King Over the Water - A Review

A while back I got a review copy of Nick Farrell’s latest book, “King Over the Water,” which I finally read. Yes, I was goaded into reading this tome by the author himself. I admit that I didn’t want to read it because I am loath to read anything that attempts to discredit or somehow lessen the importance of S. L. MacGregor Mathers. I didn’t like Ellic Howe’s book “Magicians of the Golden Dawn” and I also didn’t like R. A. Gilbert’s or Francis King’s accounts of the Golden Dawn saga. I have always preferred Ithel Colquhoun’s book “Sword of Wisdom” because it is factual, balanced and fair. After reading Nick Ferrell’s book, I would have to say that I still favor the “Sword of Wisdom,” since it represents the history of the Golden Dawn and the various personalities who were involved in its formation in a more accurate and detailed manner. I felt that “King Over the Water” was obviously written with a very political agenda in mind, even though Mr. Farrell has protested that his book was not written to either defame Mathers, or any current organization that operates under the moniker “Alpha and Omega.” Of course, despite his protestations, he has clearly written a book that goes to extreme lengths to both defame Mathers and the A+O organization.

This reminds me of the typical situation that occurs during supposedly polite conversation when someone begins their sentence with the words “With all due respect..” or “Not to disparage your work..” and then continues the sentence with something that is highly disrespectful, insulting and disparaging. (Yet they do this with such grace and civility, even smiling graciously while they cut your throat.) In a similar manner, I have found Mr. Farrell’s sincere claims of being balanced and fair to be overblown, characterizing nothing more than the shrill voice of someone who is attempting to hide his guilty conscience.

I find all of this to be quite disturbing because Mr. Farrell is obviously a good writer, and he should know better! His prose is quite accessible and easy to read, but what he presents in his book is more of a fictional cartoon of Moina and MacGregor Mathers than any kind of forensic psychological profiling. Nick claims to have written his book as an insider’s historical narrative, but I found within it a terrible lack of citations and references necessary to corroborate the original source material. The bibliography is obviously missing a large portion of these supposed sources that Nick isolates and quotes, but then doesn’t bother to let the reader know where they came from. We have to trust that Mr. Farrell is correct in the interpretations of all of his mysterious sources and basic assumptions, or else the entire narrative breaks down. I would claim that this kind of literary presentation is not at all an historical analysis - it is more like a gossip column or tabloid journalism. Even Francis King was more factual, sympathetic and accurate in his glib sharing of occult dirt than Nick Farrell has been with his unseemly diatribe against certain founders of the Golden Dawn. I also believe that the overall premise of this book is more self-serving and self-promoting than it is a concise historical analysis.

Let me get to the heart of my real issue with this book. The problem with attempting to psychoanalyze someone who has been dead almost a hundred years is that unless they were famous and had a lot of original source data to judge their inner nature then such a profile is subject to error, and the less data available, the more egregious the error. The amount of credible known facts about S. L. MacGregor Mathers is small, since he was an obscure and relatively unknown person, known only perhaps to the small circles through which he operated. He had a number of enemies, too, namely Crowley, Horniman, Waite, and most of the members of his Order who rebelled against his authority. Perhaps W. B. Yeats was the only individual who wrote about Mathers in an unbiased and sympathetic manner. Most of the disinformation about Mathers was circulated by Crowley or his associates, and it is amazing that a lot of that scurrilous gossip is still being passed off as actual facts.

Still, there is so little information about Mathers that attempting to make a psychological profile out of that scant amount of data would require one to fill in the many blanks with various assumptions and literary fancy. Even less information is available about Moina Mathers, so any post mortem attempt to explore the depths of her personality would be completely fanciful on the part of the author. When an historian attempts to write about an individual in which there are few known facts, then he or she must also investigate the historical context in which they lived. Since Mr. Farrell has generally omitted that kind of analysis, and instead has focused on fictionalized characterizations of his subjects, you can be certain that presenting any kind of history was the farthest thing from the author’s mind. So, it’s quite obvious that this book is not in any way an historical narrative of the inner mechanisms of the lives of the Mathers couple, nor is it an exposition of the times in which they lived. It is not accurate or even a  sympathetic appraisal of their work and legacy.

Since we know next to nothing about what motivated Mathers and his wife after nearly a century after their deaths, we are left only with the legacy of the work which they left behind. Moina eloquently stated in the 1926 preface of her husband’s book “Kabbalah Unveiled” that the real difficulty in writing a biography about an occultist is that his or her mundane life seems nearly irrelevant, and so she said: “To write the consecutive history of an occult Order is a difficult matter, as difficult as [it is] to write [about] the life of an Adept, there being so much of an inner and secret nature necessarily involved in both: so much of the symbolical in the historical, so much of the latter in the symbology.”

Perhaps the most startling premise that Mr. Farrell makes is that Mathers was an emotionally unstable and egotistical man who lived almost entirely in a fantasy world. He began life compensating for not having a father, and then engaged in promoting himself in a fanciful manner to make up for gross personal inadequacies. He is marginally credited with producing the rites of the second order, but his genius was short lived, and that he began a consumptive decline due to excessive drinking and the stresses of living an impoverished life. Nick also states emphatically that Mathers conflated his inner plane contacts with real people, and that his premier inner plane contact was supposedly the Archangel Raphael. He also states that Mathers lost that contact as he engaged with his supposed fascist fantasies of a synarchic new order, with him mooning over being a made a lord of a Scottish principality. Of course, if Mathers lost that contact, the torch was supposedly passed on to others, such as Felkin and his Stella Matutina, and Dion Fortune’s Society of Inner Light.

