From: Tyagi@cup.portal.com (Tyagi Mordred Nagasiva)
Subject: Oaths and Vows, Daggers and Swords
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 06:56:20 PDT
930823 [Extracted from the mammoth masonic thread]
Doug Pavey writes:
|All Masonic obligations are taken with the following precursory
|question asked and answered:
|
|' Before we can proceed further, it is necessary that you take a
|' solemn oath or obligation pertaining to this degree, which I
|' assure you will not interfere with your duty to G-d, your country,
|' your neighbor or yourself; with this assurance, will you take the
|' obligation?
|
|Therefore, it is clear, that the Lodge does not wish to come
|between his faith, his country [and it's laws], his friendships
|and neighbors outside of the Lodge, and his family.
This is very interesting, I think. I remember swords and such being
placed at the head of the initiate (behind) in GD rites and daggers
upon throat and hand in some other rites I've witnessed or been
involved in. This seems to be a common theme in masonic initiation
rituals and those which derive from them.
It seems that a threat to life (as if one must be shown some penalty
for doing the 'bad thing') is important to set in motion certain
mindstates or shifts in consciousness. It certainly had a profound
effect upon me. I considered it juvenile and, in asmuch as I was
told that I would not be taking any oaths which would bind me (a
literal truth but a potentially horrendous lie, since a slip in my
interpretive powers and I would have wound myself into a magical
knot) I felt betrayed by the method.
I guess I've always felt that an 'oath' or 'vow' must be taken
with full knowledge of it beforehand. This masonic tradition of
repeating short sequences of words while at knife-point may come
from a time (or allow for it if such a time comes again) when absolute
secrecy regarding the Order meant the only way it could continue
to exist.
|:>[Lost the attribution, sorry]
|:>...From my point of view, I would never allow
|:>someone to place a sharp instrument against my naked breast and
|:>threaten retribution should I break vows that I never even had a
|:>chance to read before the ritual.
|
|Before and after each degree, our Lodge Education Officer holds
|councelling sessions that explain what the candidate is going
|through and what has happened. During the Lecture of each
|degree, more Masonic education pertaining to what has just
|occurred to impress upon the mind the various Masonic teachings.
This seems very wise. In some degrees I've endured this was not done,
though I trusted the people who were involved with it enough to stay
in place and think very carefully about what I was saying. If I had
been the frightened sort I might have bolted or called the rite to a
halt. As it was it turned into a sort of half-nightmare, given the
potential to bind myself to something which was not my true will.
Luckily these rites were still of sufficient quality that I was left
an out in their interpretation, else I don't know what I'd do. And
this brings up a very interesting subject which all the masonic talk
inspires me to raise more clearly...
|' You are recieved upon the point of a sharp instrument ...
|' to teach you that as this in an instument of torture to the
|' flesh, so might the recollection of it be to your conscience
|' should you presume to reveal the secrets for Freemasonry
|' unlawfully.
|
|It should be a painful reminder, that one does not break
|his vows or promises. It is not that someone is going to
|come after him for doing so, it is up to the individual to
|keep his promises or his word.
The subject: vows and oaths, magical and non. What are they? When are
they binding? When are they magical? If they are, can they be broken?
I'll quote Uncle Al here, since his writings were the last thing I remember
reading on the subject:
First something about their nature.
"The Magick Wand is thus the principal weapon of the Magus; and the
*name* of that wand is the Magical Oath...
"[bolded] It is convenient therefore for the student to express his
will by taking Magical Oaths. [end bold]
"Since such an oath is irrevocable it should be well considered; and
it is better not to take any oath permanently; because with increase
of understanding may come a perception of the incompatibility of the
lesser oath with the greater.
"This is indeed almost certain to occur, and it must be remembered
that as the whole essence of the will is its one-pointedness,...
a dilemma of this sort is the worst in which a Magus can find himself.
"Another great point in this consideration of Magick Vows is to keep
them in their proper place. They must be taken for a clearly defined
purpose, a clearly understood purpose, and they must never be allowed
to go beyond it....
"Moreover, one man's meat is another man's poison. An oath of poverty
might be very useful for a man who was unable intelligently to use his
wealth for the single end proposed; to another it would simply be
stripping himself of energy, causing him to waste his time over trifles....
"[bolded] The best vow, and that of most universal application, is the
vow of Holy Obedience; [end bold] for not only does it lead to perfect
freedom, but is a training in that surrender which is the last task.
"It has this great value, that it never gets rusty. If the superior
to whom the vow is taken knows his business, he will quickly detect
which things are really displeasing to his pupil, and familiarize
him with them."
