It has become increasingly more popular over the last decade or so to bash the Golden Dawn, its members, and its teachings, with Dee purists, Thelemites, grimoire buffs, and the historical and magickal "elite" all joining in to take a stab. In fact, it has become so popular that some people feel they must jump on the band wagon (without understanding any of the genuine criticisms of the Golden Dawn) or be considered magickally deficient, or a slave to the dogma and "propaganda" (one person I discussed this recently with considered published Golden Dawn rituals and papers to be propaganda) of this esoteric organisation.
Firstly we have the Dee purists. Now, I have studied the original Enochian material, and have utilised much of it in my previous Order, but I think there are pros as well as cons to the Golden Dawn approach. Fair enough that many people will want to use solely the original material. After all, several things have been altered or omitted, such as the different Golden Dawn method for prefixing names with letters from the Tablet of Union or Black Cross. However, the sheer volume of times that I see many Dee purists chime in on a discussion where someone asks an Enochian question and is given a Golden Dawn-ised answer, to scoff and raise (yet again) the fact that this is the Golden Dawn approach and not necessarily the original material, and to point out how inferior the former is to the latter, and to highlight how superior they themselves are for knowing this, is unbelievable. It seems to be common practice to want to take a jab at the Golden Dawn, and, to be honest, many people already know that they got stuff wrong, and that their Enochian isn't the same as the original material, so, to me, it just looks like these "critics" are kicking the Order while it's down, jumping on the band wagon of opportunity, whose only destination is smugness and narcissism.
Secondly we have the Thelemites. One element of Thelemic theology revolves around the notion of the New Aeon, that of Horus, which renders obsolete the Aeon of Osiris, the dying and ressurecting god, who is the motif of both the Golden Dawn system and the Christian religion. Personally I believe in the New Aeon, but I don't believe it does or should invalidate anything that we have previously used. To be fair to many Thelemites, they do not utilise this argument as a basis to bash the Golden Dawn. However, there are many opportunists who will, whether they are Thelemites or not (some just like to steal the idea of the New Aeon to support their bile), decide quite emphatically that not only is the Golden Dawn obsolete, but that it is corrupt, a magickal scourge in the wider community of occultism, and thus every single element of Golden Dawn material and teaching must be eliminated.
This kind of reasoning (if it can be called such at all) is inherently flawed for Thelemites, given much of their system is dependant on Golden Dawn teachings (it's hard to shake off all of those influences, no matter how hard Thelemites try), but for some people who utilise this attack it becomes more of a slur like those levelled at Christianity (often by the same people). It's the kind of mentality that gives rise to beliefs like "there would be no war if there was no religion", an imbicilic idealist notion that merely shows how little thought was given to their vitriol. Indeed, some people criticise the Golden Dawn specifically because of its Christian elements, particularly the Inner Order, and this is just an extension of the widespread (and significantly more popular) Christian bashing that occurs in our cynical world. For my defence of Christianity and religion in general, see this older post on my other blog.
There are also those who will point out that the Golden Dawn utilised material that already existed, such as Agrippa and Levi, as if this fact is somehow a bad thing, or means that they contributed nothing of their own. One of the unique things the Golden Dawn did was the collecting and synthesising of these various sources into a single, workable, dynamic tradition, a tradition that drew on as much Western material as they could get their hands on, thereby becoming a definitive expression of Western occultism that would last for decades (as we can clearly see from its widespread use even today).
