Luce wrote:Crowley presents the A.'.A.'.. as a progressive non-sectarian magical order whose purpose is to train individuals in magic and mysticism, with the aim of attaining K&C-HGA and the crossing of the abyss in order to fulfill one's true will and enter the City of the Pyramids. When described, the A.'.A.'. appears just that; yet, when analyzing the requirements of the order, one finds that the promise is not quite delivered.
This form of non-sectarianism representation is pretty true during the original
Equinox period. Examination of the 1919 material in
Equinox III:1, and even more so
One Star in Sight, shows it being non-sectarian only in the sense that all sects are honored as subsets of Thelema (my words);
i.e., the spirit is the same AND it is pointedly, explicitly Thelemic. (The original design didn't even disclose the unpublished
Liber Legis until the 2=9 grade.)
The A.'.A.'. claims to be free from dogma, yet this claim falls flat when one realizes that one must employ specific, unalterable rituals. This brings me to my question.
Is that dogma? (I'm not saying it isn't. I'm posing a question.) Would you consider it dogma to affirm that all gymnastics training must consider the consequences of the law of gravity? If yes to the first and no to the second, what's the difference? (Again, these are dialectic questions.)
Jim has told me that aspirants of the A.'.A.'.. can, in no way, shape, or form, alter the prescribed rituals or practices.
I doubt I said that. I likely said that one must learn and master them exactly as provided, test on them as provided, and pass them on as provided. After having mastered it in this way, what one does in one's own Work is another matter.
In a fine cooking school, a chef trainee must learn to make the core French sauces "exactly so." This has nothing to do with what he or she does when starting a restaurant after graduation.
If, by chance, I am remembering correctly, your objection was that you didn't want to learn / master / practice them
as given in the first place, you wanted to reframe them before starting out. Not only would that not be the A.'.A.'. system (it's you starting your own system), it also shows a barrier in yourself that is truly dogmatic,
i.e., unable to see past the arbitrariness of the whole matter and adopt other language and forms interchangeably with your own. These would be psychological (one might even call them spiritual) limitations that the system quite pointedly seeks to burn out of people, and more or less says so in the
first few minutes of admitting someone as a Probationer. (If I'm not remembering our conversations correctly,
i.e., this isn't you I'm remembering, then the point stands but, of course, it doesn't apply to you

.)
In my case, I hail from a monotheistic religion; as such, I am unable to offer worship to other God names.
"Unable" is bullshit. I think you mean that, if you adhere to the dogma of a specific system you accept, then you are not permitted to do this within the rules of that system. You are, however, perfectly
able to do it. You are making a choice to let something else be more important to you than your progress in the system. You are also holding onto
exactly the kind of spiritual rigidity that the system seeks to neutralize.
Look, nobody expects you to start out with the Understanding that comes at the end. But I do want you to understand that the goal is to get you (get all of us!) past the idea that there is one particular definition of God - to get to a place where monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, atheism, etc. are interchangeable and one deeply, deeply
gets that these are only lines drawn by the intellect, labels composed to sort reality - and REALITY is bigger than the labels of the moment - to get you to where you see how
you see these things more or less indifferently in any other variant experience someone else describes. All the rest is politics and social engineering. (I'm quite willing to leverage politics and social engineering, BTW - that's something the Mysteries have always done. I just like to be clear that this is what we're all doing.)
I therefore wish to swap out god names where applicable, under the guidance of my superior. I was told this was not an option.
You need to learn, practice, master, and pass examination on the material as delivered, and then do whatever you want in your own Work. Besides the fact that this pushes you hard in an area that you are limiting yourself, it is also necessary for you to be able to pass the original system on
as received to those who come after you.
As a Probationer I detested a certain book by Blavatsky I was required to read. I later balked
for years at memorizing 27 simple lines that (coincidentally?) were inspired by something Blavatsky brought through, even though I'd memorized hundreds of similar lines previously. (In hindsight, I think I have some past life issue with Blavatsky; but that's entirely beside the point that my personality was balking at this stubbornly.) To her great credit, my Superior was aware that what I wanted really didn't matter a whit - that her job was to deliver the system as received and watch my personality dance and squirm and resist and play all of its other little ego games until I eventually settled back to the point that there was really nothing there to resist and, besides, if I wanted to move on in the system
more than I wanted to take a stand, then I eventually would do so- when I was really ready. And I did.
