|
Correspondence from Karl Germer to Jane Wolfe
February 14, 1928
Lincoln Place Brooklyn, N.Y.
Dear Jane,
93
I had your letter (without date, as usual; when will Jane Wolfe learn to mark the date? Don't you put dates in your diary?) this morning.
No reply from Smith [Wilfred Talbot Smith]. I feel myself always unable to say anything as soon as such topics as O.T.O. as distinguished from the A∴A∴ is brought up. Also I don't know what the oath of the Abyss really means, though I have heard the term frequently. If this Abyss refers to the crossing between 7º=4o and 8º=3o; then I believe Monsieur Smith is less inspired by his H.G.A. [Holy Guardian Angel]. than by vanity, ambition, etc., in short by instinkation [sic] (excuse my English) of his evil Persona. This was my immediate reaction, and the day has not changed it. Of course, I know that I am absolutely unable to feel in terms of individual human beings with the exception of some very few for whom I have genuine affection. I am only capable of thinking and reacting to conceptions of humanity as a whole. So I say: what's the use of preventing him from going to hell? I do not say that no effort should be made to make him reconsider his idea. If you feel inclined to do something, I am of the opinion you should not restrict yourself, Naturally, Beast [Aleister Crowley] is the supreme judge. But as his reply may take a long time (provided He has not acted on the magical plane) I thought it right at least to tell you my opinion of the case. My view is: he should think and occupy himself with his next step, which is to reach the next grade. He should do the little things: have a shoeshine, a shave, a haircut, his suit pressed, a bath etc. etc. in order to be able to appear before his God. It is, I believe, a blasphemy to do otherwise and the punishment will be accordingly.
The very fact that he "seems to be dissatisfied since he has been regularly seeing you" appears to show that you are having a definite magical influence on people. All the more important for you to watch yourself very carefully, lest the influence be detrimental. Everything may be perfectly alright; really nothing can happen unless it is in some subtle way the intention of the God. But the aim should be to be the conscious tool of Them. Or, in Beast's terminology: to do things in accordance with one's H.G.A.
Dorothy [Dorothy Olsen] is still in Chicago. I think you can rely on her now to take in everything solely the point of view of: how can I help the Work? With utter forgetfulness of her own personal interests. I believe she is "saved", as you say in English. I did not know about the Polish Bride.
Your question about AL [The Book of the Law]. You ought to know all the dire punishments which came in the first 22 years from the fact that Beast and all around Him discussed certain passages of AL freely. He himself openly connected certain passages with definite persons. Achad [Charles Stansfeld Jones], Mudd [Norman Mudd], Leah [Leah Hirsig] followed Him. Leah evidently did it though she had the Comment. Many of Beast's attributions seem to have been erroneous and created terrible harm. Achad fell. Mudd became practically obsessed and insane (though this was probably his own fault). It is so hard for anyone to resist the temptation to consider himself one or the other in AL. Why, don't you remember the punishment I got in 1926 for writing that stupid letter to Beast, though I should have remembered the Comment?
The Comment was inspired actually after Beast got one of those insane letters by Mudd; He got wild and into Samadhi. I think one has to keep this in mind. It makes one understand a lot. Beast erred so long himself and was punished terribly, just that he should be able to tell others about the same punishments.
Then also things should not be discussed for argument's sake. It is magically bad; if a man does not understand, and you think you do, it is absolutely no use to argue; you can only try and teach him, and even this probably only on a higher plane. (Compare what the free discussion of the Bible etc. has lead to in the past. Nothing but controversies; innumerable sects based all on one Book. And everybody thinks he or she is right in the interpretation.) Argumentation falls under the heading: Because who is damned for a dog. But that main thing is you weaken your magical force and point of view. If you want to help, try and teach in a round about way. Suppose you tell a savage or a child the Earth is round and says: now that is positively absurd, the Earth is flat, can't you see it? You must be insane! What's the use of arguing? Don't say a word; at the first opportunity (which will positively come, if you really have the will to help him) take him by the hand to a plain and make him explain the fact that in the far distance no tree is visible: the, as you approach with your care, etc., first a roof of a house is visible, or the top of a hill, or on the sea the smoke of a ship and very gradually the whole. Let him draw his own conclusions. Later give him further food for thought. In the end he will come and clasp your feet and say: what a fool I was. He will have implicit confidence from then on.
So also with AL. (You see I know these things fairly well, yet I never act by this wisdom)—However, I don't see a need for showing somebody your copy of AL, though I equally don't see why it should do any harm. It is a well known fact that if there was a publisher it would be immediately distributed all over the world in the reproduction with the Comment. And if you can show a man in the meantime the Comment, I think you are only doing him a great help.
Why should it be wrong to quote AL? Does not Beast quote it daily in His greetings? There will probably be some day a preacher or preachers all over the world who will popularise and explain the Law. Unless I may be mistaken. Just how it would have to be done I cannot see at the present.
I know that these remarks leave many questions and raise new ones. I believe everybody has in this early stage to guide himself or herself by his own judgment.
I don't know if you know that Viator, or Schneider [Max Schneider], has broken off diplomatic connections with me some time ago. I wanted you to be informed about it. He considered my definite request to contribute in finances as an imposition and an interference with his True Will. Beast, whom he sent the correspondence, let him down. I believe he is in a critical state and either conquers his money-complex or becomes stagnant.
No progress with C.E. [Cora Eaton]. I believe it is an "ordeal" or a "test" for me to get her to contribute. If the Gods don't help me I don't see how I am going to succeed. These women!
I am glad that "you have rounded the corner". I hope it means more.
93 93/93
With fraternal greetings,
arl
|