Others will point out that the Golden Dawn destroyed the true spirit of the sources they drew upon (Enochian comes to mind here), and that we should try to go "back in time" to those older traditions, traditions, these people argue, that were stronger and more magickally potent than the Golden Dawn's methods are. There is a certain amount of truth to this, as we can see from the Qabalah and Enochian, to name but two examples, but the problem with this type of argument is that it attempts to look for the "pure" tradition, free from outside influences, when, in fact, there often isn't any "pure" tradition. The Qabalah, for example, has some Gnostic inlfuences (particularly the Lurianic school), the 32 Paths of Wisdom was a later addition to the Sepher Yetzirah, the Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy is now seen as not having been written by Agrippa, and those who used the grimoires in the Renaissance added new material and changed methods, etc. to those that wrote and used those grimoires in the Middle Ages. Tradition isn't something that remains static. It's a dynamic, living, growing thing (see here for more of my thoughts on this). This is like when people argue about the English invading Ireland, corrupting and polluting the Celtic gene, as if the Celts had not invaded many centuries before. What we consider to be pure now is a corruption of the purity that came before, which, likewise, is a degradation of the purity before that, and so forth, forever and ever, unto the ends of the earth.
Some people will point out the forgeries of the Sprengel letters, the politics, strife, and splits of the Order, and the fact that the original Order didn't last very long, and these people will use this as "proof" that the Order is immoral, unsuitable, "old school", or fundamentally flawed, and thus should not be utilised. This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Order politics is in the realm of Order instituion and the dynamics of clashing personalities, and has little reflection on the teachings of the Order itself, which are designed to elevate beyond both the institution and the individual personalities of those involved. The funny thing about these arguments is that often these people criticise the fact that some members of Orders have arguments, and at the same time these people are arguing about the validity of the Golden Dawn system with others. I won't go into much detail about the forgery issue, nor indeed Order politics (I will deal with these in future posts), but sufficed to say, these things occur in every human organisation, and they do not automatically render the system invalid or corrupt, but merely betrays the reality that flawed, imperfect humans are in charge.
Now, obviously I'm a Golden Dawn man (to use Regardie's phrase), so I am somewhat biased. However, I don't believe that makes me a slave to dogma, nor do I believe using Christian mythology means I'm suddenly a fundamentalist, wishing fire and brimstone on everyone, or, God forbid, starting religious wars. This is a naive kind of sentiment, and just as imbalanced as those who genuinely are slaves to dogma and fundamentalism. I honestly don't see why people need to get their rocks off by taking petty stabs at the Golden Dawn - what does it achieve? Yes, by all means give the much needed critique (which has been given before, however), for there are imperfections throughout the system, but to throw it all out on what seems like a whim is, in my opinion, a spiritually criminal act.
Firstly we have the Dee purists. Now, I have studied the original Enochian material, and have utilised much of it in my previous Order, but I think there are pros as well as cons to the Golden Dawn approach. Fair enough that many people will want to use solely the original material. After all, several things have been altered or omitted, such as the different Golden Dawn method for prefixing names with letters from the Tablet of Union or Black Cross. However, the sheer volume of times that I see many Dee purists chime in on a discussion where someone asks an Enochian question and is given a Golden Dawn-ised answer, to scoff and raise (yet again) the fact that this is the Golden Dawn approach and not necessarily the original material, and to point out how inferior the former is to the latter, and to highlight how superior they themselves are for knowing this, is unbelievable. It seems to be common practice to want to take a jab at the Golden Dawn, and, to be honest, many people already know that they got stuff wrong, and that their Enochian isn't the same as the original material, so, to me, it just looks like these "critics" are kicking the Order while it's down, jumping on the band wagon of opportunity, whose only destination is smugness and narcissism.
Secondly we have the Thelemites. One element of Thelemic theology revolves around the notion of the New Aeon, that of Horus, which renders obsolete the Aeon of Osiris, the dying and ressurecting god, who is the motif of both the Golden Dawn system and the Christian religion. Personally I believe in the New Aeon, but I don't believe it does or should invalidate anything that we have previously used. To be fair to many Thelemites, they do not utilise this argument as a basis to bash the Golden Dawn. However, there are many opportunists who will, whether they are Thelemites or not (some just like to steal the idea of the New Aeon to support their bile), decide quite emphatically that not only is the Golden Dawn obsolete, but that it is corrupt, a magickal scourge in the wider community of occultism, and thus every single element of Golden Dawn material and teaching must be eliminated.
