In this video I sit down and have a long chat with Seattle occultist and author Aion 131.
Aion 131 is a founder of Horus-Maat Lodge, a long-time Nath Tantrika Initiate, and a Welsh Traditional Craft Elder. He is the author of numerous titles, including Global Ritualism, Your Guardian Angel and You, The Book of the Horned One, and Naga Magick. His latest book, Werewolf Magick, is coming out late September of this year. I am also lucky to call him a friend.
Aion 131 and I have a freewheeling conversation, touching on topics as diverse as Jungian Shadow work, the Holy Guardian Angel, the meaning of tantra, and his early years growing up in New York City. Aion 131’s website is https://dennysargentauthor.com/ which includes his blog, Feral Magick. He can be found on Facebook as aion.hermeticusnath and on Instagram as dennysargentauthor.
Good grief. Somehow I made it all the way through the latest in Thelemic Union, a refutation of a prior article attacking “postmodern” or completely relativistic interpretations of Thelema.
When I’ve attempted in the past to orient Thelema in, well, any direction, I’ve been accused of having an “Old Aeon” perspective on Thelema, which is really just code for “I don’t like your opinion but am too weak to refute it,” so I am in some respects sympathetic toward the complaints made by Brother Sol-Om-On in the original piece being refuted here.
That being said, the points the author, James Gordon, makes at the beginning of the article are good ones and should be well-taken by anyone who wishes to bring philosophy to bear on Thelema.
Crowley was deeply influenced by Nietzsche. In fact I would say more than any other philosopher, it is Nietzsche who looms over Thelema.
But among other things, Nietzsche is the grandfather of postmodernism. (Martin Heidegger is arguably its father.) It’s difficult taking Nietzsche seriously—and Crowley did—without simultaneously adopting some of the perspectives which would later fall under the label of “postmodernism”.
In fact if I were going to level a criticism at “contemporary Thelema,” I would say that many Thelemites do not take Nietzsche or postmodernism seriously enough. They tend to view Crowley from an overly and overtly modernist perspective.
For example they take the notion of the subject—specifically the autonomous subject—too seriously. They construct a religious perspective—what in postmodern parlance would be called a “metaphysics of presence”—around MY preferences, MY choices, MY sexuality, MY responsibility, etc. This relies on a notion of subjectivity that both Nietzsche and Crowley challenged.
Take for instance the concept of Will, arguably the most important concept in Thelema. Will is not identical with your power of choice. In fact Crowley seemed pretty clearly to have been a determinist, i.e., someone who does not believe in freedom of choice. (Yes, I am aware he uses the term “free will” sometimes. Don’t @ me.) Nietzsche held to a similar point of view, regarding freedom of choice to be a fiction invented by the mind to make it appear as though the end result of the battle of many “wills to power” in a person is somehow “mine” in a final, metaphysically-grounded sense.
The desire for “freedom of will” in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one’s actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui, and, with more than Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness.
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Crowley differs from Nietzsche insofar as he thinks that whatever unfolds within the sphere of the individual is the predestined result of a course chosen outside of time by one’s Holy Guardian Angel or True Self. His perspective here seems to be closer to the monism of Leibniz than Nietzsche’s.
This is the evident and final Solvent of the Knot Philosophical concerning Fate and Freewill, that it is thine own Self, omniscient and omnipotent, sublime in Eternity, that first didst order the Course of thine own Orbit, so that that which befalleth thee by Fate is indeed the necessary Effect of thine own Will. These two, then, that like Gladiators have made War in Philosophy through these many Centuries, art made One by the Love under Will which is the Law of Thelema.
Liber Aleph, “De harmonia voluntatis cum destinia,” as quoted in NC on AL I.57
This is not just a passing opinion or remark on Crowley’s part but has importance for the pinnacle and ultimate goal of his spiritual system, which is something like amor fati or love of fate. So the result is similar to Nietzsche’s, although the philosophical contrivances used to get there are somewhat different.
Be that as it may, the problem with a lot of interpretations of Thelema is not that they are overly “subjective” or “postmodern”. I think from Crowley’s perspective they would not go far enough in that direction. Until the ground under your feet has completely vanished, you’re not really in a position to transcend. Transcendence requires a certain motivation, a kind of urgency or emergency brought about by a deconstruction which the (over-)reliance on “I-me-mine” is in place to prevent.
Nothing but the realisation, born sooner or later of agonising experience, that its whole relation through Ruach and Nephesch with Matter, i.e., with the Universe, is, and must be, only painful. The senselessness of the whole procedure sickens it. It begins to seek for some menstruum in which the Universe may become intelligible, useful and enjoyable. In Qabalistic language, it aspires to Neschamah.
This is what we mean in saying that the Trance of Sorrow is the motive of the Great Work.
Little Essays Toward Truth, “Man”
This gets confusing because Crowley says “magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will.” But listen to the talk I gave on this a couple years back. I step through this really carefully. This is not about the primacy or supremacy of willing in the sense of bringing about a state of affairs that you want. It’s about the destruction of that very perspective.
The method of Magick: Love the mode in which Will operates. The method of Magick in this—and in all—Work is: “love under will.”
Djeridensis Comment on AL I.55-56
Magick is ultimately the art of illusion or of what is illusory. Philosophically and spiritually it is concerned with destruction or the destructive quality of speech.
It’s worth keeping in mind that the mystical “center” or “source” of Thelema is not a presence at all but an absence. It is indicated by Harpocrates/Hoor-paar-kraat.
The Author [of The Book of the Law] called himself Aiwass, and claimed to be “the minister of Hoor-Paar-Kraat”; that is, a messenger from the forces ruling this earth at present, as will be explained later on.
