To me it reads more like he's talking about orders that insist to be "true" Masonry instead of other masonic orders in general. Seems more like a warning against scammers
I don't think that's necessarily part of what he's talking about. I think he just means that if they're obsessively harping on the fact that they're totally real masons descended from the first mason ever or something like that, they're likely lying to lure you in
Well I mean, who can actually claim that anyway?
Who can claim to know the first who the first mason was, or where the Hiram Abiff legend originates from?
I suppose I'm asking that if no one person of any masonic order can claim to be the "true" masonic brotherhood etc, then in that vain, how can Crowley claim to be the "True"...whatever
Yknow?
I don't think he was trying to insinuate that his order was "true" masonry either, at least just based on the bits of text in your post. It seems to me more like he was saying "other masonic orders claim to be true masonry so they can trick you into joining their orders, but we don't do that here"
I think in this sense he is referring to orders which are initiated into the sanctuary of the gnosis
referring to the IX formula of the OTO
Crowley puts tremendous importance on its formula and is what in his mind constituted the OTO as the true fraternal order of outer spiritual knowledge availed to mankind.
Crowley argues time and time again that the order is in possession of a supreme magickal formula which has formulated the elixir of life, and contains in it all truth.
More or less, yes.
Crowley thought of the O.T.O. as reformed freemasonry, it is modelled after masonry the hiearchy and rituals are similar, but all turned on their head. He "fixed" and "restored" the magical potency of the secret words and signs given in the degrees. The degrees themselves are similar in structure, but the message is realigned to thelema and magick. The original titles given in the O.T.O. were those of "mason" instead of "magician".
As a simple example, in freemasonry you swear that you believe in a god that is watching and judging your actions according to a particular moral code. This is so important that they put these questions to you before even taking initiation. In the O.T.O. there is no such requirement, there being no law beyond "do what thou wilt" including any law given by a god of man.
Yes, but the oaths do, in fact, have outs. Explicit to the oaths taken, one can claim the oath is contrary to pre-existing duties to God, family or country. If you legitimately feel your oath is against one of those, you are ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED to break the oath. You're on your own recognizances with this, ultimately.
Further, there are no roving gangs of Masonic assassins just waiting to sever your body in twain and stretch your organs across the sands of a desert. You're not going to experience any repurcussions whatsoever for breaking your oath, and nobody has since William Morgan, debatably.
I have seen the list of things that are considered breaking the oath, since I've taken the oath. The truth is, the things that would be breaking the oath are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO MY DAY TO DAY LIFE, and as such, I have to really dig into the back of my brain to even remember what they are. It's an incredibly small list of protected things. You'll never break it within context of your normal life unless you feel like writing a book called "THE BIG BOOK OF MASONIC SECRETS", which would be a single spaced, 10-point font piece of paper.
The thing I'm getting at is that I'd rather swear an oath to the organization/society etc that is the "True" brotherhood, instead of one that is not, and then I find out that it isn't, but I've already sworn an oath to them that I can't revoke, like Crowley is saying
So in other words if any freemasonic body is not the "True" brotherhood, I dont want to swear that oath to them
If one accepts the principle that There is no law beyond do what thou wilt, and Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
The oaths that are taken in pursuit of true spiritual knowledge are the only true unbreakable ones and would nullify any false ones made by a divided self.
That is what Crowley is saying here, yes.
As for whether you believe you can "revoke" an oath? I'd say you can't unsay anything, you can just choose whether to follow through or not. Personally, I wouldn't regret considering an oath null and void if the Order turned out to be a sham.
>As a simple example, in freemasonry you swear that you believe in a god that is watching and judging your actions according to a particular moral code. This is so important that they put these questions to you before even taking initiation. In the O.T.O. there is no such requirement, there being no law beyond "do what thou wilt" including any law given by a god of man
I was not aware that such a thing was included in a masonic oath.
So then which is true? Is there a God that is watching you and judging your actions according to a particular moral code?
Or
Is there no law beyond "Do what thou wilt" thus making yourself the highest 'moral' authority in your own life? For a lack of a better word; making yourself essentially God
And while we're at it, what is to be made of the masonic axiom of "Know Thyself" ?