Farrel’s central premise is that Mathers is something of a nutcase, and because of that, modern occultists should downplay his contribution and instead, pity him. One important thing to consider before passing too harsh a judgment over Mathers is that anyone who is highly creative or exceptional in some manner, and particularly if they happen to be a practicing occultist, will likely be judged to be eccentric and flamboyant. They will fashion themselves a persona through which they will deal with the world, and they will seem to be emotionally volatile, passionate and fanatical, elevated by their genius while simultaneously brought down by their flaws and vices. Whether we are talking about great composers, artists, poets, writers, political or religious visionaries, or occultists, they all seem to uniformly behave in a very unusual or even bizarre manner, at least when compared to the average person. We tolerate their eccentricities because of the greatness of their work, and often times such individuals have left behind not only a legacy of great value, but also a legend of dysfunction, tragedy and sometimes, dissipation.

How many of us really consider how rude and obnoxious Beethoven or Mozart supposedly were while listening to their music today? We judge them based on the merits of their legacy instead of who or what they were when they were alive. I have had this analogous conversation about Aleister Crowley and his occult literature with other Thelemites, where the infamy and notoriety of his historical past doesn’t in any way diminish the importance of his contribution to the art of magick. I would say that Mathers, who was far less controversial than Crowley, should be given the same if not greater merit for his legacy.      

However, I think that anyone with a credible knowledge of the Golden Dawn (and who has no axe to grind or hidden agenda) would agree that these are all just speculations on the part of Mr. Farrell, and that they are rather poor fare when compared to the actual historical records, however sparse. I think that we can pretty much dismiss Mr. Farrell’s psychological analysis of the Mathers as being wholly unsubstantiated by any examination of the facts. Yet how should we judge his claims about the Secret Chiefs and Inner Plane contacts? Do we take him seriously on this matter of importance? If we approach this issue in a superficial manner, it would seem that Nick does make some compelling arguments about the preeminent motivating forces and intelligence behind the formulation of the second order and the development of the Golden Dawn lore. Of course, examining the historical context of the Secret Chiefs, Mahatmas or Masters would show that they often have been conflated with inner plane contacts and endowed with super human powers and abilities. It can be difficult to pull these different and tangled definitions apart, but a bit of common sense and the context of a magical practice can hopefully separate and distinctly define them.

An Inner Plane contact is just what it would seem to be, which is a contact with an entity, egregore, being or spirit that resides wholly within the Inner Planes. Anyone who has made the transition from an initiate to an adept will hopefully develop and acquire various Inner Plane contacts. In fact, claiming to be an adept presupposes that one has made these kinds of connections. These contacts can be very creatively stimulating and profoundly insightful. Over the years, I have created an entire system of magick specifically through these Inner Plane contacts. Without them, I would have been clueless about how to proceed in the building up of my own spiritual and magical path. I also understand that Inner Plane contacts, once achieved, never seem to disappear or dissipate. There might be periods of quiescence or even temporary dormancy, but these contacts are always present and don’t cease until (I am to assume) one passes from this life and world.

Even so, Inner Plane contacts can never replace the strategic insights and the profound impact that one human being acting as a spiritual teacher can have on another. I may have made great progress through the inspiration and insights gained from my Inner Plane contacts, but I was also standing on the shoulders of all of those who had passed before me and left behind important literary corpus, such as S. L. MacGregor Mathers. I also have to give credit to the many remarkable men and women that I have known so far in my life, since they also have taught me many things. Considering that Mathers himself had to create his unique and modern system of magick from the scant resources available at the time, I would propose that his feat is far greater than mine.

However, the issue with the Secret Chiefs, Masters or Mahatmas is much more complicated. We could assume that the Theosophical Society’s concept of the Mahatmas, and later, Masters, is wholly derived from some kind of intimate Inner Plane contact, since Blavatsky seemed to nebulously define them as superhuman or even para-spiritual. She gave these Masters fanciful names and would tell many tales about their supernatural and miraculous actions that she supposedly witnessed. Yet according to K. Paul Johnson in his book “The Masters Revealed,” each of these mysteriously named masters had an actual remarkable person, who Blavatsky had met on her various journeys and personally knew, hidden behind the glamor, myth and legends. She chose fanciful and fictitious names to hide their true identity, and later, they took on an independent life of their own. If the Mahatmas or Masters of the Theosophical Society obscured and hid real individuals, then it could also be quite plausible that Mather’s Secret Chiefs were mortal and physical people.

I believe that MacGregor Mathers began his work as an initiate cultivating Inner Plane contacts, and these allowed him to creatively develop new rituals and lore. Yet I also believe that at some point in his life, he also acquired the assistance and teachings of an actual body of high adepts. To Mathers, this transition from Inner Plane contacts to actual congress with living, mortal High Adepts was one seamless process. He did not differentiate between them because in his mind one had inexorably led to the other. Thus Mathers conflated his experiences that were on one hand, based on the Inner Planes, and on the other, with actual physical human beings. An Inner Plane contact would never trip over a delivery boy when being chased, but a mortal human being could. Because from Mather’s perspective, all of these phenomena were part of his spiritual and magical process, it would have been disingenuous to have made a distinction between them.

Since we, who are distant outsiders, can only catch glimpses of what Mather’s was experiencing, to us it might seem confusing or inconsistent. Some have said that Mathers lost his association with the college of adepts, and that would explain much of what happened regarding the Horos scandal or other unmitigated issues that buffeted the Golden Dawn after the turn of the 20th century. Still, because I believe that Inner Plane contacts are permanent once acquired, Mathers would still have been functioning as a proper head of his Order and still capable of producing quality work, even though it would have been derivative.