The changes I wish to make are few. For example, when I perform Liber Resh, I will say, "Hail unto thee who art Adonai in thy rising..." When I perform the LHR, I say, "Christ, slain and risen." I am careful to do my best to keep the symbolism the same, e.g., when performing Resh, I use Adonai at noon when facing south to match the LBRP. With the help of my superior, I believe I could find suitable substitutions from the Christian "pantheon" (if you will) that would not alter the symbolism or effect of the ritual.
If these words in
Resh are an issue, then you have missed the core realization that comes from
Resh (which, admittedly, often doesn't come for years). The practical solution is to learn it as originally taught, test on it as originally taught, adore Ra-Hoor-Khuit with all your heart and soul (or at least mouth and persistence) for a long stretch of months, and commit to passing it on to those who come after you as you originally received it. After that, I don't care what you do with it in your own private work.
If you can't or won't do this, then there are many other things in which you
will fail, deeper and closer to the results you seek.
I... would only wish to change the god names in certain places to keep me in obedience to my religion.
I would certainly like to challenge that obedient temperament - at least to the point where you are fully in charge of extending or withholding obedience at will.
I understand that the A.'.A.'. teaches that all god names are merely different ways of referring to your HGA -- but if this is true, why am I not permitted to refer to my HGA by a different god name?
If you believe this is true, why does your personality resist calling your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by some other name like Yoda, Fred, Casper, Maggie Ann, Satan, Kali, Coocoocachoo, or Donald Trump? Again: If there were no other reason, it is sufficient reason that this approach will challenge personality-level limitations you have put on yourself.
Another parallel: Early in my A.'.A.'. time, in a conversation with Soror Meral on
Liber III, I said I didn't see any reason in arbitrarily doing something that caused physical pain. She suggested I might examine why I was resistant to experiencing pain. She didn't want to cause me pain either, and she was certainly not suggesting that
I should want to cause myself pain, nor to encourage me to cause myself pain. She simply rightly detected that my insistence on this point showed an issue I had to overcome. (In fact, the magnitude of my insistence was likely the clue that I had an actual issue.) The right attitude at the animal level, of course, is to avoid the pain, at least unless there was a greater survival reward. Above the animal level, the right attitude was to be ultimately indifferent on the matter, to get that pain comes and goes and, while I might not seek it, I certainly shouldn't govern my life by avoiding it.
I am unsure if I personally believe that every god-form is an aspect of the one true God, but because my religion teaches that other gods are false gods, I do not wish to violate that.
Again: a choice, something under your control.
I am not looking to get into a discussion concerning the veracity of this
Please notice that I haven't addressed that either. I've only talked about (things like) what your intellect is doing with that idea.
If the A.'.A.'. is free from dogma, why can I not mildly alter the rituals by changing a single word?
OK, go ahead and change the word "but" to "and" wherever you want to in the rituals. Just don't change names and symbols.

To say it a different way: Changing something that
means something to you is a bad idea in this sort of thing, though it's fine to change things that don't really mean much to you at all. Why? Because, again, the dismantling of various personality-related ideas (including, ultimately, the idea that the personality is
who you really are).
It comes down to this: whether or not Christianity is the one true religion, my HGA thus far has revealed himself to me through the Christian paradigm. Why can I not use the names that I know my HGA by?
In those places where the HGA name is called for (e.g., at a certain point in the Pentagram Ritual) you most certainly can and should! But there are other practices that quite clearly distinguish themselves from the HGA operation. For example,
Liber Astarte is quite explicit that its Bhakti Yoga task is not to be confused with the invocation of the HGA. Will you be able, holding Jesus Christ as the name of your HGA, to undertake the practice of choosing
another god, from some pantheon, who is
quite explicitly not your idea of your HGA and writing and practicing a ritual of profound adoration to him or her for a protracted period of time? If not, you would not pass a fundamental practice of the 4=7 grade. (And there is a good reason for doing it that way, which one probably wouldn't see until on the other side of the practice.) Also,
Liber Resh is quite explicit that the four gods adored are not what you are truly adoring by the ritual; they are method. This doesn't at all interfere with what you understand to be
what you are truly adoring.
