Lineages?

[aish_mlchmh]

On more than a few occasions, I've been asked or have heard comments regarding this or that A.'.A.'. "lineage". As far as I'm aware, Crowley made no mention of A.'.A.'. "lineages" (let alone O.T.O. "lineages"...), and based on this and other reasons, I hold that the term doesn't apply to the A.'.A

Comments

[goatlove]

Who's the One uttering the equinoctial words these days?

[aish_mlchmh]

Check out the Imprimaturs in the Equinox IV: I and II.

[jbarros]

How would you compare Crowley's AA from Liber 33 to Nock's Great Tradition from The Theory of Education in the United States?

I readily admit to missing somethings which are obvious, but isn't an argument against lineage an argument for equality? It would seem to me that I would wish to chose a line of people who have a history of being hard working and really engaging the material, and that some lineages will be more focused on this than not.

The structure of the AA creates lineages. There is a traceable teacher-student line. It would appear to me that this is important, if not, it would appear that the teacher himself is not important.

Perhaps I am missing a key element?

Thank you. :)

-- James

[aish_mlchmh]

How would you compare Crowley's AA from Liber 33 to Nock's Great Tradition from The Theory of Education in the United States?

What comparison do you note from these two documents? As far as the notion of equality goes, see below.

I readily admit to missing somethings which are obvious, but isn't an argument against lineage an argument for equality?

The opposite actually. When a group states that it is but one of many lineages or there are as many A.'.A.'.s as there are stars in the sky - then this suggests and promotes the idea of equality (i.e. all groups/teachers are the same).

There is a traceable teacher-student line.

Right. But as is noted in Liber 33, "One Star in Sight" and "Liber LXI", the source of that chain as well as the chain itself, is singular.

Consider this...

[aish_mlchmh]

One lineage member meets another.

One member claims to be a 7=4 and the other a 2=9.

The former belongs to a lineage which has eliminated "One Star in Sight" and considers most of the practices besides an abbreviated 5=6 ceremony to be optional at best. The latter belongs to a lineage that has eliminated "Liber ThROA" as an initiation ritual and has made allowances for other yoga practices besides those ennumerated in Liber E.

Does any of the above rreally suggest an engagement of the material? Doesn't this effectively make the Grades (as well as the system) meaningless (lineages as an essentially nihilistic response)? As Crowley has noted, "Some rules are better than no rules".

[anonymous]

I'm not really sure what your point was. Given the fact that good or bad we in fact do have multiple lineages I guess the implication is that one of those is the real AA and others are nothing but vile imposters. That being the case why not come forward and name names

[aish_mlchmh]

Anonymous,

My overall point and supporting arguments are quite clear. The notion of "lineages" is at odds with the A.'.A.'. system clearly delineated in "One Star in Sight".
Groups that believe otherwise based on a poor reading of this document needn't be "vile" or anything, they're just not A.'.A.'.

With all due respect to Br. Heidrick, the O.H.O. has been more than clear in respect to the O.T.O.'s recognition of so-called A.'.A.'. "lineages".

[anonymous]

Again, I am a little bit slow here. So applying this to the AA groups would you conclude:

1) Because "lineages" exist none of these A.'.A.'. existent groups are really A.'.A.'.?

or

2) Out of the many A.'.A.'. groups there exists one that is the real A.'.A.'.?

These to me are the two conclusions that one could draw starting with the premise you put forth and I was intrigued enough by your premise to wonder about the further implications.

[aish_mlchmh]

Addressing your questions:

1)"Lineages" of A.'.A.'. don't exist because the notion of "lineages" is incompatible with the system of A.'.A.'. described in "One Star in Sight." Therefore, if a group claims to be an A.'.A.'. "lineage", it is, by definition, not A.'.A.'.

2) Again, a straightforward reading of "One Star in Sight" does not allow for a smorgasboard of A.'.A.'.'s. By definition, there can be only one. As the Equinox IV: I states: "How can one tell the false from the True? The principles of the Order of A.'.A.'. are clear and unequivical; those who act in a manner contrary to them are automaticaly excluded from its fold."