_Magick_ (_Book Four_), by Aleister Crowley, Ed. Symonds/Grant, p. 61-2.
_________________________________________________________________________
What could such words mean? What symbolism is implied in that the Magick
Wand, nay, its *NAME*, is the Magical Oath? What is this 'Magick Wand'?
Well, Crowley does write:
"The Magical Will is the wand in your hand by which the Great Work
is accomplished, by which the Daughter is not merely set upon the
throne of the Mother, but assumed into the Highest."
And this just prior to describing the name of the Wand. Comments?
Do you think he's tying in the Word which the Magus shall utter
in hir Work? Is the *name* of this Wand also the name of hir
true will? If so, ought all oaths and vows be concentric to this
Word? If so, do we not harm others, indeed sin, if we bind another,
or allow them to be bound to an oath which does not in some measure
support their true will? Shall we make such a decision lightly?
Crowley does go on in following paragraphs to note that "some have
said that the word is the will", and so it would seem that my
conjecture above is not too far afield, and yet he also says that
such oaths are "irrevocable". Literally he is certainly accurate.
We cannot call back into our throats that which we have uttered.
Yet does he also imply that an oath can never be broken? Perhaps
not. Later he restricts this to a certain *kind* of oath: the magical.
In the same tome Crowley writes:
"The statement that the Probationer can resign when he chooses is
in truth only for those who have taken the oath but superficially.
"[bolded] A real Magical Oath cannot be broken: you think it can,
but it can't.
"This is the advantage of a real Magical Oath.[end bold]
"However far you go around, you arrive at the end just the same,
and all you have done by attempting to break your oath is to
involve yourself in the most frightful trouble.
"It cannot be too clearly understood that such is the nature of
things: it does not depend upon the will of any persons, however
powerful or exalted; nor can Their force, the force of Their
great oaths, avail against the weakest oath of the most trivial
of beginners.
"The attempt to interfere with the Magical Will of another person
would be wicked, if it were not absurd."
Ibid, p. 71.
_________________
Aren't his words a bit at odds with the placement of the
dagger upon the throat or other bodily part? If a Magical Oath
cannot be broken, why are there threats made should one 'betray'
it? Or is it a threat? Is the dagger aligned to the will of the
Magus taking the vow, or in restriction of it?
Let's take some more of this masonic thread before I let
you alone to ruminate...
|The thing of greatest value that a man has is his word. Once
|soiled or broken, that trust is never quite the same. That is
|the moral to the story, that you failed to grasp. That is all
|that we seek to do. Teach morals in a manner that will leave
|an indelible impression upon the mind, never to be forgotten.
Now here is something very weird. Masons and other fraternal folk
say that there are 'lessons' in these rites; that they contain
within them something which will allow us to discover truths and
important qualities in ourselves. Above we hear that 'a man's word'
is of greatest value. This we've heard before. Yet it is said
in support of a word given without foreknowledge of that to which
the initiate will be held. How can it be related to his word,
or his Word? Is it wise for others to decide this?
What if such a practice fell into unconscious hands? It might begin
to place the most horrid of restrictions upon its members and bind
them all against their true wills, forever preventing the accomplishment
of their Great Work, no? Or is morality what is at issue?
If we CANNOT break the magical oath, then are those spoken within
social rites which intend to teach morality really magical? It would
seem they can be broken with the greatest of ease. If this is true,
then what makes an oath magical? What distinguishes an oath which
can (and ought) be broken when it restricts our true will from that
which is in line with the mysterious Word of our Will?
And is the 'Magical Will' any different than the 'true will' ('True Will'?)?
If so, how? Why the distinction? How does it work and why does it make
an oath magical where before it was only socially binding?
Is it *ever* harmful to attempt to keep another from breaking a vow or
oath in this case? If they succeed don't they show us how weak the
magick which wrought it is? In fact, why don't we immediately set out
to break such oaths in order to discover which are magical and which
are simply moralisms?
What good is abiding by an oath if it is NOT magical?
When is breaking an oath an imperative?
Tyagi Nagasiva
Tyagi@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com
===
From: Shawn Clayton Knight <knightster+@CMU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 20:43:54 -0400
comment one: re Tyagi's query, I equate the terms "magical will" and
"true will", though my doing so should by no means be construed as
authoritative beyond my universe.
comment two:
On 23-Aug-93 in Oaths and Vows, Daggers and..
user Tyagi M. Nagasiva@cup.po writes:
>This is very interesting, I think. I remember swords and such being
>placed at the head of the initiate (behind) in GD rites and daggers
>upon throat and hand in some other rites I've witnessed or been
>involved in. This seems to be a common theme in masonic initiation
>rituals and those which derive from them.
