Title banner that says "the cosmic egg"

The Cosmic Egg: Nuit, Hadit, and the Zero

Title banner that says "the cosmic egg"

Part 3 of the Dualism, Monism & Thelema Series

Nuit and Hadit as Foundations

The Book of the Law presents Nuit and Hadit as the two exclusive deities of the Thelemic universe.

I am Heaven, and there is no other God than me, and my lord Hadit.

AL I.21

Furthermore Crowley took Nuit and Hadit to constitute the elements of the universe.

The elements are Nuit—Space—that is, the total of possibilities of every kind—and Hadit, any point which has experience of these possibilities. (This idea is for literary convenience symbolized by the Egyptian Goddess Nuit, a woman bending over like the Arch of the Night Sky. Hadit is symbolized as a Winged Globe at the heart of Nuit.)

“Introduction” to the Book of the Law

If Nuit and Hadit are both exclusive and elementary, then in our established terminology, they appear to be really distinct substances.

Forming a clear, distinct idea of space as distinct from the subjective point of view presents no difficulty. In fact they seem close in meaning to Descartes’s bodily substance and mental substance respectively.

This would appear to commit Crowley to mind-body dualism and make the Thelemic cosmology dualistic.

The Qabalistic Zero as Common Condition

Nuit and Hadit separating from the Cosmic Egg

However, in Crowley’s early essay, “Berashith,” he lays a framework for deriving Nuit and Hadit from an ontologically prior “nothingness”.

I assert the absoluteness of the Qabalistic Zero […] Our Cosmic Egg, then, from which the present universe arose, was Nothingness, extended in no categories

Crowley, “Berashith”

He then goes on to describe the creation of the universe in terms that anticipate the Thelemic cosmology of Magick in Theory and Practice chapter 0, where the infinitely great (Nuit) and the infinitely small (Hadit) combine to create Ra-Hoor-Khuit. (Magick, p. xxvii and p. 137. All references to Magick will be to the Weiser Second Edition, ed. by Hymenaeus Beta.)

So while there appears to be a real distinction between Nuit and Hadit, they share a common necessary condition in the Qabalistic Zero, which makes them modally distinct.

This implies that, while Thelemic cosmology initially appears dualistic, it is in fact monistic. All things are One (or “None,” as Crowley says) in the Qabalistic Zero.

But we need to make a distinction between two kinds of monism.

Identity Monism versus Dependence Monism

Identity monism entails a rational distinction

If two things are rationally distinct, then the difference is only in the concept we are applying to them. They are in fact one and the same thing. Let’s call this identity monism.

Crowley is not saying that the distinction between Hadit and Nuit is merely a rational distinction. Therefore we are not dealing here with a case of identity monism.

Dependence monism entails a type-b modal distinction

Instead, Crowley is implying that Hadit and Nuit are modally distinct: one is intelligible without the other, but they share a common third condition—the Qabalistic Zero—upon which they are mutually dependent.

So instead of calling this identity monism, I will follow Paul Franks and call this an instance of dependence monism. (Paul Frank, All or Nothing: Systematicity, Transcendental Arguments, and Skepticism in German Idealism, Harvard University Press, 2005.)

The implication is that, while Hadit and Nuit share a common condition in the Qabalistic Zero and hence are not really distinct substances, they are distinct modes of a single substance, and therefore the interaction between them is not illusory.

This is relevant to Crowley’s critique of “mystic monism” and its denial of the “interplay” of parts.

This is something the same as mystic monism, but the objection to that theory is that God has to create things which are all parts of himself, so that their interplay is false.

New Comment on AL I.3

In the context of this quote, Crowley is referring specifically to the interplay of Stars, but the point applies equally to the interplay of Nuit and Hadit.

Further, we can clarify his meaning of “mystic monism” in this passage. He is referring to what we are defining as identity monism, not necessarily all kinds of monism.

This is important, because it is only by committing himself to certain types of monism that other aspects of Thelema remain intelligible. This is especially true of its soteriology, which we saw previously requires the individual to transcend duality.

Is the Qabalistic Zero a Substance?

