BM Notes

Introduction:
I agree with the Temples position on the OU and SU in definition,
obviously I have to learn more before I can say for certain if I
agree with what it explains as theyre interaction.
I am part of the category that approached the temple because of
all 4 points, heavily leaning however on the first 3.
I have been through a number of orthodoxies and have studied
quite a number of esoteric faiths as well. The Temple is near
the end of my shopping list.
I think that while the Initiate should seek to distance himself from
certain characteristics of the OU, I dont think its too wise to
become so distant while alive that you are completely isolated.
The OU has a lot of pleasure that can be gained from it. That
being said I appreciate what is being said and it makes sense
when looking at the desired metaphysical result.
An organization that is upfront about what it doesnt know and is
open to change depending on the evidence is one I can certainly
get behind.
Chapter I: Origins
Having read the CoS book much of this is a refresher so to
speak, however I have always enjoyed the way Dr. Aquino
recounts his time in the organization as a narrator.
In all honesty after reading TBoCFbN, it did not affect or resonate
with me the way others have said it did with them. After going
through Dr. Aquinos description here of a GBM working however,
I have no doubt that he believes it is authentic and is therefore
not a conscious imitation of Crowley nor a fraud.
The objective validity of the document and therefore its mandate
to me rests in the authenticity of the Temple and in the existence
of Set which I plan to explore and determine myself.
After mainstream orthodoxies, my first self-chosen affiliation was
with the CoS 8 years ago. I found the organization to be an
empty shell that offered quite literally nothing other than a little
red card. After shrugging off my angst-y youth and exploring a
wide variety of other beliefs, I found myself here. So I suppose
back to the beginning in a sense, but in another direction!
Chapter II: Ancient Egypt/Priesthood of Set
It was the original reading of this chapter that led me to explore
Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. I recorded that the
act of domesticating an animal (i.e. a goat) was a black magical

act. It was outside the natural order that allowed us to focus on

other tasks than food.
It reads that Egypt was very much a theocracy, but I suppose the
majority of ancient cultures were at least in some way similar in
this regard. It would be interesting to see how effective the
dissuasion of crime by fear of after-death punishment was
considering it doesnt really help today in the form of the major
monotheisms. I suppose a lot of these however have an angle
on eternal forgiveness, but still.
This history of Egypt is interesting, the roles of the Neteru seem
to mirror in parts the role of the Norse gods as opposed to
anthropomorphic all-powerful gods. They used to live and walk
among the Earth (according to the myths).
Im sure I first read this within Black Magic before, but in case I
didnt it strikes me that the Set animal is the only principle
Neteru that is crafted from a beat outside of nature/the natural
order (as of now; who knows what animal we may discover
existed in the future). To me this adds weight to the claim that
Set is a non-natural Neter, almost paradoxical by definition.
Found most of it in (2) under Set! Indeed, the idea of
consciousness being outside the natural order as well I agree
with and in fitting with Egyptian Neteru it makes sense that this
gift is associated with Set.
The notion the Egyptians had of cyclical thinking and events is
intriguing, looking to the past for answers is something we
perhaps employ too conservatively as a society.
The quest to find the reality of who and what Set was is
interesting and as noted may be more insightful with modern
knowledge but obviously as detailed by Dr. Aquino we have
forever lost some treasured information. With scholarly work
consistently not in agreement, how does the Temple know that
we have the right perspective on Set?

Chapter III: Initiation

Obscurum per obscurius geez, that hits home!
Completely agree that all Initiation is self Initiation the Temple
merely recognizes it.
I have always appreciated and exhaulted the balance between
intuition and reasoning, each alone will not suffice and has the
potential to lead one astray.
Interesting thought: what about those who seek to merge their
consciousness with a being outside of the OU? This is not my
desire but I have met some magicians who seek to become one
with a being outside of the OU.

On the Crowley note: hypothetically if one successfully merged

with the OU, why wouldnt they be able to make a change in it?
Is it assumed then that merging with the OU would cause defacto dissolution of the entirety of the self? This is opposed to say
maintaining some aspects of the self while part of a greater
consciousness.