At the recent Thelemic Sympossium at Sekhet-Maat Lodge (which I was honored to be a panelist on: http://sekhetmaat.com/wiki/Thelemic_Symposium_2009_ev), the following question was asked. My response follows:

"1. Crowley described Thelema as a solar-phallic religion. To some, this sounds like another way of saying "patriarchy." In what ways do you find solar-phallicism to be inclusive of women?"

One example is that Solar phallicism is inclusive of women within the central ritual of Ordo Templi Orientis:

According to E.G.C. policy, the celebration of Liber XV is to be physically filled by a woman. This, although we are also informed that the Priestess and other officers are “as it were part of the PRIEST himself.”

As Crowley notes in his commentary to Liber AL III: 22: "Our religion therefore, for the People, is the Cult of the Sun, who is our particular star of the Body of Nuit," (or as is noted in 'The Creed': “I believe in… One star in the company of Stars”) "from whom, in the strictest scientific sense, come this earth, a chilled spark of Him, and all our Light and Life.” His viceregent and representative in the animal kingdom is His cognate symbol the Phallus, representing Love and Liberty. Ra-Hoor-Khuit, like all true Gods, is therefore a Solar-Phallic deity.”

Besides the white robes that all of the Officers wear, the Priestess is unique in that she wears blue, gold and a red girdle in which is the sword. As The Book of Lies,"The Cairo Working", etc. make clear, the principal symbol of the Solar Phallic deity Ra-Hoor-Khuit is an inverted red triangle – and this triangle is associated to the Sephira Tiphareth, Geburah and Chesed on the Tree of Life. Interestingly, the colors associated to these Sephira in the 'King Scale of Colour' are the same colors worn by the Priestess. Moreover, with "The Ceremony of the Opening of the Veil" and the throning of the Daughter (He final- Malkuth) upon the throne of her Mother (He-Binah), there is a further identification in that it is the Priestess who gives the symbol of the inverted triangle upon her breast – and again, Crowley associated the Sephira Tiphareth, Geburah and Chesed to the Anahata Chakra which is in turn associated to the heart or breast.

It is also tempting to compare the red girdle in Liber XV to the Universe card in the Tarot where the principal figure has female breasts and “A red scarf conceals the fact of male genital organs…” Moreover, in the Tarot atus, the sword is representative of the astrological sign of Gemini or the twins which is the sign emblemmatical of the New Aeon in The Book of Thoth; the Priestess of course is flanked by two children on her entrance into the Temple.

Additionally, the words spoken in response to the Priest's invocation of “Our Lord in the Universe the Sun” by the Priestess are the Words (or Word) of the Solar Phallic deity Ra-Hoor-Khuit. Furthermore, it is the lineal figure of Mars, specifically associated to Ra-Hoor-Khuit according to Liber 231 – the Pentagram - that is drawn upon the Priestess thrice by the Priest during the ceremony.

Lastly, while the Priestess wields the sword at the beginning of the ritual, she takes the Lance at the conclusion while silently offering the Paten (note the P for Peh or Mars) and Cup (note the C for Kaph or Jupiter) to the Priest. She is the only officer to have complete control over all of the principal weapons.

To conclude, it is the Priestess who makes the special sign revealed at "The Cairo Working" of Ra Hoor Khuit upon her breast; it is the Priestess who wears the associated colors to the Sephira represented by that sign; and lastly, it is the priestess - not the Priest - who utters the fourfold Word of the Solar Phallic God Ra-Hoor-Khuit .

As far as I’m aware, most patriarchies don’t have women representing or speaking the words of their principal deity.

"This book is not an attempt to provide a broad survey of current Thelemic "offerings," e.g. the multiplicity of recent "orders" and "schools of interpretation." We acknowledge one A.'.A.'. and one O.T.O."

-from the James Wasserman Introduction to The Weiser Concise Guide to Aliester Crowley by Richard Kaczynski.

And if you haven't heard...

http://sekhetmaat.com/wiki/Initiation_in_the_Aeon_of_the_Child

"Real Thelemites don't improvise Class A material."

-James and Nancy Wasserman, To Perfect This Feast

I'd also add that real O.T.O. members don't go out of their way to diminish the books (which includes the practices) recommended for A.'.A.'. - particularly, as these (according to Crowley), also "suit O.T.O."

During a recent conversation, a friend of mine identified himself unabashedly as a "fundamentalist" and admittedly, there have been occasions when I've been labeled this as well. Not surprisingly, this term has been lobbied about by detractors and has even been embraced in part for this reason. One could always read "fundament" or the ninth Sephira into this term after all.