“Introduction” to Liber AL vel Legis
At the center and source of Thelema is something of a performative paradox. The Book of the Law, the foundation of all our work, is the speech of the god of silence. Speech or logos is presence par excellance. Yet Harpocrates, conspicuously, can never be made present.
Who worshipped Heru-pa-kraath have worshipped me; ill, for I am the worshipper.
AL II.8
In the Gnostic Mass, a similar idea is expressed in the line, “O secret of secrets that art hidden in the being of all that lives, not Thee do we adore, for that which adoreth is also Thou.”
Keep in mind that Harpocrates is the Silent or True Self. What these passages seem to indicate is that selfhood is not to be understood in terms of presence. You are not there as an object to yourself. (If you were, you would no longer be subject but object.) The presence of oneself is always deferred.
Another way of saying the same thing is that the characteristic mode of being of this True Self is not properly understood as “a being” or a mode of presence but rather as a kind of going or motion. But it is all-too-easy to conceptualize this going as just another form of being present. This leaves out an important facet of motion, which is that it is a form of change or of destruction. Harpocrates is closely aligned with Aleph and the A or Apophis moment of the IAO triad.
…therefore is the knowledge of me the knowledge of death.
AL II.6
Now think of this in the context of Crowley’s numerous pseudonyms, magical and otherwise: Perdurabo, Chioa Khan, TO MEGA THERION, Oliver Haddo, OU ME, etc. Even when he signs his name “Aleister Crowley,” that’s not his legal name. His legal name was always “Edward Alexander Crowley”. Crowley’s literary presence is a play of absence and representation. He’s presenting himself in such a way as to say, “You think you’ve got me, but you don’t.”
And this gets to the second point which comes out in these passages, which is that self-possession—hence true self-governance and autonomy—is impossible, eternally deferred. No sooner have we turned toward the “True Self” than it recedes, vanishes, reveals itself as an absence of speech, by silence. This flies directly in the face of the notion that we can somehow possess or express an “authentic” self through things like preferences or even responsibilities.
As I said in my recent talk on nihilism, Will in Thelema is best understood as a solution to the problem of nihilism. But in order for the will to serve this function, it cannot be a pure, animalistic overcoming of circumstance that simply runs counter to reason. That kind of brutishness is what Nietzsche would have identified as part of the symptomology of nihilism, not its overcoming.
Even if the loss of ground is not known directly and specifically, it’s still felt, and so people look for something to plug the gap. Investing a dictator or a cult leader with divine authority (“metaphysical presence”) is a reactive attempt to do this. But I would argue that the reliance on MY WILL or MY TRUE SELF is a similar manuever.
This is why every time you post something online—whether it’s an article, in a community, or even on your own Facebook wall—suggesting that there’s some reality of Thelema apart from what “what I will it to be,” people start kicking, biting, and scratching. Yet articles like this that present the typical hippy/boomer narrative of Thelema both get hundreds of likes/hearts and are declared to be subversive. How can something receive near-universal adulation but also somehow subvert conformity?
Some person with a Hindu handle (they always have Hindu handles for some reason despite being Caucasian) took issue with one of my previous articles because I presented evidence in support of an interpretation of the Mass against another. I was told that it’s unthelemic to say someone else’s argument is wrong, even if you present evidence in favor of that conclusion.
How precious.
As Ra-Hoor-Khuit said, ” I am Ra-Hoor-Khuit; and I am powerful to protect my servant. Except when someone expresses an opinion too strongly. Then I melt like a snowflake under a hairdryer. Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch! Otherwise someone’s feelings might get hurt, and why would you want to do something like that to somebody? That’s really sad. They don’t want to hurt you.”
Obviously the supremacy of the subjective viewpoint is an issue people feel deeply insecure about. Why else would they be so reactive about it?
I didn’t find anything in the latter half of the article that was of interest.
But yes, I would definitely take care when using the word “postmodern” to denigrate some interpretation of Thelema. In my opinion a lot of Thelema is stuck in delusions that I would consider to be quite “modern” in orientation. But as usual, these terms are really blunt and have to be defined precisely to be useful.
I wanted to elaborate a little bit on something I mentioned quickly in my recent video, Love, Will, and the Angel.
In that video I suggested a more-or-less traditional means of interacting with the Holy Guardian Angel, namely, prayer.
When I was a child, I prayed frequently to God, usually asking for some favor or another but also just for the purposes of ordinary conversation. After many decades, I have returned to prayer of this sort but with an important difference.
I never ask anything for myself when I pray.
I don’t ask to win the lottery. I don’t ask for a job interview to go well. I don’t ask for someone’s illness to be cured. I don’t ask for Bernie to win Michigan. (This last one might be reverse psychology.)
All I ever really ask for is to be a better servant of the divine in this world.
I ask for assistance to have my ignorance lifted. I don’t want to be ignorant about my nature. I don’t want to be ignorant about how the world works. I pray for the light of divinity to work through me in an uninterrupted fashion, unoccluded by false notions about who I am or what I should be doing.
Or as I suggested in the video, if I find myself in a difficult situation, I ask for help seeing how it is that I got myself into that mess and how to find my way out.
I understand that this is not how many occultists think about the Holy Guardian Angel. They think of conversation with the Angel more along these lines. And that’s fine. I wish people acted that way all the time, honestly. At the same time, I think my view on the Angel is consistent with Thelema as a doctrine.
The Angel is not here to rapture you, as the art on the Judgment card of the Coleman-Waite deck would suggest. Insofar as the concepts of salvation or redemption make any sense in a Thelemic context, they seem to entail something more like a change in perspective rather than a miracle.