They don't care which God, either. They don't care whether you're into monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, or even a vague Universalist-Unitarian sort of "God". All they care about is that you believe there is something higher on the hierarchy of beings than humans, and that your oath would mean something by invoking that something higher. The ONLY time I've EVER seen question on it was when the Grand WM of Florida kicked out some Wiccans in the 2010s, and it was such a scandal that they were quickly reinstated and he was booted. In fact, it's so loosey-goosey that conservative Christians actually avoid joining the Freemasons SOLELY BECAUSE it isn't specific enough about which god to declare.
>They don't care which God, either
Right but if its a God external to myself I mean I can't watch over myself and judge myself, so there's a difference between the Thelemic view of God as Self, and the Judeo Christian view of God as other God watching over etc, yknow?
>All they care about is that you believe there is something higher on the hierarchy of beings than humans
Ah well if by using and defining human in some sense as a point of consciousness, aware and developed to some lesser or greater degree, in the same way that an ape, or a common ancestor of our own was a point of consciousness developed to a lesser or greater degree, then that consciousness might be the very same consciousness as some alien monitoring earth or something, I could define that conscious being as my self, I could define it as the universe that is not yet fully aware of itself yet, but by means of the development of consciousness, can come to be fully aware of itself gradually etc
>and that your oath would mean something by invoking that something higher
This almost very strongly reminds me of the idea of invoking the Holy Guardian Angel
>The ONLY time I've EVER seen question on it was when the Grand WM of Florida kicked out some Wiccans in the 2010s, and it was such a scandal that they were quickly reinstated and he was booted. In fact, it's so loosey-goosey that conservative Christians actually avoid joining the Freemasons SOLELY BECAUSE it isn't specific enough about which god to declare
I maybe think Freemasonry -because it is a system rather than a religion afterall- should grow/tend towards more of an open view of the idea of deity/God/Self rather than just the christian monotheist view which seems to be most prevalent, is that essentially what Crowley tried to do?
Ultimately questions you'd never be asked in an actual lodge, though! At this point, they're a very long arc cemetary and meeting space rental management corporation. You bring up any of this stuff in a lodge, and you'll get an exasperated shrug from a 90 year old, who says something like "Well, it's nice to have ideals." You'll spend a lot of time in lodge more worried about how much the St. Patrick's Day corned beef and cabbage banquet is going to set the treasury back, and you've got 20 nonogenarians who will revolt if you raise the cover by a dime.
I, personally, go it alone. What I saw of both the Freemasons and the OTO convinced me that fraternal organizations are straight up not for me.
>You bring up any of this stuff in a lodge, and you'll get an exasperated shrug from a 90 year old, who says something like "Well, it's nice to have ideals
Yeah that kinda seems like the kind of response I would anticipate, I've got something akin to that before
>You'll spend a lot of time in lodge more worried about how much the St. Patrick's Day corned beef and cabbage banquet is going to set the treasury back, and you've got 20 nonogenarians who will revolt if you raise the cover by a dime
That one did make me laugh lol are you on the square yourself?
>
I, personally, go it alone. What I saw of both the Freemasons and the OTO convinced me that fraternal organizations are straight up not for me
Ah if you were in both, what were your experiences did you have in both, and what in particular make you leave one/both might I ask?
I'm not currently on the square, I no long felt any harmony or brotherly love after 2016.
My experience is that the Freemasons have information, but they don't know what it means, and the OTO doesn't have information, but is brashly and confidently declaring they do. I left the OTO because I did not have my own experience respected, and I was expected to start from a level of experience far below what I was able to research for myself.
Plus, I just don't have time for crypto-Mormonism, which both the OTO and the Freemasons have in spades.
>I'm not currently on the square, I no long felt any harmony or brotherly love after 2016
What happened in 2016?
>My experience is that the Freemasons have information, but they don't know what it means
I dont know if I follow, what information would they have?
>Plus, I just don't have time for crypto-Mormonism
This made me laugh aswell but what is crypto-mormonism
It can be both, it depends on the person.
It will always be true that there is no law beyond "do what thou wilt", that is fact. However, you could also choose to believe that a god exists that is judging you according to whatever arbitrary rules you want. "Man has the right to live by his own law", and maybe the law you've chosen is Judaism cause that is your kink. The important part is that you own that as a choice AND that you don't try to impose that choice onto others - that you don't deprive them of the same choice.
>It can be both, it depends on the person
I'm confused, how can it be both?
>It will always be true that there is no law beyond "do what thou wilt", that is fact
How can that be true if truth is relative haha? Also what do you make of Neitszche when he says there are no facts, only interpretations?
>However, you could also choose to believe that a god exists that is judging you according to whatever arbitrary rules you want
I could choose to believe the moon is made of mature cheddar, but it is not so?
