the organized human
AA.  Thanks.  It gets damn confusing (and I have to ask you lots of
clarifying questions) otherwise.

By this (and by other people's testimonies) I gather that the CJAA
conforms very well to Crowley's docs on it.  Wonderful.  I'm glad to
hear this.  I'll keep this in mind.


|  I don't think that
|> what Crowley wrote is necessarily true regarding the AA with which he
|> may have become involved (i.e. what I'd call the AA/GWB/BoC/CM).  He
|> could have got some particulars wrong.  
|
|You being a member of the Celestial Masters, perhaps you could set us 
|straight on just what "particulars" Crowley may have gotten wrong.  

I think you are jumping the gun here.  I hope I didn't say I was a
Celestial Master.  I think I may be studying under one, but of even this
I have some doubt.  Please understand my situation.

I plan to study the matter further, comparing and contrasting the
instruction I receive from my HGA, the various documents which are
likely spanning the globe on the Order of Kaos (as I know it), and
I'll certainly report back to you as I'm able (in this forum if I'm
still around, otherwise you can keep in touch via email).  Though
since you thought I meant I was a CM, perhaps this is no longer of
your interest.


|I would honestly be interested, and grateful, for any light you could shed 
|on this.

Sure thing, bro.


|> I'd imagine that he could set into motion any sort of social order that
|> he liked, however, and so the CJAA may well reflect all of the elements
|> that he laid out in the documents you mention.
|
|What does you superior have to say on this?  

She urges me to contact members of the CJAA as to its comparison.  So far
I've heard from at least a couple who are involved that it conforms with
Crowley's writings.  Great.  The CJAA is only of minimal interest to me.
I figure it will devolve over time, like most social organizations.


|You mentioned that She felt the organizational plan, as described by 
|Crowley, was useful in describing the True Order to you.

Hmm?  Please quote me on these things.  I don't remember mentioning that,
though I may have said something similar, like that She recommended it as
a valuable study of the Celestial Masters.  For all I know (and this would
be just like Her, the snit ;>), Crowley's docs are very far off the mark
and I am tasked to discover this.
 
I get the feeling that you've not discussed HGA/student relations with
many people, or that my experience is really weird.  My conversations
with Kali are like talking with an oracle.  Sometimes, when I least
expect it, She comes through completely rationally and makes perfect
sense to me.  At others, especially when I'm asking rational questions,
She is so ambiguous as to be frustrating!  See _The Book of Blood_ for
more.


|> ...I hope that you will go back and address
|> each of my questions that I put to you earlier (preferrably restating
|> them so that I can see what you are answering).  
|
|Sure, I'll go back and take another look at that thread.  But I'm not 
|willling to go over ground that has been adequately described by others 
|in the past.  As I said above, the works of A.'.A.'. are rather well 
|published, with one or two exceptions that would not really inhibit your 
|understanding.

I can see from your consistent (and honest!) replies that you do/have
not consider/ed the AA to include the GWB.  So be it.  While I would
love to hear anything more that you'd like to say about the CJAA, my
primary study is the GWB/CM/BoC/AA/et al.

If you have no knowledge of this latter, then any responses to my queries
with respect to the CJAA would be great, thanks.

Mu
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com