Crowley’s two favorite metaphors for this seem to be inversion and unveiling.
You can find evidence of inversion or reversal of perspective all over the place. This is largely what the transition from Man of Earth to Hermit is about. It is captured in the imagery of the Beast 666. It’s in the idea of the Lion-Serpent as that which “destroys the destroyer” (i.e., inverts the inversion). It’s ritualized in Liber V vel Reguli. Basically the idea here is that we have an upside-down view on things. We need to be set on our own two feet for the first time, oriented toward the real foundation of things. From an outside perspective this will appear “demonic,” but it is in fact an orientation toward the transcendent and most high.
And then unveiling is the idea of the Khu as a “magical garment” that occludes the divine light within.
Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within.
New Comment on AL I.8
The idea of the Khu and the “solution of complexes” has always seemed somewhat obscure to me, but the way I’ve come to think of it is that the Khu is like the khandhas or “clinging aggregates” of Buddhism. The Khu is the manifest universe you appear in, or at least the part of it that you consider to be you. There is nothing inherently wrong with manifest existence. There is no “fallen” state to be “redeemed” in other words.
But problems arise when we look at manifest existence as something which we can control or own or call “my,” “me,” or “mine”. To understand the nature of manifest existence means understanding that it changes constantly according to conditions that are beyond our control. This gives rise to detachment and a more balanced, equanimous perspective on reality—and ultimately a happiness that lasts apart from external circumstances.
The Khu remains, but now it no longer occludes the divine light within. This light is not “me” in the ordinary sense but is rather Hadit or Harpocrates. Everything else that I previously called “me” is now seen and correctly understood as an instrument for the expression of that divine light.
But this is essentially what I pray for—to understand nature in precisely this way and thereby to become a more perfect instrument for this divine light.
This is a way in which Thelema is far more like Buddhism than Christianity in my opinion. Buddhism begins from the notion that the main problem is not so much the nature of things themselves but rather avijjā or ignorance. This means that the solution to life’s difficulties is to develop sammā-diṭṭhi or right view, not to be “saved” by the gods or anyone else. I see Thelema has approaching the problem in a similar fashion.
Of course it should be pointed out that neither in Thelema nor in Buddhism can anyone or anything else alleviate your ignorance. It is up to you to do that through your own applied effort. But this mode of prayer can be thought of as practice for surrender of the ego or illusory self to the universal life.
So in short I would say that it does work to pray to the Angel—if the purpose of your prayer is to dispel illusion and to become a more effective instrument of the divine. But I am not of the opinion that the Angel can perform miracles for you like curing disease or putting someone in the White House like Christians think.
The purpose of any O.T.O. local body is to assist individuals to find their respective true wills and to promulgate Thelema. Differences in local culture notwithstanding, that’s what each lodge, oasis, or camp has a duty to do.
There are many ways individuals can interact with us. There are the obvious ones like attend Gnostic Mass, take initiation, become a member, or serve as clergy.
There are the less obvious and perhaps less appreciated ones like washing glasses after Mass, taking out the trash, making a $5 donation, or even clicking “Like” on a social media post.
But all these ways of interacting with O.T.O. are done in service to our ultimate purpose, which is help individuals bring about positive life change by finding their true wills and to promulgate Thelema.
This is our unique gift. It is the impact that unites us. When we keep this cause at the forefront of whatever we do, we best serve our communal goals and thereby best serve ourselves as members.
Crowley elaborates on this supreme cause in a variety of ways. One of the most conspicuous—which appears both on the Preliminary Pledge Form and on the O.T.O. USA website—says that O.T.O. is:
…pledged to the high purpose of securing the Liberty of the Individual and his or her advancement in Light, Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, and Power through Beauty, Courage, and Wit, on the Foundation of Universal Brotherhood.
Like most things that Crowley writes, he is referencing the Holy Qabalah here. The concepts relate to the sephiroth in the following way:
Light – Kether
Wisdom – Chokmah
Understanding – Binah
Knowledge – Chesed (and arguably the whole of the Ruach as comprehended in Daath)
Power – Geburah
Beauty – Tiphareth
Courage – Netzach
Wit – Hod
Foundation of Universal Brotherhood – Yesod
This is a useful way to think about the means by which we assist individuals and promulgate the Law of Liberty.
Here is just one way to think about these means:
Light: While the light represented by Kether (Ain Soph Aur) is unlimited and therefore without opposition, it is helpful to convey this concept to our minds in opposition with darkness. We confront the darkness of the human condition when we find ourselves groping for solutions to barely understood problems. Light represents clarity about fundamental reality that comes from understanding the Law of Thelema. It is knowing that whatever difficult situation we find ourselves in, there is a solution, and that solution is to know and to do one’s true will.
Wisdom is the ability to put that solution into action based on life’s experience. A large part of that is “minding one’s own business,” i.e., making the development of one’s own true will the center and theme of one’s life without being overly concerned with the opinions of others. As a society of individuals pursuing different paths, O.T.O. offers many opportunities to practice this kind of discernment.
Understanding entails the rejection of superstition. One cannot simply will for an end to skepticism. Its end is only achieved in samadhi or in mystical union with the Divine through meditation and prayer. Short of that, ultimate reality cannot be known in and of itself. We therefore practice tolerance as a way of life. When we embody this value in our lodges, oases, and camps, we invite a great diversity of points of view, life paths, and backgrounds, thereby enriching our communities and promoting maximal growth through the intersections of these points of view.
Knowledge: We promote scientific religion. We do not demand that individuals accept premises without sufficient evidence. As a result, we do not place arbitrary restrictions on individuals’ advancement in our organization or in their self-development. Instead we give them the tools necessary for growth and fulfillment.