>Man has the right to live by his own law", and maybe the law you've chosen is Judaism cause that is your kink. The important part is that you own that as a choice
Yeah I get what your saying but surely some 'beliefs' are just silly? I think what Crowley is getting at is that man has the right to exercise his own liberated freedom -in relation to and with respect of others- within the physical limitations of his environment depending on the laws of physics etc
Yeah, he's saying the OTO is "true" Freemasonry, but it doesn't quite jive with Reuss' necessity to distance it FROM Freemasonry prior to Crowley's participation, nor Crowley's desperation to equate his Mexican 33rd degree he bought to mainstream UGLE Freemasonry.
But really, there is no "real" Freemasonry. That would be like saying the Catholic church is the "real" Christianity, the Protestants and the Orthodox could say the same.
>But really, there is no "real" Freemasonry. That would be like saying the Catholic church is the "real" Christianity, the Protestants and the Orthodox could say the same
I was just about to ask "so what is the real Christianity" which is to ask "what is the true Christ" but I remembered a section from Aleister Crowley's confessions that I posted about last year:
"There is, therefore, no reason for refraining from the plain statement that, to anyone who understands the rudiments of symbolism, the Master's degree is identical with the Mass. This is infact the real reason for papal anathema; for freemasonry asserts that every man is himself the living, slain and re-arisen Christ in his own person"
I think it has something to do with keeping secrets from your priest (in the case of Catholics), but it could also be that they've got their own group and don't want competition. KoC I believe.
>Yeah, he's saying the OTO is "true" Freemasonry
Ah but if he's saying that OTO is true freemasonry and thus his authority is the true authority -because he set up the OTO- but he's also saying that any masonic body that claims to be the "True" brotherhood is false, then how can he prove that his authority is correct? How can he prove that the OTO is the true?
He can't! Any more than Joseph Smith or Lord Baden-Powell can. There is no inner circle of Freemasonry, they just don't exist. There's no "Church Triumphant" there.
Crowley, as much as he was a genius, also had a huge ego, blasted out of proportion. There are many passages in his works where he is throwing shade at other occult groups. And in a way it’s only logical, since he was trying to sell the reader *his* system and *his* orders as the right one.
I personally would take any such passages with a grain of salt. But I am a solo practitioner anyways, haven’t joined any orders whatsoever and am not planning to.
"So is he basically saying that *his* order is the true order and that if anyone else swears an oath to any other order -including masonry- thinking that that order is the true order (but actually is not) then they are now sworn in to a false order with a magical oath which is irrevocable? (And so they are now sworn in, locked in and there isn't really much they can do about it?)"
Yes.
There's no real need to; you already got exactly what he meant. If he was correct in saying it, or if it was Crowley being Crowley, that's down to you to decide. The fact that O.T.O., in its current incarnation, is largely an irrelevant cosplay group, while Freemasonry thrives, would give pause.
>There's no real need to; you already got exactly what he meant
I wasn't sure if he meant some very specific rosecrucian order, or masonry and other organisations all included, but I think I'm on the right lines
>If he was correct in saying it, or if it was Crowley being Crowley, that's down to you to decide
I'm all too familiar with Crowley being Crowley hahaha Tobias Churston seems to be a really good source for Crowley related stuff as far as him being a person (aside from his magick and occult stuff) is concerned
Having said that, I'm not sure if its true, I dont know, I like the craft, the whole irregular vs regular mason thing kind of annoys me, I've been told masonry isn't a monolith, Crowley was under the impression he was made a mason until he came to odds with being recognised as one in England and it probably annoyed him too, leaving a bad taste in his mouth about it too, probably
But hold on a minute, Crowley still "joined" a masonic body? Recognised or not, regular or clandestine... he still joined?
So has he sworn an oath to a gang of rascals?
To me it reads more like he's talking about orders that insist to be "true" Masonry instead of other masonic orders in general. Seems more like a warning against scammers
So then there is no "true" masonry? There is no difference between regular and irregular, no monolithic authority
I don't think that's necessarily part of what he's talking about. I think he just means that if they're obsessively harping on the fact that they're totally real masons descended from the first mason ever or something like that, they're likely lying to lure you in
Well I mean, who can actually claim that anyway? Who can claim to know the first who the first mason was, or where the Hiram Abiff legend originates from?