This kind of reasoning (if it can be called such at all) is inherently flawed for Thelemites, given much of their system is dependant on Golden Dawn teachings (it's hard to shake off all of those influences, no matter how hard Thelemites try), but for some people who utilise this attack it becomes more of a slur like those levelled at Christianity (often by the same people). It's the kind of mentality that gives rise to beliefs like "there would be no war if there was no religion", an imbicilic idealist notion that merely shows how little thought was given to their vitriol. Indeed, some people criticise the Golden Dawn specifically because of its Christian elements, particularly the Inner Order, and this is just an extension of the widespread (and significantly more popular) Christian bashing that occurs in our cynical world. For my defence of Christianity and religion in general, see this older post on my other blog.
There are also those who will point out that the Golden Dawn utilised material that already existed, such as Agrippa and Levi, as if this fact is somehow a bad thing, or means that they contributed nothing of their own. One of the unique things the Golden Dawn did was the collecting and synthesising of these various sources into a single, workable, dynamic tradition, a tradition that drew on as much Western material as they could get their hands on, thereby becoming a definitive expression of Western occultism that would last for decades (as we can clearly see from its widespread use even today).
Others will point out that the Golden Dawn destroyed the true spirit of the sources they drew upon (Enochian comes to mind here), and that we should try to go "back in time" to those older traditions, traditions, these people argue, that were stronger and more magickally potent than the Golden Dawn's methods are. There is a certain amount of truth to this, as we can see from the Qabalah and Enochian, to name but two examples, but the problem with this type of argument is that it attempts to look for the "pure" tradition, free from outside influences, when, in fact, there often isn't any "pure" tradition. The Qabalah, for example, has some Gnostic inlfuences (particularly the Lurianic school), the 32 Paths of Wisdom was a later addition to the Sepher Yetzirah, the Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy is now seen as not having been written by Agrippa, and those who used the grimoires in the Renaissance added new material and changed methods, etc. to those that wrote and used those grimoires in the Middle Ages. Tradition isn't something that remains static. It's a dynamic, living, growing thing (see here for more of my thoughts on this). This is like when people argue about the English invading Ireland, corrupting and polluting the Celtic gene, as if the Celts had not invaded many centuries before. What we consider to be pure now is a corruption of the purity that came before, which, likewise, is a degradation of the purity before that, and so forth, forever and ever, unto the ends of the earth.
Some people will point out the forgeries of the Sprengel letters, the politics, strife, and splits of the Order, and the fact that the original Order didn't last very long, and these people will use this as "proof" that the Order is immoral, unsuitable, "old school", or fundamentally flawed, and thus should not be utilised. This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Order politics is in the realm of Order instituion and the dynamics of clashing personalities, and has little reflection on the teachings of the Order itself, which are designed to elevate beyond both the institution and the individual personalities of those involved. The funny thing about these arguments is that often these people criticise the fact that some members of Orders have arguments, and at the same time these people are arguing about the validity of the Golden Dawn system with others. I won't go into much detail about the forgery issue, nor indeed Order politics (I will deal with these in future posts), but sufficed to say, these things occur in every human organisation, and they do not automatically render the system invalid or corrupt, but merely betrays the reality that flawed, imperfect humans are in charge.
Now, obviously I'm a Golden Dawn man (to use Regardie's phrase), so I am somewhat biased. However, I don't believe that makes me a slave to dogma, nor do I believe using Christian mythology means I'm suddenly a fundamentalist, wishing fire and brimstone on everyone, or, God forbid, starting religious wars. This is a naive kind of sentiment, and just as imbalanced as those who genuinely are slaves to dogma and fundamentalism. I honestly don't see why people need to get their rocks off by taking petty stabs at the Golden Dawn - what does it achieve? Yes, by all means give the much needed critique (which has been given before, however), for there are imperfections throughout the system, but to throw it all out on what seems like a whim is, in my opinion, a spiritually criminal act.