Power: We emphasize self-empowerment and self-control over the control or manipulation of others. We recognize that the greatest power comes from individuals having the maximum amount of control over their own lives, including their physical and emotional impulses. We align ourselves with those who reject coercion and tyranny in all its forms.
Beauty: Our spirituality is not merely private or mystical in nature. Magick is meant to create harmony between the desires of individuals and the world around them. Our spirituality is therefore sensuous in nature, as beauty is the image of the reconciliation between what is and what ought to be. We perform our rituals rightly, with joy and beauty.
Courage is not freedom from fear but rather the capacity to withstand, to carry, and to act appropriately even while experiencing fear. We do not promise that every step along this path is going to be warm cookies and ice cream. But we do provide opportunities—through initiation and through fraternity—to learn and to practice courage, truthfulness, and other forms of emotional intelligence.
Wit is the capacity to think quickly, to know how and when to apply concepts. O.T.O. consists in a diverse group of individuals from many backgrounds. As such, there are many opportunities for novel forms of interaction. Novelty throws us back on our own resources. It demands spontaneity rather than repetition. In other words, it requires learning.
Universal Brotherhood (or Sisterhood or Siblinghood as we now say) is both the foundation of all that precedes as well as its natural culmination, just as Yesod is both the “foundation” of the Tree of Life as well as the natural endpoint on the astral plane of any magical current. It is an image of the world in which the gifts inherent in all Points of View are capable of manifestation and expression to the ultimate. It is the world we are attempting to create by bringing about life change, one individual at a time.
As Crowley says in the essay “Man” in Little Essays Toward Truth:
The Quest of the Holy Grail, the Search for the Stone of the Philosophers—by whatever name we choose to call the Great Work—is therefore endless. Success only opens up new avenues of brilliant possibility. Yea, verily, and Amen! the task is tireless and its joys without bounds; for the whole Universe, and all that in it is, what is it but the infinite playground of the Crowned and Conquering Child, of the insatiable, the innocent, the ever-rejoicing Heir of Space and Eternity, whose name is MAN?
This is merely a small sample of all the ways in which O.T.O. bodies give the gift of life change with the purpose of securing liberty and free expression of all individuals. These are the gifts we should leverage for our self-development and for the growth of our communities.
“To open the heart requires the capacity of courage, because courage is the capacity to carry fear.”
This past weekend, I had the pleasure of presenting on behalf of Horizon at Concentric Circles, an annual interfaith pagan conference.
The talk I delivered was on the subject of Thelema as a heart-centered path. Rather than approach Thelemic magick as a means of imposing one’s desires on the world, I chose to look at it from the perspective of removing arbitrary barriers around one’s heart.
With removal of one’s armor and acceptance of one’s vulnerability come opportunities for growth and joy.
I talk about how this is the path that leads to Our Lady Babalon and the summit of spiritual wisdom.
A Path with Heart, delivered at Concentric Circles, Redmond, WA, February 22, 2020.
Aleister Crowley mentions three ways in which a person should prepare to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist: chastity, fasting, and continual aspiration.
With regard to the preparations for such Sacraments, the Catholic Church has maintained well enough the traditions of the true Gnostic Church in whose keeping the secrets are. Chastity is a condition; fasting for some hours previous is a condition; an earnest and continual aspiration is a condition. Without these antecedents even the Eucharist of the One and Seven is partially—though such is its intrinsic virtue that it can never be wholly—baulked of its effect.
Magick in Theory and Practice, Chapter 20
Presumably these preparations should be undertaken not only by the clergy consecrating the Eucharist but also Gnostic Mass congregants.
The preconditions of fasting and aspiration are unambiguous, but chastity requires some explanation. In the same passage, Crowley goes on to mention that:
The Word Chastity is used by initiates to signify a certain state of soul and of mind determinant of a certain habit of body which is nowise identical with what is commonly understood. Chastity in the true magical sense of the word is inconceivable to those who are not wholly emancipated from the obsession of sex.
While Crowley does not further specify the meaning of chastity in this context, he likely means that the act is done for the sake of Nuit and without lust of result.
Also, take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will! But always unto me. If this be not aright; if ye confound the space-marks, saying: They are one; or saying, They are many; if the ritual be not ever unto me: then expect the direful judgments of Ra Hoor Khuit!
AL I.51-52
But remember, o chosen one, to be me; to follow the love of Nu in the star-lit heaven; to look forth upon men, to tell them this glad word.
AL II.76
The Old Comment to the first verse of the Book of the Law states:
In Nu is Had concealed; by Had is Nu manifested. Nu being 56 and Had 9, their conjunction results in 65, Adonai, the Holy Guardian Angel.
And so another way of stating the same thing is to say that the consummation or consumption of the Eucharist ought to be done with one-pointed devotion to the Holy Guardian Angel, insofar as the aspirant is able to do this.
These three prerequisites of chastity, fasting, and continual aspiration bear a close resemblance with the principles represented by the chain, the dagger, and the scourge.
The chain represents fixity of thought. It corresponds with chastity or singular devotion to Nuit.
The dagger represents control of the appetites which would distract thought. It corresponds with fasting.
The scourge is meant to counteract the torpor of the Nephesh or animal soul. It corresponds with continual aspiration.
After applying the chain, dagger, and scourge to oneself, the magician then anoints themselves with the Holy Oil, symbolic of “that spark of the higher in the Magician which wishes to unite the lower with itself.” (Magick, Part II, Chapter V.) Once the principles represented by the chain, the dagger, and the scourge have been applied to oneself and are in balance with one another, the light of Jechidah or the Holy Guardian Angel naturally breaks through.