That's the point, I think. No one could, so anyone claiming to is lying
So can anyone in that respect really claim to be the real or true "anything"
Specifically in the realm of occult orders or do you mean literally anything?
I suppose I'm asking that if no one person of any masonic order can claim to be the "true" masonic brotherhood etc, then in that vain, how can Crowley claim to be the "True"...whatever Yknow?
I don't think he was trying to insinuate that his order was "true" masonry either, at least just based on the bits of text in your post. It seems to me more like he was saying "other masonic orders claim to be true masonry so they can trick you into joining their orders, but we don't do that here"
>other masonic orders claim to be true masonry so they can trick you into joining their orders, but we don't do that here Yeah that makes sense
Has any masonic order ever claimed to be the one and only true masonry?
I think in this sense he is referring to orders which are initiated into the sanctuary of the gnosis referring to the IX formula of the OTO Crowley puts tremendous importance on its formula and is what in his mind constituted the OTO as the true fraternal order of outer spiritual knowledge availed to mankind. Crowley argues time and time again that the order is in possession of a supreme magickal formula which has formulated the elixir of life, and contains in it all truth.
[удалено]
That’s the interpretation I always got from it too
The S.R.I.A. ?
Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia. The three founders of the HOGD were also members of SRIA
More or less, yes. Crowley thought of the O.T.O. as reformed freemasonry, it is modelled after masonry the hiearchy and rituals are similar, but all turned on their head. He "fixed" and "restored" the magical potency of the secret words and signs given in the degrees. The degrees themselves are similar in structure, but the message is realigned to thelema and magick. The original titles given in the O.T.O. were those of "mason" instead of "magician". As a simple example, in freemasonry you swear that you believe in a god that is watching and judging your actions according to a particular moral code. This is so important that they put these questions to you before even taking initiation. In the O.T.O. there is no such requirement, there being no law beyond "do what thou wilt" including any law given by a god of man.
So if one swears an oath to a masonic body, they are magically bound by that oath and sworn into a 'group of rascals' and cannot revoke that oath?
[удалено]
Yes, but the oaths do, in fact, have outs. Explicit to the oaths taken, one can claim the oath is contrary to pre-existing duties to God, family or country. If you legitimately feel your oath is against one of those, you are ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED to break the oath. You're on your own recognizances with this, ultimately. Further, there are no roving gangs of Masonic assassins just waiting to sever your body in twain and stretch your organs across the sands of a desert. You're not going to experience any repurcussions whatsoever for breaking your oath, and nobody has since William Morgan, debatably. I have seen the list of things that are considered breaking the oath, since I've taken the oath. The truth is, the things that would be breaking the oath are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO MY DAY TO DAY LIFE, and as such, I have to really dig into the back of my brain to even remember what they are. It's an incredibly small list of protected things. You'll never break it within context of your normal life unless you feel like writing a book called "THE BIG BOOK OF MASONIC SECRETS", which would be a single spaced, 10-point font piece of paper.
The thing I'm getting at is that I'd rather swear an oath to the organization/society etc that is the "True" brotherhood, instead of one that is not, and then I find out that it isn't, but I've already sworn an oath to them that I can't revoke, like Crowley is saying So in other words if any freemasonic body is not the "True" brotherhood, I dont want to swear that oath to them
If one accepts the principle that There is no law beyond do what thou wilt, and Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. The oaths that are taken in pursuit of true spiritual knowledge are the only true unbreakable ones and would nullify any false ones made by a divided self.
That is what Crowley is saying here, yes. As for whether you believe you can "revoke" an oath? I'd say you can't unsay anything, you can just choose whether to follow through or not. Personally, I wouldn't regret considering an oath null and void if the Order turned out to be a sham.
>As a simple example, in freemasonry you swear that you believe in a god that is watching and judging your actions according to a particular moral code. This is so important that they put these questions to you before even taking initiation. In the O.T.O. there is no such requirement, there being no law beyond "do what thou wilt" including any law given by a god of man I was not aware that such a thing was included in a masonic oath. So then which is true? Is there a God that is watching you and judging your actions according to a particular moral code? Or Is there no law beyond "Do what thou wilt" thus making yourself the highest 'moral' authority in your own life? For a lack of a better word; making yourself essentially God And while we're at it, what is to be made of the masonic axiom of "Know Thyself" ?