Posts
9 comments:
Dear Dean,
A very good post which I agree with this. I have several observations. First, in a general sense the arguments are no different from those which centred around obscure points of interpreting scripture that have led to innumerable sects of every description. When it comes to religion and spirituality, whether orthodox or heterodox, there is nothing more likely to engender disputes. With specific reference to the GD,however,(which I don't expect others to share nowadays) I believe there is a vast gulf in conscuisness separating the modern GD person from those 100 or so years ago. They were not interested in publishing their secrets to the world or arguing about them. It was the interior experience which was important. Why did the overwhelmingly vast majority burn or destroy their material? Most of the records of the members which have survived (less than 1%) are of great interest in a sense but of almost no validity as a ready-made formulae for us to follow. Indeed, this defeats the purpose. We must do our own work and the object of this is not to produce some glossy book and give conferences but solely to do he Great Work for ourselves. The GD system gives us the basic tools to do this. These tools only suit a relatively small group of people. In my view, the concept of producing 'more material' for other people is absurd and almost self-contradictory'. If we do the basic work then the more advanced level of understanding is automatically made available to us. And the proof is an interior one, not one verified by a book with our name on it. I believe the childish spats about the different Orders are nothing to do with the work of the Golden Dawn as understood by those Fratres and Sorores of 100 years ago. These might as well be arguments about whether one sports team is better than another, or whether Spiderman 3 is better than its predecessor.
Tony
Hello Dean,
thank you for this excellent "defence" of the Golden Dawn tradition. You have done it very well.
The main point I wish to add is that without the Golden Dawn there would be virtually no magical community to argue it's useless. Nearly every MAGICAL tradition in the last century has connections to, used parts of, or imitated the GD. There are virtually no extant magical traditions that pre-date the GD.
The GD approach to Dee's material is fine - within a GD context. Of course it make less sense outside the GD sphere. Others may find the "original" material better - but they would not be looking at it if the GD never existed.
Thelemites; Really, to borrow from Gerald Suster's description of H.P.B., the main problem with Crowley's system is his followers, few of whom are fit to hold his ashtray. The whole New Aeon stuff has gone bananas anyway with Jones and others announcing the Horus aeon already over etc. Honestly, to base magical practice and spirituality on such a corrupted and nasty specimen as Crowley is asking for trouble. And guys, get over the Anal Sex biz, eh?
Yes, the GD built on the past - as it should have, as we should be doing now. The GD tradition was the first of the modern era to effectively synthesize the older material with a lot of NEW material and currents into a workable whole.
Yes, some of the leaders were nuts - most of us would be if holding these currents and powers before the age of psychotherapy. Aside from the public loonies, there were temples and Adepts in the classical GD era who worked silently and deeply for service and God. And there are still.
Obviously, I'm a GD man too. However, the GD as you mention is dynamic and changing, and we need to recognize this. But above all, we need to let the tradition change itself through us, not change or add things based on trends or our ego concerns. This is what Crowley did, this is what many of the new Magi are doing. And just look at the whole sobbing mess of magical community at present.
Peregrin :)
Ave Tony,
Thanks for the comment and observations. Your analogy of interpreting scripture is a very apt one. The hundreds of splits without the Christian community are a good example of how differing opinions approach a similar subject. To think that people parting ways, even if not very amiable, is somehow a sign of corruption is, in my opinion, quite naive. It simply doesn't take into consideration the very real fact that people disagree. Even those criticising the Golden Dawn can be considered part of this dynamic.
While the old Order members were not interested in publishing their secrets or arguing about them, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't want people to use them. After all, having secrets is one of the best ways of enticing Order membership. I never did, and don't believe I ever will, agree with burning of manuscripts. I cannot justify this act. It doesn't keep the secrets from the profane, but simply keeps the material from everyone, genuine students of even the same Order included.