These three factors of magick form a close parallel with three factors of sama-samādhi or jhāna (Sanskrit: dhyāna) mentioned in the Buddhist tradition.
The first factor of concentration is mindfulness (sati). This is often interpreted nowadays as bare, non-judgmental awareness of the present moment, but in the context of the Buddha’s teachings, its meaning is much closer to the colloquial meaning of the term. It means keeping in mind what you’re doing. In the context of taking Eucharist, it could mean an appropriate attitude of reverence, knowing that the purpose of this ritual is communion with the divine. It corresponds with the chain and with chastity.
The second factor is alertness (sampajañña). This is the ability of the mind to be aware of what it is doing and to know the difference between path and not path. It is a discriminating faculty, and therefore it corresponds with the dagger and with fasting.
The third factor is ardency (atappa). It means being intent on what you are doing. It does not mean straining but rather continuously developing helpful skills and habits and (with the help of alertness) abandoning unhelpful ones. It corresponds with the scourge and with continual aspiration.
When these three factors join together in a meditation session and are more or less in balance with one another, right concentration naturally arises. This corresponds with the holy oil and the natural way in which the Jechidah or Holy Guardian Angel unites the aspirant with itself.
As we can see, these three prerequisites of chastity, fasting, and continual aspiration form a foundation for the consummation and consumption of a Eucharist, but they are derived from principles which are more general and which apply to any practice of magick or meditation.
This seems complicated, but putting it together is easier than it seems.
Know what it is that you are doing and why. Prior to showing up to the temple, know that you will attend a ritual, the purpose of which is to put you in communion with the Highest: whether you consider that to be Nuit, Babalon, Pan, Jechidah, or the Holy Guardian Angel.
Know that this highest spiritual power is also the source and seed of Thelema itself. It is the power articulated in the Book of the Law, and it is the power that inspired the author of the ritual, Aleister Crowley, when he wrote the ritual.
Let fasting and continual aspiration support this knowledge. If you choose to fast beforehand, know that this action creates physical space within you where the Word embodied in the Eucharist may take root. Know that your desire to know God and your attention to the Path is the nourishment that supports the growth of this knowledge—before, during, and long after the ritual itself.
After you have consumed the Eucharist and have declared, “There is no part of me that is not of the gods!,” return to your seat and sit in silent contemplation, just as the Priest did immediately after consuming his Eucharist. Enjoy communion with this silence directly and simply as possible.
Do not worry. Do not plan. Do not strive. Simply be with the silence.
And as you go about your day—afterward during fellowship, on the drive or bus ride home, when you are going to sleep that evening, or when you are hard at work the following day—remember that silence and return to it. Know it and be with it.
And know with confidence that, “To a Magician thus renewed the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel becomes an inevitable task.”
In the Platonic tradition, the Sun is a symbol of unity. It is the visible and sensible analog of the One Itself which gives unity in the purely intelligible realm. This One Itself transcends being and non-being. In fact it transcends all opposition whatsoever and is the sole cause of anything being whatever it is. For this reason it is also called the Good Itself.
The equivalent of the One in Thelema is Kether, which is also associated with Ra-Hoor-Khuit. Speaking in the 1st Aethyr of The Vision and the Voice, Ra-Hoor-Khuit declares:
I am light, and I am night, and I am that which is beyond them.
I am speech, and I am silence, and I am that which is beyond them.
I am life, and I am death, and I am that which is beyond them.
I am war, and I am peace, and I am that which is beyond them.
I am weakness, and I am strength, and I am that which is beyond them.
Yet by none of these can man reach up to me. Yet by each of them must man reach up to me.
The unity of opposites represented by Ra-Hoor-Khuit transcends both our capacity of reasoning as well as our capacities of sensation or intuition. Nevertheless, the Sun serves as a visual analog of this transcendent principle, much as it did for the Platonists. Thus four times a day, Thelemites turn toward the Sun and cry aloud:
Unity uttermost showed!
It is necessary to put ourselves into contact with transcendent unity, because as conditioned beings, we do not contain unity within ourselves.
Everything that we are or could even know—about ourselves or about the world—falls into five “heaps” or khandhas. We know by means of sensible impressions (rupa); the pleasure, displeasure, or boredom arising from them (vedana); perceptions (samjna); habituated tendencies (sankhara); and consciousness (vijnana). Each of these arises and passes beyond our control. Insofar as any of these abide for awhile, they change constantly. Therefore they are unreliable, and none can be said to be a self, to contain a self, to be under the control of a self, or to be in a self. None can provide lasting happiness. Even consciousness comes and goes throughout the day, when we fall asleep, or when we die.
For this reason, Crowley declared that the principle of unity of each person—as represented by their spiritual Sun, their Holy Guardian Angel—could not be found by means of introspection.
Apart from any theoretical speculation, my Sammasiti and analytical work has never led to so much as a hint of the existence of the Guardian Angel. He is not to be found by any exploration of oneself.
Magick without Tears, Chapter 43
And yet achieving unity is the preeminent goal of Thelemic ethics.
A Man whose conscious will is at odds with his True Will is wasting his strength. He cannot hope to influence his environment efficiently.
(Illustration: When Civil War rages in a nation, it is in no condition to undertake the invasion of other countries. A man with cancer employs his nourishment alike to his own use and to that of the enemy which is part of himself. He soon fails to resist the pressure of his environment. In practical life, a man who is doing what his conscience tells him to be wrong will do it very clumsily. At first!)
Magick in Theory and Practice, Introduction
Therefore turning toward the Sun four times a day is not a mere religious observance. It serves an important spiritual and ethical purpose.