When the Golden Dawn shattered into different groups, the blame for this event has been more or less solely attached to Mathers. While Ithell Colquhoun has given us a more reasonable context for this schism (and has found blame for all parties concerned), other writers, including Mr. Farrell, have accused Mathers of causing this breech. He has been depicted as a megalomaniac, a tyrant, and an unreasonable and authoritarian dictator who was unwilling to compromise with the members of his Order. We are also to assume that somehow the flame of Inner Plane contacts were passed on to the rebels, or that perhaps the egregore of the Order followed the majority of dissidents, leaving Mathers will an empty legacy. However, I think that what Ithell Colquhoun has stated about this schism is more reliable and unbiased.

“[H]is students were treating him with pettiness and ingratitude instead of the loyalty and fraternal goodwill he needed and craved; but he is too much involved emotionally to state the facts to best advantage. His pupils found him difficult because, not understanding their limitations until too late, he gave them esoteric knowledge beyond their capacity to receive. His faults were impetuosity and over-enthusiasm, but these were generous faults.” (Sword of Wisdom - p. 90)

Those who had followed Mathers and were members of his organization, even after his death, owed a great debt to him regardless of their own contributions. Where would Aleister Crowley, Dion Fortune, Arthur E. Waite, Paul Foster-Case, or even Israel Regardie be if it were not for the work and legacy of MacGregor Mathers? Some might spend a great deal of time vilifying Mathers and devaluing his contribution to modern occultism and ceremonial magick, but that legacy is still highly relevant even to this day.  Regardie may have been the individual who published the Golden Dawn material and received both accolades and condemnation for his supposed oath breaking, but it was Mathers who developed and produced that lore.

Mr. Farrell has criticized MacGregor Mather’s literary output, even though it is likely that as much as a third of the overall lore of the Golden Dawn and A+O might still be missing. We should also consider all of the articles and letters that Mathers wrote during his lifetime as a part of his literary legacy, although few of that great store of writings has been revealed. Considering that Mathers was responsible for the translation, editing and publication of a number of operational grimoires such as the Key of Solomon, Book of Abramelin, Grimoire Armadel (unpublished until recently), the Lemegeton (of which only the Goetia was published by Crowley), as well as the Kabbalah Unveiled, these represent no small literary legacy. If any of the books that I have managed to write over the years (not to mention the books that Mr. Farrell has written) are still being published and read a hundred years after my time, I would consider that to be remarkable. Compared to Mathers, we are all insignificant people standing on the shoulders of giants and pretending to be highly relevant and remarkable in our own right. I would define that attitude as the hubris of our age.

So for these reasons, I can’t recommend Nick Farrell’s book. If you want to read it, then you are welcome to do so, but keep in mind that he is not an unbiased judge nor is he a qualified historian. These books aren’t history, they are merely political polemics. If you want to read a good book about the history of the Golden Dawn, then I would recommend Ithell Culquhoun’s book “Sword of Wisdom.”

Enemy Of My Enemy

After presenting and dismissing all of the issues brought up by this book, we can now examine the real core of the issue underlying Mr. Farrell’s book “King Over the Water.” There is a logical reason why Nick has engaged himself in writing two consecutive books that seek to devalue and dismiss the legacy that Mathers had established for the Golden Dawn and the A+O. Mr Farrell has also sought to spread the unsubstantiated opinion that the Secret Chiefs that Mathers wrote about were actually Inner Plane contacts (such as Raphael), and there never were any real continental high adepts who aided and supported him. These supposed secret chiefs were merely based on delusion and fantasy inside Mather’s head. If we were to accept what Nick Farrell has written, then we would also have to dismiss anyone who claimed to have made contacts with continental adepts in recent times. If they didn’t exist for Mathers, then they wouldn’t exist today, either - so goes the logic.

Additionally, proposing that the torch of Inner Plane contacts was passed on to individuals such as Felkin and his organization, the Stella Matutina, would truly burnish Mr. Ferrell’s own lineage and organization. So it would seem that this series of books were written to elevate him and his faction of the Golden Dawn at the expense of the other faction, which is the HOGD/A+O organizations headed by David Griffin. To make his literary case, Mr. Farrell’s is basically calling David Griffin a liar and a fraud, even though he has couched this declaration in a very long-winded and convoluted manner to obscure it. He has gone so far, in fact, to ambiguously refer to the current A+O as a cult of personality led by a chief who is either acting or actually believes himself to be the reincarnation of Mathers, in all his autocratic grandeur.

Why has Nick Farrell spent so much time making his case that Mathers was a borderline lunatic and that the secret chiefs were nothing more than a myth? None of the suppositions that he has made in his books can actually be proven unless one already agrees with them. I find myself having to expose the lie that forces Mr. Farrell to emerge from his careful frame of motivational reasoning and fake history and into the sinister domain of propaganda and political talking-points. It’s obvious to any neutral party that Mr. Farrell is really targeting David Griffin and his organization, and he is doing this because of the fact that he is worried about what Mr. Griffin has claimed. If David Griffin’s claim to have reconnected with the body of continental adepts known as the Secret Chiefs is valid, then he would obviously have a far better claim to continuity and legitimate authority than Mr. Farrell and his reconstructed order. Therefore, Nick Farrell is involved in political diatribes to dismiss and destroy the very foundation upon which Mr. Griffin and his claims are based. One would assume that he does this for himself, but it would seem that he is also doing this work for others. He quotes R. A. Gilbert quite often, and has used source materials provided by that same individual. It would be hard to dismiss this as just a coincidence.