The thing is, I don't agree that we should start from scratch, or that we should ignore the work done by those before us. Yes, we need not see them as set in stone, as traditions must grow, or else they are dead. That said, someone I discussed this with before said that engineers wouldn't get very far if each new one had to reinvent the wheel. I think this is a good analogy. Thus, keeping the material in circulation (i.e. NOT burning it) would allow students to know the wheel, and thus make further advancements that the writers of these documents would never have made.
While I agree with you that our Work here should not be done for the purposes of a book or lecture, there is nothing wrong with publishing a book or giving a lecture. In fact, there are many very good things about these, and, as a writer myself I cannot dismiss the writing and publication of books, whether they are magickal in nature or not.
But yes, the childish spats between Orders nowadays is unbelievable. While I can admit that I kind of side with one group in those spats, the manner in which these arguments have been dealt is very much less than appealing, and brings more shame to the Golden Dawn than anything else, giving its critics more fuel for the fire.
That said, there are hundreds of genuine students doing the Work that counts, quietly behind the scenes. In this sense, it's like most news - we only hear the bad stuff, and think that this is all that exists. This is very much not true, and many lives are evolving as we speak, and many people are helping others in explicit and subtle ways. We definitely need to focus more on this.
Thanks again for the insights, Brother :)
LVX,
Dean.
Ave Peregrin,
Thank you for the kind words. I dislike writing "apologetics", but sometimes they really are called for, and recent discussions I've had with people on the internet and in real life have led to this post (which admittedly contains a certain modicum of angst).
In a forum discussion that partially lead to this post the fact that most people owe knowledge of magick or certain magickal traditions, etc. to the Golden Dawn was raised. Many of these people, it was argued (which I supported), would never have even heard of magick if it were not for the Golden Dawn, directly or indirectly (such as Wicca, via Crowley). A few responses (including a Dee purist) showed offence to this notion, claiming that they came to magick without any knowledge or influence of the Golden Dawn or Crowley. This may be true (who am I to judge), but I don't think this speaks for the majority of people.
While Enochian obviously existed before the Golden Dawn, its popularity is undoubtedly owed to this Order, and Crowley in particular. Regardie's high sentiments of it also bolstered its recognition in the world, and again, as you point out, there would be less people knowing and utilising it, even in its original form, were it not for the G.'.D.'.
Very good points about Thelemites, and I like Suster's description - it's very apt for a wide scope of traditions, Christianity and Buddhism included. Yes, the declaration of the Aeon of Maat, etc. kind of makes a joke out of Crowley's original thoughts and teachings on this matter. Indeed, some Thelemites lay the accusation that the Golden Dawn was corrupt (particularly pinpointing Mathers, who rightly deserves some pinpointing), while being seemingly oblivious to Crowley's character (which mirrored Mathers' in many ways). Indeed, Crowley played one of the most pivotal roles in the collapse of the Golden Dawn, and claimed himself to be the new rightful leader. All this said, I have no problem with Thelema itself, nor some Thelemites, as I've met some very balanced people out there.
If my memory serves me correctly, there were 300+ members of the original Order. It's stated that this is not much, but it looks like a healthy number to me. We only really hear much about a dozen members, however, so that leaves a good 290 or so members who slip under the radar, and not counting the hundreds of members of the various off-shoots. There was always more people silently doing the Work than there were people making a public farce of it. Again, to reiterate my comment to Tony Fuller, we only hear about bad news, not the good stuff, which goes unrecorded because it's less interesting than the Battle of Blythe Road and similar events.
Thanks for the excellent comment and insights, Brother :)
LVX,
Dean.