By turning toward the Sun, we first admit that unity is not automatically present within us. As far as we have come in life, we still have work to do on ourselves. The process is continual. We can always improve.
Second, we recognize that the principle of unity—hence the principle of self-subsistence and enduring happiness—transcends who we ordinarily take ourselves to be. We recognize that when we identify with the skandhas, we’re like a person trying to build a house on quicksand.
Thelemites sometimes talk about the difference between the small-s self, which we identify with our egos, versus the big-s Self, which we identify with Jechidah or the Holy Guardian Angel. In fact there is only one self to speak of, since what we call “self” (with the small-s) is merely an illusion. When we turn toward the Sun, we allow its radiance to dispel this illusion all together, so that our entire being can enjoy contact with that which truly deserves to be called self.
He is the Open Eye of the exalted Sun, before whom all shadows flee away: also that Secret Eye which makes an image of its God, the Light, and gives it power to utter oracles, enlightening the mind.
Magick in Theory and Practice, Chapter 5
I adore the might of Thy breath, Supreme and terrible God, Who makest the gods and death To tremble before Thee—I, I adore thee!
AL III.37
And then finally, having recognized the true source of unity beyond becoming, beyond opposition, we learn to surrender ourselves to it. Gradually we come to see ourselves as instruments or extensions of it. The more frequently we reestablish conscious contact with this spiritual unity or Jechidah, the easier and more habitual it is for us to find that lifeline and source of spiritual power in difficult times. We learn to tolerate misfortune with equanimity, knowing that even in the darkest hour, a radiant god stands at our backs.
And should we follow that lifeline back to its source, any one of us can pass through that “secret door / Into the house of Ra and Tum, of Khephra and of Ahathoor” and attain to direct awareness of that “center and secret of the Sun” which Crowley himself knew in his most exalted visions.
My talk on Eucharistic magick is online now. It includes an in depth analysis of Sections VI-VIII of Liber XV: The Gnostic Mass.
The claim I make about the Mass—if I were to state it as succinctly as possible—is that the Mass was intended, in part, to bring into physical manifestation the spiritual power which was the source of the Book of the Law. So you can profitably view it as an attempt to bring the spiritual force of Thelema into the world by means of a public religious rite.
On the one hand, there’s nothing new or terribly controversial in such a statement. The Gnostic Mass is clearly a religious rite, and the purpose of a religious rite is for clergy to administer certain ideas, values, or virtues to a congregation. It would be rather odd to make the opposite argument, that Aleister Crowley created a religious service that administered the virtues of some spirituality other than Thelema.
I think what’s bound to make my argument controversial is the specificity of it. I don’t treat the power or spiritual potency from an abstract point of view. I show how Crowley specified it, put names to it, and even described its nature. If you accept the premises and the inferences to the conclusions from those premises, this creates a backstop for what is going to count as a good interpretation of the Mass. (Or it brings whatever existing backstop there is closer to the home plate.)
Considering the Mass alone, Crowley has many names for this spiritual potency or power considered in and of itself:
“one secret and ineffable LORD”
“our Lord …”
“the LORD” (symbolized by the priest’s serpent crown)
“O secret of secrets that art hidden in the being of all that lives”
“the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core of every star”
“Life, and the giver of Life”
“Lord secret and most holy, source of light, source of life, source of love, source of liberty”
“force of energy, fire of motion”
“Thou who art I, beyond all I am, Who hast no nature and no name”
“center and secret of the Sun”
“hidden spring of all things known and unknown, Thou aloof, alone”
“true fire within the reed”
“source and seed of life, love, liberty, and light, thou beyond speech and beyond sight”
“One in Three … Three in One”
What we can gather from these terms is that there is a divinity or a portion of divinity that is secret, ineffable, withdrawn, unmanifest, and completely transcendent. It is beyond our ability to describe or understand it. It is characterized by silence, but it is the source of speech and motion. And this divinity or some aspect of this divinity is concealed “within us” in some sense, and it is responsibility for our vitality.
Now one thing you may want to ponder from a theological or metaphysical perspective is this: If something is truly transcendent and unmanifest—if it is really “aloof, alone”—then how does it enter into manifestation? How does it have anything to do with the visible or manifest universe at all?
Crowley’s phrase for this in the context of the Mass, exemplified in the Creed, is the “Miracle of Incarnation”. He claims it is accomplished by means of the “Baptism of Wisdom”. As Sabazius has pointed out, this comes from Van Hammer’s elucidation of the name Baphomet as Baphe-Metis, the Baptism of Wisdom. One of the arguments I make in the talk is that, in the context of the Mass, Baphomet is the name given to this pure, transcendent spiritual potency when it is embodied or incarnated. This means that we can understand the Epiklesis of the Gnostic Mass on analogy with the transubstantiation of the Eucharist in the Roman Mass into the body and blood of Christ. This helps make sense of why the elements of the Eucharist are consecrated into a resurrection structure in Section VI. As Christ is the principle of resurrection in Christianity, Baphomet is the principle of resurrection in Thelema. At that point, the doctrines diverge, and I spend a lot of time in the talk examining exactly what resurrection means in a Thelemic context.
One angle I did not explore very much at all in my talk is how this transcendent spiritual potency is made manifest by the sex instinct. The only reference I made to this extraordinarily complex and interesting subject was to point out that the Priest, by virtue of the Lance and the scarlet robe, represents the microcosmic deity in the context of the Mass. This microcosmic deity is called “CHAOS, the sole viceregent of the Sun upon the Earth.” It is also called phallus. It is the “Lord of Life and Joy, that art the might of man, that art the essence of every true god that is upon the surface of the Earth, continuing knowledge from generation unto generation”. The magick of the Mass is almost certainly intended to parallel an analogous sex magick working. The seed (sperma) the Priest isolates from the Cake (consecrated to his body) is meant to be analogous with the spermatazoon produced by his literal body. The cup is magically linked with the Priestess’s body by means of the five crosses. The wine within it could be viewed as either his “blood” (which Crowley usually intends to represent semen) or her menstruum. I pointed out, as many have, that HRILIU represents the cry of orgasm.