Having a common enemy makes for some strange bed partners, and it would seem that the faction that is against Mr. Griffin is wholly allied and uniform in its relentless political war against him. This is because the enemy of my enemy, however repugnant, is my friend. However, knowing something about the Golden Dawn history, I would bet that if Mr. Griffin and his organization didn’t exist that the various factions now united would just as likely be at each other’s throats. The injustice of this movement against Mr. Griffin is even more pernicious if we consider that his claims might be true.

Where is the sense of fraternal and collegial respect that would allow a proper peer review of anyone’s claim to have reconnected with the Secret Chiefs? Of course, the examination of such a claim would have to be performed through the protocols of oath-bound conventions, but such an examination could be conducted by adepts of the Golden Dawn. Yet what we have instead is an unshakable denial by one faction before any evidence is examined, and a program of public disinformation to ensure that any such claims are readily dismissed. So if David Griffin has indeed made contact with the Secret Chiefs, then those who have denounced and vilified him without a proper evaluation have shown themselves to be nakedly motivated by their own petty egotistical sense of self-worth. This altercation is not a war of ideas as much as it is a war of egos, and I think that the overall occult community is poorly served by it.

What I would like to see happen going forward is either a full and open review of David Griffin’s claims, done in a manner that would be transparent but under the guidelines of oath regulated information, or a complete “live and let live” attitude. Unfortunately, I doubt that my wishes will be realized any time soon. As I have pointed out, having Inner Plane contacts is often more than enough to substantiate any occult organization, so there is no need to trifle with David Griffin’s claims if the Secret Chiefs are not an important factor in one’s group. I, for one, am quite happy with my contacts, and I seem to be able to continue to grow, evolve and even promote my methods without having to either defame my predecessors or vilify my fellow magicians.

If someone finds his claim compelling, then a proper and respectful evaluation should occur. I believe that David Griffin has already offered this kind of conclave to initiates of the Golden Dawn regardless of their linage, but some chief adepts have threatened their members with expulsion if they dared to attend. This is not the kind of behavior that I would associate with anyone who claims to be an adept, and I hope that eventually those who find it necessary to pit themselves and their groups against David Griffin and his organization will come to some kind of realization. That this war does more damage to all of the parties than it does good to any one faction. So until that time I will be forced to judge those who are casting aspersions not as proper adepts, but perhaps more like the spoiled adolescents that they seem to be.

Frater Barrabbas      

Some Further Thoughts - Oaths, Secrecy & Secret Chiefs

Well, now, the discussion over Nick Farrell’s blog article about the Golden Dawn oath of secrecy has gotten some interesting traction as of late. As an outsider, it mostly doesn’t concern me, since I have not taken any of the Golden Dawn oaths. I am not a party to that discussion, just an outsider who is puzzling over it because it seems so simple to me.

I have already responded to this argument that pagans and witches take their oaths pretty seriously in a previous article, even if it is to protect confidences and materials (like the Book of Shadows) that everyone pretty much knows anyway.

Some like Fr. Peregrin have opined that secrecy and oaths are archaic and could even be considered idolatrous, since they mistake the symbols and tools for the real mysteries. You can find his blog here. I am sorry, but I find that argument kind of confusing and a bit off topic. The real issue here is whether or not oaths and secrecy have any relevance. Of course, I can talk about this from a theoretical perspective, but I can’t freely violate the oaths that I took when I was initiated as a witch - it just isn’t done. Why is that so? Well, for one thing it would undo my initiatory process, invalidating what I received and what I appear to continue to receive. Who wants to screw around with progress? Peregrin makes a really good point that the mysteries are inexplicable and can’t be written down or shared with others, and I wholly agree.

This is one of the reasons why witches and many pagan are not “people of the book.” We have no sacred scriptures because the mysteries themselves provide those experiential mysteries in great abundance. What is secret is what I do in my personal magick (at least the more subjective and personal stuff, in case I feel the need to share or teach others), the personal names of the various Gods and Goddesses that I have experienced or received, the ritual lore that I use, and most importantly, the name of my Holy Guardian Angel. Does this mean that I am some kind of idolater? Well no, it really doesn’t. I am an idolater because I’m a pagan and use statues of the gods in my magickal work, and I give them offerings and worship them, but that’s another issue altogether.

Then there is the sticky issue of the secret chiefs, also known as those “remarkable men and women” who have achieved the highest level of being possible for a human. Do I believe that they are mythic and they don’t really exist? Of course not. I don’t believe in omniscient and immortal humans who live for centuries without aging and who have superhuman powers, but I do believe that a single human being can achieve complete and total enlightenment in a single life time. That’s different than believing in “ascended masters,” but I won’t argue or try to prove that such individuals don’t exist to those who believe in them. I just don’t share their beliefs, that’s all.

Could it be possible that there is a Third Order of higher adepts in the Western Mystery tradition who reside in some location of the world, most likely Europe? Why not? Some have said that there couldn’t possibly be such a group or even individuals. They even say that those who claim to have made contact with such a group and have materials for the Third Order are lying and being totally deceitful. How could that be? If someone claims that no such group or organization exists, then they should be required to prove that statement, just as those who claim that it is true.

