There are two problems I see with the view that O.T.O. should not teach an orthodoxy.
The first problem is that Crowley himself said the initiations are meant to teach certain philosophical views on life.
The question then arose, “What truths should be communicated and by what means promulgated?” […] The main objects of the instruction were two. It was firstly necessary to explain the universe and the relations of human life therewith. Secondly, to instruct every man how best to adapt his life to the cosmos and to develop his faculties to the utmost advantage. I accordingly constructed a series or rituals, Minerval, Man, Magician, Master-Magician, Perfect Magician and Perfect Initiate, which should illustrate the course of human life in its largest philosophical aspect. I begin by showing the object of the pure soul, “One, individual and eternal”, in determining to formulate itself consciously, or, as I may say, to understand itself.
Confessions, Ch 72
He says there are two objects, but you can break them down into three:
- Explain the universe. That’s the “pantheistic” view of the Book of the Law and the numerous elaborations Crowley gave to it throughout the course of his entire life. “This Book explains the Universe.”
- Explain what the human being is. Every man and every woman is a star. At least in the context of O.T.O., this means teaching the path in eternity as described in Magick Without Tears, chapter 13. This is elsewhere called the cycle of existence. More generally the view “There is no god but man.”
- Teach ethics, i.e., the implications for life that follow from this the previous two points: “the candidate is instructed in the value of discretion, loyalty, independence, truthfulness, courage, self-control, indifference to circumstance, impartiality, scepticism, and other virtues”.
Of course in the initiations themselves, much of this is approached symbolically and allegorically, although not all of it is. If a candidate swears to do something, what they swear to do should not be interpreted infinitely elastically, either—not if you are preparing individuals to coexist in fraternity with one another.
As for the symbolic/allegorical parts, O.T.O. provides study guides with each degree, but they’re not expository. It’s mostly just a list of books and essays. Unless you provide a more structured teaching (“this idea helps explain this part of this ritual because of X, Y, and Z”), most aren’t going to have the educational background to understand what the connection is. Instead they’re going to pick up the impressions formed by senior members, impressions which themselves form a kind of unacknowledged dogma. This leads into the second problem.
The second problem is that the rejection of orthodoxy in O.T.O. has not resulted in the elimination of orthodoxy; it’s just led to the replacement of Crowley’s orthodoxy with alternative dogmas. A lot of these dogmas have to do with the relationship between O.T.O. and ceremonial magick.
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard initiators talk about “moving magical energy” during the course of the initiation or speak as though they are casting spells over the candidates. One influential Thelemite has likened the candidate in these rituals to a talisman that is being purified, consecrated, and so forth over the course of the initiations. This has given rise to—frankly superstitious—beliefs that the initiations magically cause or at least make more likely certain unfortunate life circumstances such as breaking up with one’s boyfriend or girlfriend, losing one’s job, having car trouble, etc.
I personally would not choose to join an organization that I thought had the magical ability to destabilize important relationships in my life, but I guess for some people it adds a layer of intrigue. The irony is that, while these ideas carry with them a kind of mystique or otherworldliness about the initiations, when you put them up next to Crowley’s own intended purpose of the rituals—to teach you how the world works and how to make yourself strong and effective in it—they sound kind of vapid.
Another common view is the Gnostic Mass is a magical ritual, and clergy are magicians. While there are arguably magical aspects of the Gnostic Mass, the Mass is a public religious rite, not a magical ritual. As in almost all public religious ceremonies going back thousands of years, the purpose is to communicate certain values—virtues as they’re called in the rubric—to the public. The point isn’t that the Gnostic Mass should not be considered from a magical perspective at all. The point is that looking at it as a work of ceremonial magick is not the most informative frame. It conceals or obscures more than it reveals.
Another common view that is substituted for Crowley’s own—again, put forward by influential people in the organization—is that the purpose of O.T.O. is to teach ceremonial magick or to be a club for ceremonial magicians. Meanwhile the founding documents and the initiation rituals themselves point in a very different direction: that the purpose of O.T.O. is to ritually celebrate certain truths about nature for the public (Gnostic Mass), promulgate Thelema, serve as an example of a well-functioning Thelemic society, and teach individuals its particular view on the human being and the world that allow that society to function.
Crowley was very interested in teaching people ceremonial magick, yoga, and other techniques leading to spiritual illumination. That’s what A∴A∴ was for. There is, as far as I can tell, almost no orthodoxy in A∴A∴. I think the idea is that you familiarize yourself with all spiritual philosophies, or at least as many as you can. There is orthopraxy in A∴A∴. It is a teaching and testing organization.
The situation has been stood exactly on its head in modern O.T.O. by individuals who, intentionally or not, have made their own views authoritative. They’re not authoritative in the sense that people can’t question them. No one can prevent you from questioning anything that happens in O.T.O. anyway. But they’re authoritative in a more insidious sense: it’s very rare that anyone chooses to question them. They’re taken for granted, and as a result, the original intention has been eclipsed.
If you’re worried that I am personally going to stop people from teaching classes on scrying, talisman construction, banishings, tarot and whatnot, slow your roll. I don’t have the power to do that; if I did, I wouldn’t; and I’m not suggesting anyone with power prevent people from doing that. Those are often enjoyable events for people, and just as a practical matter, we raise money and attract members from them. (There’s nothing in our founding documents about selling merchandise, either, but I also support that for obvious reasons.)
But if it’s okay to teach the technical aspects of magick, the individuals doing that or supporting that also have to be tolerant and make room for those who have developed competence in the philosophy of O.T.O. and who want to and are able to teach it. And they should stop expecting those individuals to preface everything with a disclaimer saying they’re not speaking on behalf of the organization. No one has to give a disclaimer like that when they’re teaching the millionth class on the LBRP (a class which, in my opinion, gives exactly the wrong idea about what O.T.O. is). So you shouldn’t have to do it if you’re teaching the Path in Eternity, the worldview of the Gnostic Mass, or Thelemic ethics.