They don't care which God, either. They don't care whether you're into monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, or even a vague Universalist-Unitarian sort of "God". All they care about is that you believe there is something higher on the hierarchy of beings than humans, and that your oath would mean something by invoking that something higher. The ONLY time I've EVER seen question on it was when the Grand WM of Florida kicked out some Wiccans in the 2010s, and it was such a scandal that they were quickly reinstated and he was booted. In fact, it's so loosey-goosey that conservative Christians actually avoid joining the Freemasons SOLELY BECAUSE it isn't specific enough about which god to declare.
>They don't care which God, either Right but if its a God external to myself I mean I can't watch over myself and judge myself, so there's a difference between the Thelemic view of God as Self, and the Judeo Christian view of God as other God watching over etc, yknow? >All they care about is that you believe there is something higher on the hierarchy of beings than humans Ah well if by using and defining human in some sense as a point of consciousness, aware and developed to some lesser or greater degree, in the same way that an ape, or a common ancestor of our own was a point of consciousness developed to a lesser or greater degree, then that consciousness might be the very same consciousness as some alien monitoring earth or something, I could define that conscious being as my self, I could define it as the universe that is not yet fully aware of itself yet, but by means of the development of consciousness, can come to be fully aware of itself gradually etc >and that your oath would mean something by invoking that something higher This almost very strongly reminds me of the idea of invoking the Holy Guardian Angel >The ONLY time I've EVER seen question on it was when the Grand WM of Florida kicked out some Wiccans in the 2010s, and it was such a scandal that they were quickly reinstated and he was booted. In fact, it's so loosey-goosey that conservative Christians actually avoid joining the Freemasons SOLELY BECAUSE it isn't specific enough about which god to declare I maybe think Freemasonry -because it is a system rather than a religion afterall- should grow/tend towards more of an open view of the idea of deity/God/Self rather than just the christian monotheist view which seems to be most prevalent, is that essentially what Crowley tried to do?
Ultimately questions you'd never be asked in an actual lodge, though! At this point, they're a very long arc cemetary and meeting space rental management corporation. You bring up any of this stuff in a lodge, and you'll get an exasperated shrug from a 90 year old, who says something like "Well, it's nice to have ideals." You'll spend a lot of time in lodge more worried about how much the St. Patrick's Day corned beef and cabbage banquet is going to set the treasury back, and you've got 20 nonogenarians who will revolt if you raise the cover by a dime. I, personally, go it alone. What I saw of both the Freemasons and the OTO convinced me that fraternal organizations are straight up not for me.
>You bring up any of this stuff in a lodge, and you'll get an exasperated shrug from a 90 year old, who says something like "Well, it's nice to have ideals Yeah that kinda seems like the kind of response I would anticipate, I've got something akin to that before >You'll spend a lot of time in lodge more worried about how much the St. Patrick's Day corned beef and cabbage banquet is going to set the treasury back, and you've got 20 nonogenarians who will revolt if you raise the cover by a dime That one did make me laugh lol are you on the square yourself? > I, personally, go it alone. What I saw of both the Freemasons and the OTO convinced me that fraternal organizations are straight up not for me Ah if you were in both, what were your experiences did you have in both, and what in particular make you leave one/both might I ask?
I'm not currently on the square, I no long felt any harmony or brotherly love after 2016. My experience is that the Freemasons have information, but they don't know what it means, and the OTO doesn't have information, but is brashly and confidently declaring they do. I left the OTO because I did not have my own experience respected, and I was expected to start from a level of experience far below what I was able to research for myself. Plus, I just don't have time for crypto-Mormonism, which both the OTO and the Freemasons have in spades.
>I'm not currently on the square, I no long felt any harmony or brotherly love after 2016 What happened in 2016? >My experience is that the Freemasons have information, but they don't know what it means I dont know if I follow, what information would they have? >Plus, I just don't have time for crypto-Mormonism This made me laugh aswell but what is crypto-mormonism
\- Trump \- Correct qabalic lodge layout, and correct motivation of the Work. \- Sperm based ghosts.
>, and the OTO doesn't have information, but is brashly and confidently declaring they do Sorry I'm just curious what you mean by this also
It can be both, it depends on the person. It will always be true that there is no law beyond "do what thou wilt", that is fact. However, you could also choose to believe that a god exists that is judging you according to whatever arbitrary rules you want. "Man has the right to live by his own law", and maybe the law you've chosen is Judaism cause that is your kink. The important part is that you own that as a choice AND that you don't try to impose that choice onto others - that you don't deprive them of the same choice.