However, due to oaths of secrecy and confidentially, providing proof that such a group exists might actually be impossible, if one actually obeys those oaths. This is definitely a Catch-22 situation. It’s like the argument about the existence of God - some will propose proof that God exists, but that proof can be just as easily turned around and shown to be negative. In the end, the only proof is a person’s good works and faith in God. The existence of God is determined by the fact that many believe in God, and they are powerfully and positively transformed by it. It can’t be proven, but then again, it can’t be disproved, either. The same paradox exists for the secret chiefs. If you have met them and know they exist, then you have been made to take oaths not to reveal their identities, which is part of the issue of keeping confidences (and a real conundrum).

What this means is that if one faction of the GD claims to have contact with the secret chiefs and has constituted the Third Order, then the only way to prove that claim one way or the other must require a person to undergo those initiations and teachings and find out for themselves. Otherwise, the arguments are all pointless. The proof of the pudding is in the eating - if you don’t eat the pudding, then you can’t know. It’s very simple logic, even for an outsider.

Finally, to claim that there are no secret chiefs or any kind of advanced adepts in the world, or at least in the Western Mystery tradition, is to say that the only valid knowledge in the world is what is in books in a library or available on the internet. If it isn’t in those various sources, then it doesn’t exist.

Think about that for a moment. It sets up a terrible boundary or limitation on spiritual, magickal and esoteric knowledge. It says, in effect, that there is nothing greater out there than what we have already achieved. Everyone, no matter their personal gifts and abilities or how long they have studied, not to mention the breakthroughs that they might have made, are at the same level. Initiations, transformations, secret oaths - it’s all just window dressing! Well, I for one would find that quite discouraging. It means that we are totally alone and there are no brothers or sisters out there who know more than we do, at least in any significant way.

Gee, if I were to believe that, then I may as well quit all of this mumble jumble occultism now while I am ahead and do something really constructive with my life, like making lots of money or discovering my happiness in the sandy beaches of Tahiti. Good thing for me that I still have hope that I will someday meet some remarkable men and women who might teach me something that I don’t already know. I eagerly look forward to that day.

If someone claims to have contacts with the secret chiefs or remarkable men and women and that they have established a Third Order of higher adepts, who am I to deny them? If I want to prove them wrong, then I would need to be initiated into that organization. Otherwise, I can just nod my head and give them the benefit of the doubt, because who knows, what if that claim is legitimate? Who wants to spoil any future opportunities to achieve total enlightenment? I, for one, don’t, so I will play by the rules and see what happens. That’s the most that any of us can really do. To do otherwise is to spoil the game for ourselves and for others as well.

Frater Barrabbas

Occult Teachers, Masters and Instructing Students in Ritual Magick

Since I have written an article about groups and their importance, I guess that I should also put in my two cents about teachers, masters and instructing students in the art of ritual magick. This is a pretty sensitive topic, since some have vested interests in their teachers and spiritual leaders, while others are interested in maintaining and actively pursuing their roles in the community. I must admit that ever since I left the Coven From Hell, I have not put myself in a position to call anyone my teacher. Instead, I have been inspired by some individuals, and I would assume that I have inspired others as well. I also consider myself a student, no matter how many years I have been researching, writing and practicing magick. I might have more experience and knowledge than some, but I am always encountering some new concept or topic in my interactions with other occultists, even if that other occultist is just a beginner.

So because I got really burned by being, for a while, the “chela” of Christopher Syn, also known as Bill Schnoebelen, I guess you could say that I have soured on the whole matter of assuming the role of master, chela, student or teacher. Because of my previous experiences, I have avoided looking for teachers, gurus or individuals to whom I might bond with so as to quicken my mastery of myself and my occult practices. I just don’t believe that anyone has any real answers to the questions I pose to myself in regards to my own internal spiritual truths and my quest for enlightenment. That also doesn’t mean that I don’t listen to what others are saying, read books written by other authors or attend their classes or workshops. I am as open to new ideas from many sources, and I have been highly inspired by the words and ideas of other people. I hope that I remain in such an open and accessible way for the duration of my life, so I won’t ever be closed off to new sources of ideas and information, no matter their source.

However, over the years I have steadfastly avoided the role of teacher, seeking to share what I know with like minded and open individuals. Why is this so? What have I got against being a teacher and the role of teachers, masters, chelas, students and the whole formal operation of occult pedagogy? Why do I resist taking on any kind of occult assistant or allowing individuals to satisfy themselves while basking in my aura? I have to admit that the whole idea of anyone engaging in a kind of hero worship of me is disturbing, mainly because I know all too well that I am unworthy of any adulation. I am just an occult student who is attempting to practice the art of ritual magick while also simultaneously trying to make a living and live my life in some degree of peace and harmony. I do admire some individuals that I have met, and I am certain that I have some admirers as well. As long as it doesn’t go too far, I am OK with all of that. So, the rest of the topic of teachers, masters, chelas and students has to do with what I would consider going too far with roles, expectations and all of the associated baggage.

I have already discussed what I think of the whole subject of ascended masters in a previous article that you can find here. While I realize that some occultists put a great deal of faith and belief in this topic, for myself, I have a much more down to earth sentiment. I respect that others do believe in ascended masters, yet in all of the years that I have practiced ritual magick, I have never once either met any masters or even found evidence that they exist. It might be that I am psychically tone deaf to the occurrence of ascended masters, yet I believe that there have been many human beings who have excelled in their spiritual search and quest for enlightenment throughout the ages. They lived their lives like anyone else, and they died after leading a consummately productive life. Rama Krishna is a good example of this kind of spiritual master, and there are many others. However, Rama Krishna died of throat cancer, and his passage was well documented by his followers. He was, more than anything else, a human being just like you and me, afflicted by frailties and gifted by exceptional virtues. However, my spiritual path has been pretty mundane in regards to meeting remarkable individuals, because there was not one who was a supernatural being as far as I could tell, yet all of them were remarkable in a very human sort of way. I think that I have made my point on this topic, so I can continue with the rest of the story, as it were. 