Why, if I join the A.'.A.'., do I have to use Egyptian deity names, when my HGA has told me (to the best of my discernment, anyway), to refer to him by Christian and Jewish names?
Because (1) it {******} you off or scares you, and that's a clue that it's something you need to work on, and (2) because it's a system
you are picking and, seemingly, wanting to change and rewrite as if you already know more than the designers and caretakers. One wonders why you don't just go choose something else. The answer, most likely, is that that same HGA is pushing you hard in a direction that will bring you up against these very limits you are putting on yourself.
An order cannot claim to be scientific and free from dogma whilst simultaneously dictate which god names an aspirant MUST use.
Every time I picked up a calculus book, I had to learn all over from the beginning because the book used different nomenclature, different language. Even though I had passed in the matter twice before, I had to start, on the third occasion, as if I didn't have a clue, because it's all about how the language is being used.
You seem to think that the Names are things in and of themselves. You are confusing an inexpressible constant for the variable names. (See note about Fred above.) Nothing is more truly scientific in method than the arbitrary adoption of label names for the purpose of an experiment, especially when one is dealing with unknown quantities.
An organization that claims to teach universal religion, but then requires its adherents to worship an Egyptian sun God, is not teaching universal religion.
You could convince me that this is true if the aspirant already worships an Egyptian sun-god. In that case, it would just be reinforcing an established sectarian position. But for someone who does
not already worship an Egyptian sun-god, it's brilliant!
Understand that "universal religion" is not the same as "freedom of religion." Universal religion is the recognition that all religions whatsoever are the same religion, just using different variable names for cultural or other reasons. It doesn't further the ultimate separation of seemingly distinct religions but, rather, removes separation.
The organization can, of course, use those god names -- that's not the problem. The problem is forcing all adherents to use the same god names and being unwilling to permit any substitution.
Nobody is forcing anybody. Just don't use the system that uses the names you don't want to use. Do something else.
You are showing yourself to be stubbornly dogmatic and quite averse to universal religion. It would seem to me that you would have something to gain from a system that would soften those rigid boundaries; but that's not my call, it's just my opinion. It's your call.
All I'm told is that the problem lies with me -- that there are psychological blocks and hang-ups that I have. This may be true, but what if it's not?
Great question. What do you see as the consequences if you persevered in the system and, oops, it wasn't you after all?
What if it is actually a violation of my higher will to use these god names?
Life will then correct you. Anytime we make a serious enough mistake, life smacks us
exactly as hard as it needs to back onto our own track. (This answer is aside from the fact that I personally, profoundly doubt that anyone's "higher will" is connected with labels of any kind. It deals with things that are behind those labels.)
On the higher will question, I'm more interested in why you seem driven so powerfully to align with this particular system. That you are intellectually willing to do so earns you my respect. That you seem so powerfully
compelled to do so engages my curiosity.
Jim, even if you think I'm nuts and my fears are baseless, can't you at least see where I'm coming from?
I think I do. And... well, not to bore you with repeating myself... see what I've written above. Where you're coming from" is the raw matter of what the system takes and works with.
Can't you see how dogmatic this looks to me?
Yes, I see how dogmatic it looks to you. I also see that it isn't dogmatic.
You are being dogmatic.
"Should therefore the candidate hear the name of any God,
let him not rashly assume that it refers to any known God, save only the God known to himself {
emphasis added}." The Probationer hears this, perhaps the single most important instruction in the entire A.'.A.'. system, within moments of being received.
How is this different than the Muslim requiring adherents to say that they accept Mohammed as God's messenger?
A.'.A.'. doesn't require that you
believe anything at all, just that you
do certain things.
I'd be completely fine if I was allowed to use something completely incontrovertible, like "God." I'm not even demanding that I bring the name "Jesus" into this. All I'm asking is to substitute god names out that I feel my HGA prohibits me from using. Only I know my HGA; do you think Crowley would want an aspirant to go against the guidance of his HGA just to be "by the books"?
If you already have that certainty of communication from your HGA, then you don't need the system. If, however, you aren't really certain, they this is just a theory, and the way to test all such theories (including all such perceived communications from the HGA) is to test it in action. Test it by following it, and see where that takes you; test it by challenging it, and seeing where that takes you. Rinse and repeat.