However, the association that typically springs to mind with the "fundamentalist" label (and the one these detractors really like to harp on about) is of the stereotypical tele-evangelist crying from his pulpit and demanding literalist fealty to stories such as "Noah's Ark", "Daniel in the Lion's den", etc. Besides this nakedly negative media driven image, there's a larger overall implication and slander that the fundamentalist of whatever stripe is superstitious and that the Thelemic "fundamentalist" is just as blind as the Christian "fundamentalist" who slavishly embraces his Berashith without a nod to the 11th tablet of the Gilgamish epic.

Clearly, the detractor utilizing the "fudamentalist" label has the objective of demonizing the person he/she disagrees with. However, when one examines a little as to how the label was aquired, the results are revealing.

More often than not, the label is applied as a result of that individuals perceived adherence to a particular system (neglecting for the moment the notion that seriousness of any kind is routinely perceived by these same detractors as a threat); in this case, the system put into place by Aleister Crowley.

For example, Crowley demands in no uncertain terms the practice by Thelemites and aspirants alike of Liber Resh. Moreover, there is the text of Liber Al itself which clearly acknowledges Crowley's authority and demands that his instructions be obeyed. This also includes "The Comment" which in turn demands that "questions" regarding Liber Al defacto include an "appeal" to Crowley's writings. Characteristically, the "fundamentalists" don't have major hang ups over any of this and will routinely promulgate the above.

Additionally, there are the writings of Crowley's that define what the O.T.O. and A.'.A.'. systems are. In turn, these Orders refer to Crowley as an authority when interepreting their systems. For example, the O.T.O. defines the Feast days in Liber Al based almost wholly on Crowley's commentary to Liber Al. Within a religious Order with a military component formulated by the Prophet of the AEon - such an adherence should hardly be surprising - in fact, it begins with the Man of Earth triad.

As the Grandmaster of the O.T.O. himself has noted:

"Our Thelema is that of the Book of the Law and the writings of Aleister Crowley—the Master Therion, the Prophet of the Aeon of Horus.

This is what we are about, and this is what we are—our guide is the Book of the Law, and our Law is “Do What Thou Wilt.”

Despite all our individual differences of manner, opinion, preference, interest, and enthusiasm, these are things on which we must agree."

IMO, its more than a little obvious to me that there are those in the Order who clearly are at odds with the above statements (all one has to do is peruse their Lj's). Moreover, its interesting to consider who would exactly qualify as a "fundamentalist" by their "lights".

While these same detractors will very often quote those parts of Crowley that sit well with their pre-existing values, isn't it Crowley himself who is the chief culprit of this "fundamentalism?" Was Crowley a staunch advocate for Tibetan Buddhism...or Thelema? Is Liber Al itself "fundamentalist" with the demands it makes of its adherents? When Crowley instructed us to give the Law to every being on every plane of existence upon meeting - doesn't that amount to a fundamentalism - an adherence?

If a strict adherence to the methods that Crowley advocated makes one a "fundamentalist", then how exactly wouldn't it follow that the creator and principal proponent of those methods is the chief culprit? Therein lies the rub.

This is also where the christian parallel breaks down in many respects. With christianity, one could postulate a certain amount of conjecture as far as to the intent of its founder. with Crowley, that's a little more difficult as he was a very capable English writer.

Moreover, if my opinion is correct, doesn't this suggest a rather "fundamantal" conflict? It does beg the question, if these folks aren't on board with those "things on which we must agree" - then what exactly are they on board with?

Appear on the throne of Ra!
Open the ways of the Khu!
Lighten the ways of the Ka!
The ways of the Khabs run through
to stir me or still me!
Aum! let it fill me!

-Liber AL vel Legis III: 37.

Additionally, "The Way" has the number of 71.

Regarding the practice of Liber Resh within the O.T.O.:

A bold acknowledgement by specific local O.T.O. bodies publicly affirming that Liber Resh vel Helios is a regularly practiced ritual by Local Body x at the prescribed times (ideally with a member charged to make the space available during these times and to ensure that the ritual is performed) could assist in reaffirming the primacy of this ritual and the practices generally.

For example, a local body could make its expectations crystal clear on their website (not unlike the expectation that people ritually attend events on time) that Liber Resh vel Helios is a standard practice for the members of that body. If people wish to attend that don't engage in the practice, they can do so as long as they're respectful of the general membership. However collectively, this body will hold that this practice is part and pracel of the bodies effective operation.