If we conclude that the world is not populated with ascended masters who are immortal, often invisible and beyond human frailties and flaws, what then of the many declared teachers and leaders who are in the world today. In order for me to make an informed judgment of any of these teachers, I would need to know them and be able to examine the contents of their teachings. However, based on what I have said above, which is that none of these teachers or spiritual leaders are likely to be immortal ascended masters, they are instead human beings, no different in that regard than you or I. They have virtues and failings, great gifts and personal flaws, so there isn’t really anything supernatural or godlike operating in any of them.

Putting a teacher or spiritual leader on a pedestal while they are still alive has inherent risks both for the teacher or leader and the ardent follower. That risk is powerfully defined by one word - “expectations.” If we revere a teacher or a spiritual leader, then we have put them in a place above the rest of humanity. All of their actions and words are judged in this context, giving them far more weight and importance than they would normally acquire. The teacher or leader is required to behave and speak as a conduit of the divine at all times, and when he or she shows any of the vices or weaknesses of mortality, then their fall from grace is just as precipitous as their rise. I have seen this rise and fall happen repeatedly in various groups and organizations that I have personally experienced or read about. To knowingly don the apparel and persona of the great teacher or leader is to engage not only in self deception, but to deceive and impugn the spiritual beliefs and integrity of others - this is an egregious sin in my estimation.

Pretending to be an emissary of the Godhead deliberately empowers the expectations of others, thus creating a false aura of glamor and fascination. Such a pretense will always lead to a terrible fall, since the teacher or leader ends up being seduced into believing their own PR, making the outer deception into one that is potentially pathological. There is such a thing as a Messiah complex, where both the leader and devotees engage in a complete disassociation with reality. It often leads to terrible abuses, personal tragedy and even a kind of social-spiritual collapse. The rest of the world looks upon the fall of a spiritual leader as yet another scandal that proves the folly of discipleship and the gullibility of trust vested in any spiritual leader. Such events makes the world a little bit more cynical and incapable of believing in anyone or anything.

For the reasons that I have stated above, I have carefully avoided developing my role as a spiritual or occult leader and teacher. I have also avoided becoming anyone’s devoted follower, thereby refusing to join any organization that is not democratic or ruled by consensus. I am not afflicted with cynicism, but I am affected greatly by prudence and an awareness of my own personal failings. Life has made me humble, whether or not I wanted it. The great equalizer and the reducer of time and circumstance has ensured that I have never been allowed to get too infatuated with my own supposed brilliance or ingenuity. Yet if I am so loath to adopt any kind of spiritual leader or teacher persona, then how do manage to teach anyone anything? I also appear to be writing books and articles, conducting workshops and discussions groups and communicating with various individuals who want to learn what I seem to know. Is this a kind of disingenuous hyperbole on my part? Well, not really, because I have decided on a much better role that eliminates all of the above pitfalls.

I seek to share my knowledge and experiences with others instead of force feeding them my methodologies and beliefs. Sharing means that I will also gain useful information and insights from those whom I am engaged in sharing. It also immediately establishes a relationship of mutual respect and equality, something that I idealize and is part of the governance of the Order to which I am a member. Another important concept is mentoring. If I become engaged in sharing my ideas and practices with another person, then I have become a mentor to that person. Being a mentor is a very temporary situation, it is also quite personal and intimate. A mentor guides, suggests, shares and demonstrates, but he or she doesn’t dictate, coerce or exploit the one who is being mentored. Also, a mentor relationship has a limited scope associated with it, which means that the student is taking on a specific task or tasks, and when they are completed, then the relationship is dissolved amicably. While a teacher takes on a role that often erects a barrier between themselves and the student, a mentor has no such barriers. A teacher often has a group of individuals to impart a set curriculum, so there is often little time for answering extensive questions by a single student. There is also little time for remedial assistance or one on one tutoring, since a teacher must assume a certain amount of required background knowledge. A mentor instructs at whatever level the student has previously achieved, and helps one master the curriculum at their own pace.

The whole object of training someone in the art of ritual magick is to allow them to perform all of the rituals and magickal workings for themselves. At some point, their own creative genius has to be triggered so that all of the practicing and study comes alive for them. The sole purpose of any spiritual or magickal teacher is to inspire and guide a student so they can become autonomous and self-directing. Any other kind of assistance is either unwanted or unneeded. When a teacher seeks to use a student to build themselves up or to create a permanent and co-dependent relationship, then that teacher is violating the whole spirit and purpose of teaching. The focus should be completely on students and their trials at learning and mastering the discipline and practice of ritual magick. It should not be on the teacher, who doesn’t need any attention and shouldn’t disrupt the student’s learning process. If a student ever finds himself being put into a situation where the teacher’s issues or needs are eclipsing the topics that were supposed to be taught, then my advice is to either respectfully remind the teacher of the objectives or quickly end that teacher student relationship. This can happen to any teacher who is overwhelmed by personal issues, but a teacher who is so afflicted can no longer teach. Often it is up to the student to judge these situations and to take corrective action, since the student is personally responsible for their own learning process.