You are correct. During Neophyte initiation (G.D.) the candidate feels
the sword of the Hiereus (the officer who represents the forces of light
which guard against darkness by force) against the back of his neck
while pronouncing part of his obligation. Also, if I recall correctly
the sharp point of the Compass is pressed against the exposed breast
during some (if not all?) of the three Masonic Blue Lodge degree rituals.
comment three:
On 23-Aug-93 in Oaths and Vows, Daggers and..
user Aleister Crowley@kether.otzchaiim.edu writes:
>"[bolded] The best vow, and that of most universal application, is the
>vow of Holy Obedience; [end bold] for not only does it lead to perfect
>freedom, but is a training in that surrender which is the last task."
Not to mention, the vow of Holy Obedience is one of the least
restrictive in letter, but most restrictive in spirit. I took a vow to
understand the nature of my Higher Self (Holy Guardian Angel, or other
convenient term), and find that with every action I take, I analyze the
value thereof towards that goal.
On 23-Aug-93 in Oaths and Vows, Daggers and..
user Aleister Crowley@kether.otzchaiim.edu writes:
>"It has this great value, that it never gets rusty. If the superior
>to whom the vow is taken knows his business, he will quickly detect
>which things are really displeasing to his pupil, and familiarize
>him with them."
Especially, once again, if the "superior" is the Holy Guardian Angel.
comment four:
On 23-Aug-93 in Oaths and Vows, Daggers and..
user Tyagi M. Nagasiva@cup.po writes:
>What good is abiding by an oath if it is NOT magical?
>When is breaking an oath an imperative?
The Climax of Shawn's theory on this (ta-da):
1) a "Magical Oath" is a vow taken, under the influence of the Higher
Self, True Will, Magical Will, Holy Guardian Angel, or whichever term
you prefer, to bind the Lower Self, Conscious Will, Animal Nature, etc.
to serve a particular goal.
2) any oath taken, no matter what entities/authorities witness it, which
conflicts with the True Will is NOT a magical oath and should be broken
whenever it conflicts with the fulfilling of the True Will.
How's that?
-shawn
===
From: rs8256@ehsn11.cen.uiuc.edu (Richard Leo Stokes)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 17:29:44 GMT
regarding oaths:
First, I don't think I should be forced to accept a viewpoint
because it is Crowley's. As I recall from Book_4 he placed several
little 'boobie traps' in there to snag the literal reader or Crowley
follower. They aren't all that easy to find either. I found two (If
I remember right) only after the second time I read the book, and
after a painful ordeal in which I lived half of his words.
But, I do agree with what he is saying (basically). A sincere oath
can be broken only be death. So does that mean if you take an oath
that your true Will can not be realized unless the oath is in
accordance with it? Not at all. Crowley revealed the secrets of
Masonry time and time again, did he not? By his own standards, he had
known his true Will.
So the oath wasn't binding then was it? Not at all. My belief is
that an oath is binding until the death of the bindee. Not the
literal death, but the ego death. (I am talking about so called
'life-long' obligations).
Tyagi - here's a question for you. I read something by you a long
time ago, so there is a good chance I am misunderstanding it. Please
disregard or correct me if I am. But didn't you post something about
being a 'black brother'? If I recall correctly, it is one who chose
not to cross the abyss and lose the ego, but one who dived into the
abyss and kept it, right? Then I can see why a Masonic oath would be
particularly bad for you...
rich
===
From: markk@cypress.West.Sun.COM (Mark Kampe)
Date: 24 Aug 1993 16:42:57 GMT
In ancient traditions, the power of 'words' was held to be much
greater than it now is. To describe something (or to speak its name)
was to invoke it or bring it into being. What is (for most of us,
most of the time) metaphorically evocative was in another age a more
worldly invocation.
Ignoring the 'superstitious' component of this power, there is a basic
cognative phenomenon involved. Once a thing has been given a name,
and we can visualize it, it can become a potent force in our lives.
An unnamed thing that we cannot even vaguely describe has a much
reduced potential to catalyze action. In 'simpler times' poets and
bards had the power of 'making', they could bring things to life for
other people, and provide people with inspiration, context, and even
identity.
The power of such 'making' should not be under-estimated. People seem
to have a need to identify with and fulfill their epics (as a species,
as citizens of a country, as community members, as family members, and
as individuals). To create an epic could have powerful and practical
repurcussions, and the power to do so was (and still is) a very real
power. If an event took place, and was not reported, it quickly faded
from existance. If an event (real or fictional) was widely and
powerfuly reported, it could influence people and history for millenia
to come. This was true in 2500 BCE and it was true in Iraq.