Hi, thanks for your email response=wanted to clarify. Loved your poem, but was referring to Western tradition debates in general. Enjoy your blog, as much of it as I can understand, and was not referring to divisiveness on your site. As an 'outsider' to Western traditions,there seems to be a lot of discussion about the traditions and their differences. I simply wondered why that was, and asked you because from your blog you seem knowledgeable about these matters. I know very little about these traditions and their differences. The little I have read is very intriguing,just seems like there's a lot of different camps with differences I don't understand, that's all.
Ave Hijinks,
Thank you for the clarification.
Like all topics, magick is a subject of much debate, and since there are so many different groups and opinions, it's easy to see where disagreement comes from, which, due to the flaws of personalty (which I, like others, have), can result in some very heated arguments.
For me to answer anything more specific on the differences between certain camps you'll need to be more specific on what camps and differences you're referring to.
LVX,
Dean.
P.S. My responses to yours are posted as a comment after your own, so you can read and respond to it in the same topic if you want :)
I concur with Dan's and Tony's statements. Fully. What the "purist" sadly miss is that the syncrestic nature of the G.D. is the real strenght and beauty of the tradition. It's according to R+C tradition, which blended and fused hermeticism with qabalah, ceremonial magic with alchemy, from the very start.
One has to make a difference between "Henochian Magic" of G.D. and "Angelical Magic" of John Dee. It's not the same. The G.D. version is a development that chooses to disregard some points made by John Dee. But "Henochian Magic" is enhanced by all the other currents fused into it.
John Dee purists must also know that it's very hard to implement the "Angelical Magic" system of John Dee, just outright. There are many gaps. Much material is missing. To fill in the gaps you must invent new content, like Donald Tyson has proposed as an example. Mathers made his own early approach which is valid from a Rosicrucian standpoint. If it wasn't for him, these Mss. would just sit there in the British Library and collecting dust.
As you probably know by now, I stand on the other side of the demarcation line in the ongoing "war of roses" (G.D. wars), but I hope we can continue the discussion in a fraternal spirit, as we all love the G.D. tradition, our common denominator. We are much more alike than our respective leaders tries to acknowledge, even if it takes an outside "enemy" to realize this.
Fraternally in L.V.X.,
S.R.
Care Fr. S.R.,
That's it precisely. G.'.D.'. is syncretic, and draws from multiple traditions. There's no way G.'.D.'. Enochian could be "pure" Dee, as that would mean they wouldn't be allowed to use all the other traditions that make up G.'.D.'. work. I like your point about Roscrucian tradition too, as it's one that people often forget - it was syncretic, just as Hermeticism as a whole is, and likewise with Gnosticism (all sister traditions which influenced each other, and are part and parcel of the G.'.D.'. system).
I also agree that it's very difficult to employ Dee's method, etc. to the letter, especially in this day and age. Many of these "purists" will use things that don't actually fit with the system to fill any gaps, or, indeed, to omit Christian references and so forth. And, of course, like many elements of magick today, Enochian has become popularised by G.'.D.'. work with it, particularly Regardie and Crowley.
Personally speaking, while I am, in a sense, allied to certain factions in that "war of roses" that you speak, I try not to get involved with it. I don't think it's healthy, and I have no issue with working with sincere and genuine students of the Golden Dawn (and other systems), be they students of the Ciceros, Zalewski, Griffin, Leitch, Thomas, or any number of people. Even if I disagree with the teacher it doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with the student. So, by all means, a fraternal spirit can and will be encountered here by me, and I hope it will be extended further and further across the "battlefront". We are all of the same tradition, as you point out, and the sooner we realise this, the sooner we can get back to expressing true Rosicrucian fellowship and fraternity.
Thank you kindly, Brother, for your comments and your kind words :)
Pax et LVX,
Dean.
Hi, was out of town for a while, but wanted to respond to your comment. Sorry, realized in retrospect, I was asking a question of you whose answer I needed to suss out on my own.I've been using your writing to look into some of the history of and differences between the various Western traditions,and this has been very helpful.
Post a Comment