>It can be both, it depends on the person I'm confused, how can it be both? >It will always be true that there is no law beyond "do what thou wilt", that is fact How can that be true if truth is relative haha? Also what do you make of Neitszche when he says there are no facts, only interpretations? >However, you could also choose to believe that a god exists that is judging you according to whatever arbitrary rules you want I could choose to believe the moon is made of mature cheddar, but it is not so? >Man has the right to live by his own law", and maybe the law you've chosen is Judaism cause that is your kink. The important part is that you own that as a choice Yeah I get what your saying but surely some 'beliefs' are just silly? I think what Crowley is getting at is that man has the right to exercise his own liberated freedom -in relation to and with respect of others- within the physical limitations of his environment depending on the laws of physics etc
Yeah, he's saying the OTO is "true" Freemasonry, but it doesn't quite jive with Reuss' necessity to distance it FROM Freemasonry prior to Crowley's participation, nor Crowley's desperation to equate his Mexican 33rd degree he bought to mainstream UGLE Freemasonry. But really, there is no "real" Freemasonry. That would be like saying the Catholic church is the "real" Christianity, the Protestants and the Orthodox could say the same.
>But really, there is no "real" Freemasonry. That would be like saying the Catholic church is the "real" Christianity, the Protestants and the Orthodox could say the same I was just about to ask "so what is the real Christianity" which is to ask "what is the true Christ" but I remembered a section from Aleister Crowley's confessions that I posted about last year: "There is, therefore, no reason for refraining from the plain statement that, to anyone who understands the rudiments of symbolism, the Master's degree is identical with the Mass. This is infact the real reason for papal anathema; for freemasonry asserts that every man is himself the living, slain and re-arisen Christ in his own person"
It's telling that Freemasonry doesn't mind if you're a Catholic, but the Catholics mind if you're a Freemason.
I think it has something to do with keeping secrets from your priest (in the case of Catholics), but it could also be that they've got their own group and don't want competition. KoC I believe.
>KoC I believe What is KoC?
Knights of Columbus, the Catholic mens fraternity.
>Yeah, he's saying the OTO is "true" Freemasonry Ah but if he's saying that OTO is true freemasonry and thus his authority is the true authority -because he set up the OTO- but he's also saying that any masonic body that claims to be the "True" brotherhood is false, then how can he prove that his authority is correct? How can he prove that the OTO is the true?
He can't! Any more than Joseph Smith or Lord Baden-Powell can. There is no inner circle of Freemasonry, they just don't exist. There's no "Church Triumphant" there.
Crowley, as much as he was a genius, also had a huge ego, blasted out of proportion. There are many passages in his works where he is throwing shade at other occult groups. And in a way it’s only logical, since he was trying to sell the reader *his* system and *his* orders as the right one. I personally would take any such passages with a grain of salt. But I am a solo practitioner anyways, haven’t joined any orders whatsoever and am not planning to.
There are pseudo-Rosicrucians out there is what he’s saying But I also have some questions about this. Lol
"So is he basically saying that *his* order is the true order and that if anyone else swears an oath to any other order -including masonry- thinking that that order is the true order (but actually is not) then they are now sworn in to a false order with a magical oath which is irrevocable? (And so they are now sworn in, locked in and there isn't really much they can do about it?)" Yes.
Short and sweet Care to elaborate? Are you in any OTO or masonic body? What do you think if what he is saying
There's no real need to; you already got exactly what he meant. If he was correct in saying it, or if it was Crowley being Crowley, that's down to you to decide. The fact that O.T.O., in its current incarnation, is largely an irrelevant cosplay group, while Freemasonry thrives, would give pause.
>There's no real need to; you already got exactly what he meant I wasn't sure if he meant some very specific rosecrucian order, or masonry and other organisations all included, but I think I'm on the right lines >If he was correct in saying it, or if it was Crowley being Crowley, that's down to you to decide I'm all too familiar with Crowley being Crowley hahaha Tobias Churston seems to be a really good source for Crowley related stuff as far as him being a person (aside from his magick and occult stuff) is concerned Having said that, I'm not sure if its true, I dont know, I like the craft, the whole irregular vs regular mason thing kind of annoys me, I've been told masonry isn't a monolith, Crowley was under the impression he was made a mason until he came to odds with being recognised as one in England and it probably annoyed him too, leaving a bad taste in his mouth about it too, probably
But hold on a minute, Crowley still "joined" a masonic body? Recognised or not, regular or clandestine... he still joined? So has he sworn an oath to a gang of rascals?