Another thing I would point out—which I didn’t bother to touch on in the talk—is that Crowley believed sexual reproduction was a form of resurrection. Orgasm itself is a moment of subject-object union or samadhi, if only for a moment. The individuality of the man is not preserved, but his life-force continues in the child. The Mass Eucharist is explicitly referred to as a child both in the Anthem and during the Fractio. The solve or Aleph-phase of the operation reduces his seed to a kind of magical stem-cell state. By consuming this metaphorical “child,” the Priest is nourishing himself with the power of his resurrected or reborn life-force. It’s a simple way to look at the Mass, but it’s also perfectly valid and illuminating. The problem is that it’s not the only doctrine of resurrection Crowley had.
While I do not think it is wrong to point out that the Mass is the IX° sex magick operation under a different form, I think it very quickly leads to misunderstanding. One could start to believe that the spiritual reality of the Mass—and maybe of Thelema itself—is exhausted in fucking. Crowley himself makes reductionistic claims to this effect, e.g., “Semen is God.” Instead I wanted to focus on the structure shared both by the Mass and by the IX° Mass of the Holy Ghost in order to indicate the spiritual reality they are both aiming at, and which is reducible to neither of them. In the language of Eucharistic magick Crowley uses, both the Eucharist of two elements and the Eucharist of one element serve a common spiritual purpose. It is that purpose that I wanted to elucidate.
The argument I make in the talk—and which I have not seen made before—is that the spiritual purpose is the physical manifestation of this spiritual principle or potency represented by Hoor-Paar-Kraat, the God of Silence. This is the deity that Aiwass declares himself to be the “minister” of in the first chapter of The Book of the Law. As such, Aiwass’s speech is the speech of the god of silence. The Book of the Law itself is the “speech of silence” as Crowley says. And since this is the same spiritual potency we are embodying in the Gnostic Mass Eucharist, when we participate in the Mass, either as clergy or as congregants, we are in effect consuming the word. We’re being nourished by it. In yet one more way, the Book of the Law is becoming our sustenance and comfort.
As it turns out, the same principle is elastic and can manifest itself in many other ways. I already mentioned that it manifests as a sex-generative principle. In the talk I make a big deal out of showing how, in the context of an individual’s gnosis or spiritual experience, Harpocrates is also the Silent Self or the Holy Guardian Angel. From an alchemical perspective, I show how it is also the Philosopher’s Stone and connected with the IX° Elixir of Life. Crowley uses a lot of words to label this spiritual principle—Aleph, Fool, God of Silence, Holy Guardian Angel, Heru-Ra-Ha, Lord Most Secret, etc.—but the fact that it shows up in so many different places and is linked with the central spiritual concerns of Thelema I think justifies calling it out as the central organizing principle of Crowley’s spirituality. It is the point around which everything else is rotating. So I spend a lot of time in the talk laying out its structure. That structure—whether we’re talking about Eucharistic magick, alchemy, or initiation—is invariably tripartite and is represented by the formula IAO.
So what I was attempting to do in this talk was not only to show how to do Eucharistic magick or just parrot things Crowley says about the Eucharist. I also wanted to explain how it was he could make such extraordinary claims about Eucharistic magick, such that doing it would inevitably lead to Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, or that a particular version of it (identical with the IX° secret) would produce the Elixir of Life and grant immortality. So in this one phenomenon of Eucharistic magick, we find a menagerie of traditional and specifically Crowleyan spiritual concerns tied to the central mystery of Crowley’s spirituality, namely, Knowledge and Conversation. But rather than attempt to reduce the Gnostic Mass to sex magick, or to attempt to reduce both of those to Knowledge and Conversation, I attempted to explain all three in terms of the structure of the underlying spiritual reality motivating Thelema as a whole. And I suppose my assumption is that, because this underlying spiritual reality has vitality, an individual who understands how to make contact with that reality will become empowered by it.
Two of the most important patterns in Crowley’s spirituality are the relationship between speech and silence and the relationship between the word and life and death.
You see the speech-silence pattern crop up everywhere. The Book of the Law itself is delivered by Aiwass, who announces himself as the minister of Hoor-Paar-Kraat, the god of silence. So the Book of the Law could be understood as the speech of the god of silence.
The god of silence is absent, unmanifest. Any attempt to objectify the god of silence inevitably fails. So the issue of speech and silence is simultaneously the issue of presence versus absence. Absence can only be manifest through presence by means of various detours or blinds—basically illusions. Magic deals principally in illusions, the magician being a Master of Illusions. This is why all the powers of the magician revolve around silence.
Absence is also worked with through Crowley’s pseudonyms: Perdurabo, To Mega Therion, V.V.V.V.V., Chioa Khan, etc. (I’ve never actually seen anyone attempt this analysis for some reason…)
The speech-silence pattern shows up in the Mass. “Silence” is indicated at two crucial points in the script. Also, if you’ve read any of my stuff on the Mass, I’ve indicated how essential Hoor-paar-kraat is to that ritual. The Mass itself is a ceremony of implantation of the god of silence into the soil of the Earth.
The drama of the Mass moves from the silence of the tomb, out into manifestation, and then back into the silence of the tomb.