Bringing this back to 'the name of the wand', compare this with the
Kabbalistic name of God. If we can discover the true name of the
creator and proclaim it, it will resonate in the cosmos and bring his
grand design to fruition. Is there a difference between the name of
God and the name of our true will? If we can discover our true will,
and properly 'name' it, it will resonate in our being and transform us
into a powerful instrument of that will. From this perspective, the
will is indeed a 'wand' that channels divine energy through us in
order to serve our purposes, and 'the name of the wand' is indeed the
key to its power.
Most words can be merely sounds ... but if we name (even accidentally)
our true will, and it has its transformative effect, it will have been
a powerful 'oath' ... independently of the spirit in which we happened
to utter the sounds.
Tyagi:
> If so, ought all oaths and vows be concentric to this Word?
Yes, but until we know what it is, we cannot act to ensure that they
will be so.
> If so, do we not harm others, indeed sin, if we bind another, or
> allow them to be bound to an oath which does not in some measure
> support their true will? Shall we make such a decision lightly?
And so it is that some people have chosen to dedicate their lives to
helping other people find and fulfill their own purposes. Note,
however, that it is probably not possible to simply 'see another's
true will and bind them to it'. Rather, a more circuitous path of
exploration and development is necessary ... and binding people to
such a path is probably necessary in order to help them find and
fulfill their will.
> Aren't his words a bit at odds with the placement of the dagger upon
> the throat or other bodily part? If a Magical Oath cannot be
> broken, why are there threats made should one 'betray' it? Or is it
> a threat? Is the dagger aligned to the will of the Magus taking the
> vow, or in restriction of it?
Crowley seems to be saying that the oath will work on many levels.
Different levels may operate according to different mechanisms.
On some levels, having bound ones self to an oath will
create tensions within within the individual that will
make the oath difficult to break.
On some levels, the oath may be there to warn the initiate
of the dangers inherrent in the path, and the consequences
of straying from the path.
On some levels, the oath and initiation may bring about
transformations that are unlikely to be reversable, and
so fulfillment of the oath becomes inevitable.
On some levels, the oath may merely be a verbal acknowledgement
of how the universe operates, and attempting to break the
oath is futile.
The dagger and the treat of harm can certainly be taken literally, but
most initiations involve symbolism that runs rather deeper, and often
the deeper meanings are not congruent with the obvious ones.
The oath may serve as a goad, to force the initiate to
explore and confront issues that might otherwise be avoided.
The oath may serve as a teaching tool, creating an obstacle
to challenge the initiate.
The oath may serve to punctuate an important lesson that
the initiate might otherwise be inclined to forget.
If the oath is inescapable, why bother threatening the initiate with
the dire consequences of trying to escape it?
love
tell the child that the stove will burn their
hand, rather than waiting for them to figure it
out themselves.
communication
people often miss important messages, the dire
threats attempt to spell it out pretty clearly
impact
a ceremony only works if people are properly prepared.
This is especially true of initiations. If the initiate
has fear and appreciates the seriousness of the ceremony,
the lessons of the ceremony will be better able to work
their way into the initiate's psyche ... and being well
insituated, they are more likely to work their transformative
effects.
memory
we remember visceral experiences better than we remember
intellectual ones. If the initiation occurrs in a context
of vivid sensations and strong emotions, we are likely to
remember it (and our experiences as well)
symbolism
the experience has meaning and effect on many levels. The
main meaning of the outermost levels is that they are effective
gateways to the more inner levels. To focus exclusively on
the outwards meanings is to miss most of the points.
===
From: astrea@actrix.co.at (Astrea)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 21:28:30 ECT
Shawn Clayton Knight <knightster+@CMU.EDU> writes:
> The Climax of Shawn's theory on this (ta-da):
>
> 1) a "Magical Oath" is a vow taken, under the influence of the Higher
> Self, True Will, Magical Will, Holy Guardian Angel, or whichever term
> you prefer, to bind the Lower Self, Conscious Will, Animal Nature, etc.
> to serve a particular goal.
> 2) any oath taken, no matter what entities/authorities witness it, which
> conflicts with the True Will is NOT a magical oath and should be broken
> whenever it conflicts with the fulfilling of the True Will.
>
> How's that?
I think I know what you mean, but I suspect the breaking of any oath
weakens the connection between the personality and the Higher Will.
Actually, I think lying does has a similar effect, but to a lesser
extent. If you try to make everything you say true - particularly
when you say you are going to do something - this is an excellent
practice to perfect the Will. Speaking untruths scatters and obscures
the mental energies.