It is has long been my opinion that the best magickal instruction is acquired by individual and personal instruction through mentorship. Ritual magick often has a very high bar in regards to getting started and learning to become an effective ritual magician. Books and workshops can help, so can video demonstrations and examples. However, mastery of ritual magick requires the student to assume all of the work, and most of that work is the practice of meditation, rituals and the performing of magickal workings. Ideally, a mentor can not only demonstrate how a working should be performed by sharing a magickal working with the student, he or she can also guide and observe the student taking the first step in operating independently. This is my preferred way to teach others how to work magick, through sharing and acting as a temporary mentor. It keeps the focus on the student and removes the glamor from the experienced teacher, which is how magick and occultism should be taught in the first place. I have never had anyone get any romantic notions about me and my magickal abilities when I have adopted this role, so it would seem that it’s a good object lesson used to maintain a balanced and humble outlook on one’s life and spirituality.

When people write emails and ask for me to become their teacher, I have often demurred. I am not being antisocial or dismissive of their interests or needs. I just believe that a true and faithful teaching of the actual practice of ritual magick should be done through a mentor type relationship. That would require a person to live in some proximity to where I live, or for them to be able to afford to personally visit me on a regular basis. Otherwise, there are my books, workshops, and the books, lectures and workshops of other teachers. I believe that there is no shortage of materials for students to acquire and master their pursuit of the art of ritual magick. However, I reserve my personal guidance and technical ritual methodologies to an intimate one on one kind of experience, even if that means that I will personally train and empower very few ritual magicians in my lifetime. That is the limitation and the virtues of such a regimen. So, if you don’t call me master, I won’t call you a chela or treat you like servant. That’s a promise!

Frater Barrabbas

Thoughts About the Masters

I recently completed reading a fabulous book entitled “The Masters Revealed - Madame Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge”, written by K. Paul Johnson and published by SUNY Press. Needless to say, I believe that Mr. Johnson has finally written something that made sense about the whole issue of the masters, known also as ascended masters, secret chiefs, or as Blavatsky referred to them, the Mahatmas or Great Souls. These are the ubiquitous semi divine immortal master adepts who invisibly guide and direct the historical progress of the whole human race. Of course they must be very subtle indeed, since the history of our modern epoch is rife with wars, death, destruction and suffering on a massive global scale.

Many occult traditions believe in the masters and that includes the Western tradition of ceremonial magic. The Golden Dawn supposedly had its mysterious secret chiefs who gave legitimacy and continuity to its lore and teachings. Other organizations that are descended from the Theosophical Society also believe and venerate them, such as the followers of the voluminous channeled writings of Alice A. Bailey, the church promoted by Elizabeth Claire Prophet, and numerous others.

While previous writers have either completely debunked the myth of the masters or completely accepted their reality without question, Paul Johnson takes a completely different approach. According to his theory, the masters are a complex combination of literary creation and real men whose identities Blavatsky wished to conceal. Her desire to conceal the identities of these men was based on a need for discretion, since such a disclosure could have caused some or even most of them to be persecuted. India and the Middle East were not places where even powerful men could publically state progressive spiritual beliefs, since colonial and local tyrannies ensured that religious beliefs remained in the grip of a conservative orthodoxy. In some of these locations this is still true today. Blavatsky may also have wanted to obscure the sources of her new spiritual doctrines so as to give them the illusion of uniformity and legitimacy.

Paul Johnson believes that Blavatsky was strongly influenced by some of the greatest minds in Europe, the Middle East and in India. One could say that Theosophy was the product of a distillation of a myriad of sources - the beliefs and writings of the most remarkable of men. Paul Johnson also manages to identify the individuals or inspirational sources for nearly all of the mahatmas, and this includes an even larger cast of individuals who also powerfully influenced Blavatsky, though not later mythologized as mahatmas. All of these remarkable men, however, were quite mortal, and all have long since passed away in the almost 130 years since Blavatsky started to write and talk about them.

Paul Johnson has restored to us the names of these great men, who are once again known as the teachers, friends and sponsors of the founders of the Theosophical Society. The names and characteristics of these great men were used to fabricate mythological personages who became the reputed authors and instigators of the Theosophical Society. Blavatsky’s literary creation of the mahatmas was used to obscure their true identities and to mythologize them for all time. However, she left behind numerous clues and sometimes even went so far as to print variations of their true names. Yet these clues have not been scrutinized either by those who sought to disprove them or who firmly believed in their existence. Paul Johnson is the first researcher to propose a historical background to these fascinating individuals. I would like to present his list of the mahatmas, or at the very least, their probable source inspirations.

One master who was not named or barely referenced in Blavatsky’s writings was Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, who was a charismatic Sufi and eastern Freemason. Some of his writings and teachings found their way into the early formation of the T.S. Another eastern spiritual teacher and intellectual was Paolos Metamon, who became known as the master Serapis Bey, and there was the mysterious individual who Blavatsky called Hilarion who likely was known to history as Ooton Liatto, another multi-cultural free thinker and spiritual teacher.

The two greatest mahatmas who probably wrote most of the letters that later became the body of the lore of masters in the T.S. were called by Blavatsky, Koot Hoomi and Morya, also known by their initials K.H. and M. These two individuals were most likely the actual historical individuals known as Tharkar Singh Sandhanwalia and the Maharaja Ranbir Singh of Kashmir, respectively. Some of the letters were probably written by them or ghost written by Blavatsky, but these two great individuals were part of the notables of the Sikhs in the Punjab area of India in the 1880's. Both of these individuals quietly supported the T.S., including offering monetary support and unique sources of eastern spiritual teachings and rare translations of eastern mystical literature.