AUMGN—the formula most often vibrated through the Mass—is itself a formula representing the movement of the silent seed into manifest speech and back out into non-existence.
The neophyte formula of A∴A∴ encapsulates exactly the same idea in slightly different form. In Pyramidos, it is described as the path of HUA or IAΩ—in other words of the Holy Guardian Angel itself.
The Man of Earth degrees form a cycle which expresses the same idea. In the Minerval degree, the candidate manifests out of silence or nothingness, is brought into manifestation in the 1st and 2nd degrees, passes out of existence in the 3rd, and passes back into silence or nothingness as a Perfect Initiate.
If you’ve read my stuff, you know I think the MoE candidate is actually the HGA for pretty much exactly this reason. If you’ve read my stuff on the Mass, you know I think it involves the HGA in exactly this way.
“Oh so what? You think everything Crowley ever did was about the HGA, huh?”
How many times did he himself say that? He couldn’t have been kidding all those times.
And then the other pattern has to do with the word—which is the HGA in manifestation—as it relates to life and death.
So the first thing to notice is that the word uses life and death to manifest itself down the generations. It’s how it gets spoken in the first place.
So the word in the macrocosmic sense is the Sun and basically all the things the Sun represents. In the Mass, we refer to the Sun as ON, which represents the Beast 666 who is also the Logos (word) of the current Aeon. And since most magical formulae represent not only a thing but also a process of attainment, ON also represents two paths of deification of the individual, one corresponding with Ayin, the other with Nun. (I’ve written about this elsewhere.)
But the word in the microcosmic sense—where it relates directly to life and death—is the phallus. This is the word utilizing the process of life and death or incarnation or becoming or suffering or what have you in order to manifest itself. This is the 5th collect of the Mass. This is the Anthem. This is the production of the seed which goes into the soil which becomes Baphomet. It’s the whole magic of the Mass, really: manifestation of the macrocosm in the microcosm.
Now when it manifests, it also transcends those conditions or reveals itself as transcending those conditions. Hence, Baphomet “destroys the destroyer”. This is the redemptive aspect of the word. This is why you would want to hear the word. This is why you would want to know God or to experience Knowledge and Conversation. It’s because it’s that within you which is using you or using your conditioned existence in order to be. It’s that for the sake of which all this is happening. It’s the impersonal vibration left over at the end of AUMGN from which existence will once again spring forth.
You find the same issue at work in the 3rd degree of M∴M∴M∴.
You see it in the IAO formula.
You see it in the Neophyte ritual of A∴A∴.
So if you ever find yourself lost in the weeds of Crowley’s writings, these are the two patterns I would try to focus on. One pattern has to do with how speech and silence relate. This is the life-cycle of the Word, the Logos, the HGA. The other pattern has to do with the life of the Word. This is how the Word uses life-death to manifest itself and how in the process it redeems becoming.
Ever since I had the insight that led me to write the short post on Harpocrates, the implications of it have spread like an invasive weed throughout all the rest of my thinking and perception.
The idea is quite simple. Each of us has been implanted with a divine seed. The seed consists in almost nothing more than remembrance of the Light we knew before incarnating. This seed lies dormant and silent within each of us, so that most people are not even aware of its existence. If it speaks to us at all, it is subtle and cryptic. It will speak to us seemingly from without, by guiding us into certain areas of life. It will speak to us seemingly from within, in the form of dreams. But most people take no notice of it.
But when we do take notice of it, a miracle occurs. It begins to grow. And so by seed and root and stem and bud and leaf and flower and fruit it will unfold and articulate itself into the light.
And I’ve come to the realization that the life-cycle of this seed is really the major theme of the spiritual path called Thelema—although the exact same phenomenon shows up in other forms of spirituality as well.
Crowley refers to this phenomenon under various names: secret self, silent self, seed, Aleph, Harpocrates, Hoor-paar-kraat, Virgin, the Fool who impregnates the King’s Daughter, etc. He always associates it with Malkuth, which is the soil in which it is implanted. He refers to its characteristic way of growth or development as true will.
Everything we do spiritually is not for our own sake but rather for the sake of this divine seed implanted within us.
But as we make the cultivation of this god within the theme and focus of our lives, something very odd happens. It begins to eat us. It consumes us.
Normally we understand the events of our lives to constitute a self. Ideas, thoughts, sense impressions, images, desires, words spoken, emotions felt, people loved, events remembered, events hoped for, actions carried out, paths chosen—we consider all of it to be mine. We think it is for a self, in a self, that it belongs to a self, that it is attached to a self, etc.
But as the divine seed sprouts and grows and unfolds within us, all of these happenings become food for, and become incorporated into, the growing body of this god. None of them—not even a simple sense impression or perception—happens for its own sake anymore. None of it—not even the simplest decision—can be said to be mine in the conventional sense of the term. Instead it is another element in the unfolding, developing image of this divine being.
We are the food of the gods.
What I describe may sound alien, even horrifying. But it only seems this way when we think we have something to lose through the process. This comes from the delusion that any of these thoughts, feelings, desires, or actions constitute a unity on their own. They don’t. But by becoming part of the metabolism and life cycle of the god, they acquire unity for the first time, the way the soup of molecules in the atmosphere becomes metabolized and structured into the outward form of a leaf.
At last, saying “I” can mean something.
It also gives new meaning to the expression, “There is no part of me that is not of the gods!”
The turning point for any person spiritually is when they realize that all the pain in their lives, all the difficulty and struggle and hardship, has never come from allowing this process to happen but has always arisen from resisting it. And that all the peace, happiness, and well-being lies in serving the divine within ourselves so it can fruit and release its seed into the world.
