the invisible in the visible

The Invisible in the Visible

One of the mistakes I see Thelemites commonly make is confusing things with the spirit they’re supposed to embody. So a similarity between two things is taken to mean they’re the same thing, and all sorts of erroneous implications are drawn.

The example I recently drew out and criticized is seeing symbols in the Gnostic Mass suggestive of magick or sex, and concluding that the Gnostic Mass is therefore just a sublimated sex magick ritual: basically just the IX° secret except with food instead of cum. “I sure hope that Priest is hard, because I’m makin’ a wish!”

A similar thing happens with the M∴M∴M∴ rituals (the initiation rituals 0-VII° of Ordo Templi Orientis). “I saw a dagger, so the LBRP must have relevance here.” “There’s a circle, so the initiator must be a conjurer.”

One can avoid these and similar mistakes by continually keeping in mind the following passage from chapter 20 of Magick in Theory and Practice. Speaking of alchemy, Crowley says:

Yet beneath this diversity, we may perceive an obscure identity. They all begin with a substance in nature which is described as existing almost everywhere, and as universally esteemed of no value. The alchemist is in all cases to take this substance, and subject it to a series of operations. By so doing, he obtains his product. This product, however named or described, is always a substance which represents the truth or perfection of the original ‘First Matter’; and its qualities are invariably such as pertain to a living being, not to an inanimate mass. In a word, the alchemist is to take a dead thing, impure, valueless, and powerless, and transform it into a live thing, active, invaluable and thaumaturgic.

The reader of this book will surely find in this a most striking analogy with what we have already said of the processes of Magick. What, by our definition, is initiation? The First Matter is a man, that is to say, a perishable parasite, bred of the earth’s crust, crawling irritably upon it for a span, and at last returning to the dirt whence he sprang. The process of initiation consists in removing his impurities, and finding in his true self an immortal intelligence to whom matter is no more than the means of manifestation. The initiate is eternally individual; he is ineffable, incorruptible, immune from everything. He possesses infinite wisdom and infinite power in himself. This equation is identical with that of a talisman. The Magician takes an idea, purifies it, intensifies it by invoking into it the inspiration of his soul. It is no longer a scrawl scratched on a sheep-skin, but a word of Truth, imperishable, mighty to prevail throughout the sphere of its purport. The evocation of a spirit is precisely similar in essence. The exorcist takes dead material substances of a nature sympathetic to the being whom he intends to invoke. He banishes all impurities therefrom, prevents all interference therewith, and proceeds to give life to the subtle substance thus prepared by instilling his soul.

Once again, there is nothing in this exclusively ‘magical’. Rembrandt van Ryn used to take a number of ores and other crude objects. From these he banished the impurities, and consecrated them to his work, by the preparation of canvasses, brushes, and colours. This done, he compelled them to take the stamp of his soul; from those dull, valueless creatures of earth he created a vital and powerful being of truth and beauty. It would indeed be surprising to anybody who has come to a clear comprehension of nature if there were any difference in the essence of these various formulas. The laws of nature apply equally in every possible circumstance.

Crowley, Magick in Theory and Practice, ch 20

Painting shares the same underlying principle with ceremonial magick, but as Crowley emphasizes, one should not then draw the conclusion that in order to be a good painter, you need to have done elemental, planetary, and zodiacal invocations.

What is held in common between alchemy, initiation, talismanic magick, evocation, and painting? The most general formula is: the outward appearance of something is sacrificed in order to reveal its inner nature, to transform it into a living symbol of truth.

It’s a triparite formula: (1) first matter is (2) altered in its outer appearance to bring forth (3) its truth. The classical IAO formula expresses it on the initiatory level: “‘I’ is Isis, Nature, ruined by ‘A’, Apophis the Destroyer, and restored to life by the Redeemer Osiris.” (MITAP, ch 5)

It’s the “miracle of the mass” whereby spiritual life is created from out of dead matter. This is why Crowley says the orgasm symbolizes the miracle, not the other way around.

The sexual act, even to the grossest of mankind, is the agent which dissipates the fog of self for one ecstatic moment. It is the instinctive feeling that the physical spasm is symbolic of that miracle of the Mass, by which the material wafer, composed of the passive elements, earth and water, is transmuted into the substance of the Body of God…

Crowley, New Comment on AL I.52

Insofar as the transformation or destruction of the outer appearance lets free into matter an inner spirit beyond form, it is also the “miracle of incarnation”.

What’s difficult to understand in this doctrine, and what continually leads to confusion, is that there is no way to separate the inner truth from the outer form. Inner truth must always take some form, even while being distinguishable from form. So there’s always a tendency to slide into the fetishism which would see the letter but lose track of the spirit of truth.

I was reminded of this recently when someone quoted an advertisement for M∴M∴M∴ Crowley placed at the back of part 2 of Book 4. The ad in part reads:

A society [M∴M∴M∴] to illustrate the principles of this book [part 2 of Book 4] in practice has been formed. The method chosen is that of a series of initiations.

They quoted this ad to support the idea that knowledge or practice of ceremonial magick is necessary in order to understand the content of the initiation rituals of M∴M∴M∴.

It should be clear why that’s not the case. Crowley specifically calls out the principles of part 2 of Book 4. In part 2 of Book 4, Crowley goes through every item in a ceremonial magical temple and explains the general principles each item signifies. The circle signifies the magician’s world, the scourge represents his aspiration, the oil represents the divine uniting with him, etc. His purpose is to show how the objects represent a more general truth which finds its life in the accomplishment of the Great Work.

That these principles also have applicability in O.T.O. doesn’t mean that the work of O.T.O. is the same as the work described in part 2 of Book 4. He even implies in the letter of the ad that that “method” is different.

I made the case in my lecture, The Living and the Dead: Truth Embodied in Liber XV, that the Ceremony of the Introit portion of Liber XV embodies or exemplifies the same principles which, in chapter 4 of part 2 of Book 4, are symbolized by the scourge, the dagger, and the chain. I also concluded that the raising of the lance symbolizes the Priest’s Knowledge and Conversation of his Holy Guardian Angel.

None of this should be taken to mean that the Ceremony of the Introit is literally a ceremonial magical working any more than one should take it to mean that the person filling the role of Priest that day is really making contact with his HGA!

If you divorce the inner truth from the outer form, you make the mistake of thinking that the outer form is what matters most. This commonly manifests as fetishism of technique. “The Priest better have a functioning pair of balls, or this ritual won’t work.”

On the other hand, if you collapse the principle into the outer form, you end up with the same problem. Everything becomes a mere metaphor for whatever your favorite symbol is. “Everything is samadhi” or “everything is ceremonial magick.”

To get a lot of what Crowley says, you need to grasp the mutual and ongoing participation of inner and outer. There is a living spirit that is immanent to matter and form but which at the same time always transcends it.

Comments are closed.