I don't remember coming across this previously, but it was recently brought to my attention that "thou", "thee, and "thine" in French are used in an intimate sense seventy or so odd pages into a number of French novels (and to my surprise and dismay, even in Jane Austin!)as this notes a 'familiarity' ("let the wife say these words...") between the principal male and female characters. Within German, this familiarity is extended to students within a school, to a family, to members of the same age group, etc.

Reflecting upon this usage within Thelema, the Law appears to indicate more than a passing familiarity between the person pronouncing the Law and "Thou". Rather, it should note a relationship that deepens and eventually culminates in a total and complete identity between the creator (Paggenetor) and the thing created; ANI, HVA, ATeH - "three different aspects of a deity worshipped in three persons and in three ways: viz (I) with averted face; (2) with prostration; (3) with identification" (An Essay Upon Number). This in turn suggests the Neophyte, the Adept and the Master of the Temple (see Liber 406).

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.'.

For one thing, this notion argues against the structure of the Order specifically ennumerated in "One Star in Sight" (the Order's "Pilgrims Progress"); i.e. there are not a smorgasboard of Chancellors from which the Neophyte may choose, but one; there are not numerous Orders mentioned, but one, etc.

On the other hand, the argument in support of the notion of "lineages" is typically justified based on what some consider a leadership vaccuum following Crowley, Germer or Motta (depending on who's making the claim). Taking this as their basis, its interesting that the "History Lection" - which mentions difficulties regarding a determination of leadership at an early point in the Order's history - makes no mention of resorting to "lineages" as a solution. Based on a straightforward reading of that document, one hardly comes away from it with the idea that an "ordered harmony" eliminates the necessity of the Order as One.

Moreover, Crowley's footnote in "One Star in Sight" may be revealing:

"Certain swindlers have recently stolen the initials A.'. A.'. in order to profit by its reputation."

My understanding is that Crowley is specifically addressing his former student, C.F. Russell with this note. That being the case, its interesting that Russell's own order (again, to the best of my knowledge) didn't claim to be the A.'A.'. but simply referred to it:

"In our work we are compelled to cooperate with Therion and the A.'.A.'...."

Additionally, Crowley "recommended reprinting the Order's manifesto, "One Star in Sight," for circulation in their campaign against Russell" (Starr, "The Unknown God").

Again, Russell hadn't claimed to be the A.'.A.'. or even a "lineage" and yet, Crowley wrote on the title page of this reprint of "One Star in Sight":

"...for general circulation and the special attention of those who have been led to join the pseudo-occult orders which have used the Publications of the A.'.A.'. as text books etc., but that have no connection with The Great White Brotherhood known as A.'.A.'." (Starr, "The Unknown God").

Considering Crowley's vehemence regarding a group that claimed association with the A.'.A.'., is it really any wonder what he would have thought regarding "lineages"?

"The Order is One, unbroken in its Chain of succession from V.V.V.V.V. through its senior living Adepti. The Order is One, although it functions in a threefold manner: Speech in Silence, Silence, and Silence in Speech. The Order is One, as there is but One Eye in the Triangle."

Information regarding this event is now available:

http://sekhetmaat.com/wiki/Thelemic_Symposium_2009_ev

I've been invited to be one of three panelists at Sekhet-Maat Lodge's upcoming Thelemic Symposium. If you have an incredibly difficult question you'd like to ask me in front of an audience - this is your chance.

I'll be posting additional material regarding this event as it becomes available.

Crowley personally instructed McMurtry to give "Signs" of the appropriate M.O.E. degrees prior to the performance of Liber Resh (footnote in Book IV). Moreover, one of the requirements for having an O.T.O. Profess House is that Liber Resh is punctually performed by the houses' inhabitants (which means that Crowley expected O.T.O. members to know and be practicing this A.'.A.'. Ritual).

What this suggests to me is something I think a lot of people miss with Crowley's work - particularly concerning a ritual as pivotal as Crowley consistently asserted Liber Resh to be - namely, that the system's parts inform the whole.

In the O.T.O. you're more likely to have an individual choose to ignore some part because its not to his/her liking for any number of self-justified reasons ("individualism run wild") as there's much less accountability with the practices. People are aware of what they should be doing in the O.T.O., but unless theres a Test or a stick over their heads (or even some established expectations within a local body...), they're not going to do it.

Nonetheless, that doesn't change the integrated nature of the system. For example, a number of people enthusiastically embrace Liber 77, but unless they've read and understood the expectations and definitions outlined in "Duty" or understood how OZ works in tandem with Liber 194, the resultant comprehension will not only be shallow, but potentially lead to a lot of mischief.

As a result, I think it should hardly be surprising that the more parts individuals choose to remove from the engine - the less efficient the the whole thing works.