Another remarkable Sikh from India who was probably the model for another master was Sirdar Dayal Singh, a journalist and spiritual leader from Lahore. Dayal became known to the members of the T.S. as Djual Kul or D.K., a supposed Tibetan master who was the impetus for the channeled writings of Alice A. Bailey. Dayal was another important individual behind the scenes in the formation of the T.S. in India. 

Although Blavatsky wrote that her masters were Tibetans residing in Shigatse, she never made it to that distant and mysterious location. However, she fictitiously claims to have done so in the late 1860's. Tibet was actually closed to all Europeans and many Asians, and was ruled by the exclusive religious hierarchy of the Dalai Lama. However, one of the members of the T.S. did manage to stay in Tibet for over four years and brought back copies of many rare and unknown Buddhist texts, although the prime minister and many others were cruelly punished for allowing this intrusion. These texts became accessible to Blavatsky and potently influenced her final writings, such as the Secret Doctrine.  That man was a Bengalis explorer named Sarat Chandra Das, who was a student of the Tibetan language and a converted Buddhist. He was also functioning as a British informant. So it can be stated quite accurately that most of Blavatsky’s masters were Freemasons, Sufis, Sikhs or followers of Vendanta - none were Tibetan.

Blavatsky’s conversion to Buddhism probably occurred in 1880, when she and Olcott (the other co-founder of the T.S.) visited Ceylon and personally met Sumangala Unanse, the district High Priest. Sumangala was a Buddhist of the southern branch of Buddhism, and although Blavatsky preferred the northern branch (which included Tibet), she none-the-less converted and learned the Buddhist faith from this man. Although not given a mahatma characterization, Sumangala was an important far eastern supporter of the T.S. organization, and helped to give it a very distinctive eastern flavor.

Fictional masters were brought into the T.S. lore, such as St. Germain (Prince Ragoczy), Cagliostro and Christian Rosenkruetz. Others were posthumously made into masters, such as Jesus, Apollonius of Tyanna, Akhenaton and Zoroaster. Legendary masters were just as valid as historical masters, since both were thoroughly mythologized. Who could argue with such characterizations, since all knowledge of these personages had long since vanished? Often it seems that legendary individuals are quite mutable, since they appear to adapt to whatever belief or opinion characterizes them. If one believes that Jesus was a magician, then there can be assembled a body of proof that seems to support that theory, or if one believes that he was a rabbi or teacher, or a revolutionary, or a philosopher, one can attempt to prove these opinions, too.

As you can see, the list of masters is endless, but many of them have been associated with possible historical figures by Paul Johnson. I could probably say without too much prejudice that almost all of the so-called masters were actually mythologizations of the amazing men that Blavatsky met on her more than forty years of traveling the world, searching for spiritual wisdom. One could almost say that the greatest mahatma or secret master of the T.S. is Madame Blavatsky herself, who skillfully and brilliantly distilled the wisdom of the world into a modern system of spirituality that bridges both East and West. Blavatsky popularized the myth of the masters, but she did not invent it. Both Europe, with its Myth of the Magus, and the East, with its immortal gurus, have believed in the ageless and undying masters who shepherd mankind through times of crisis. Perhaps this is a comforting belief, but it is one that cannot be relied upon, since human spiritual crises must be resolved by real flesh and blood human beings.

What this revelation does is create a historical context for the T.S., and for Blavatsky’s writings, but it also makes dubious claims that the masters are still transmitting spiritual knowledge through proxies for public consumption. Those individuals and groups who have claimed that they are acting as agents for the living masters are also likely perpetrating the illusion that such individuals are real. While they certainly were real to Blavatsky, they were also historical individuals who she actually met and knew. If we acknowledge this fact, then we have to judge the claims that certain individuals have either channeled or are being otherwise directed by ascended masters. This opens the derived teachings of such individuals to the scrutiny of rational minds and practicality, since such teachings can no longer be considered sacred writ.

For instance, we can longer believe that Djual Kul is the hidden inspiration for the books written by Alice A. Bailey, and this means that these works are not holy nor infallible - they can examined and used or not based on their own merit. If these writings are useful to a significant body of occultists, then this says much more about Alice Bailey and her extensive knowledge and teaching skills than does it about some mysterious, possibly fictional, master. One could say the same about the writings of Elizabeth Claire Prophet and many others. The glamor of the masters gives writings and teachings an authenticity and legitimacy that they might otherwise completely lack.

When I was a teenager and began to study magic and the occult for the first time, I believed that there was a body of master magicians who were sworn to secrecy, and who from time to time revealed themselves to worthy candidates and brought them into their secret society. This secret society contained the great secret teachings of all ages and was led by enlightened men and women who discretely and almost invisibly sought to change the world for the good. I believed that if I worked very hard and excelled at my occult studies, and learned to master my art of magic that one day one of these great initiates would seek me out and induct me into their secret order of master magicians.  I often wondered as I walked the streets at night or visited occult book stores, if perhaps some stranger that I happened to pass was indeed one of these masters in disguise, watching me and patiently waiting for my true genius to be awakened.

That was what I thought when I was a young man, and that belief drives the aspirations of many occultists to this day. However, I must admit that I no longer carry this belief, that I have outgrown it, realizing that the most incredible and remarkable human beings that walk the earth are ordinary occultists like myself. I don’t believe in masters, but I do believe in humanity learning to master their lives and overcome their issues - and what stories and teachings do such remarkable men and women have to tell!

Frater Barrabbas