One might object to my line of reasoning thus far in the following way:

  1. A modal distinction between x and y assumes x and y are modes of a substance, z.
  2. A substance is a being.
  3. The Qabalistic Zero is defined as “Nothingness, extended in no categories,” i.e., the opposite of a being.
  4. Therefore, Nuit and Hadit cannot be considered modes of the Qabalistic Zero.

But for the purposes of our argument, we are defining substance as intelligible on its own terms. It’s defined without reference to existence.

The Qabalistic Zero is intelligible. This is evidenced in “Berashith” and later in Chapter 5 of Magick Without Tears, where Crowley provides a mathematical proof of the common origin of Nuit and Hadit in the Qabalistic Zero.

Not only that. He infers certain of their characteristics (like that Nuit is infinitely great and Hadit infinitely small). It’s impossible to make inferences from something if it’s unintelligible.

The particulars of the argument—which constitute the 0=2 theorem—need not preoccupy us. All we need understand is that Crowley treated the Qabalistic Zero as the intelligible, common ground of Nuit and Hadit.

Derivation Monism versus Dependence Monism

Since by Crowley’s lights the respective existences and qualities of Nuit and Hadit can be derived using logic and mathematics from their common condition, in addition to describing this as a form of dependence monism, I will again follow Franks and describe this as an example of derivation monism.

Not all examples of dependence monism are also examples of derivation monism. We might know that x is the necessary condition of y, and hence there exists a modal distinction between x and y, but it does not necessarily follow that we can know the particular qualities of y through examining x (or vice versa).

In other words we might identify x as the condition of the intelligibility of y without being able to explain or reduce all of the qualities of y to x.

For example, a triangle is a modification of shape, but it does not follow that we can deduce the sum of the interior angles of a triangle solely by means of an examination of the meaning of shape.

This distinction will be essential to make sense of Crowley’s thoughts about the Star.

To summarize:

  1. Hadit and Nuit are the dual foundations of Thelemic cosmology.
  2. Hadit and Nuit share a common condition in the Qabalistic Zero.
  3. So the distinction between Hadit and Nuit is modal, not rational. They are intelligible independently of one another but mutually depend upon the Qabalistic Zero. This is an example of dependence monism, not identity monism.
  4. Certain qualities of Nuit and Hadit can be derived from the Qabalistic Zero. This is an example of derivation monism.
  5. Not all instances of dependence monism are also instances of derivation monism.

Next we’ll look at how Nuit and Hadit are distinct from the Star.

Part 4

Liber V vel Reguli and the Formula of AHIHVH

I spent some time recently looking closely at Liber V vel Reguli along with the commentary and the early draft notes, and feel like I have come to a few insights which could be of use to others.

As I’ve shown before, one of the main themes of Crowley’s spirituality is the movement from speech to silence and back again. This could also be viewed as the expression of nullity (Ain of Kabbalah) into manifestation (the Tree of Life itself) and the individual’s path of return back to nullity. The first part of this equation expresses Thelemic cosmology, the latter Thelemic soteriology.

In Reguli these movements are dramatized and expressed in the formula LAShTAL. LA means “not,” while AL means “God”. LA and AL represent nullity in concealment and manifestation respectively, while ShT is the process that mediates between them.

In order for ShT to mediate between LA and AL, they have to conjointly share something in common between LA and AL while also adding new information.

LAShTAL represented as three interlocking circles. The overlapping portions are labeled "31".

LA and AL both add to 31 by gematria. ShT also adds to 31 by way of the tarot cards these letters are attributed to. Sh or Shin is the Hebrew letter assigned to The Aeon, Atu XX, and T or Teth is assigned to Lust, Atu XI.

As someone recently pointed out to me, there is a tradition in the Golden Dawn, recorded in the Z1 document, of ST denoting an influence from Kether. ST is the Coptic letter ⲋ (“ⲥⲟⲟⲩ” or “soou”). Crowley continues this tradition by assigning this letter to Kether in 777, Column LI.

So by means of its association with 31 and Kether, ShT is identical with the (N)One at the foundation of Thelemic ontology and theology.

But ShT has an additional function. It also indicates the Beast and Babalon conjoined. It is a sexual formula. This sexual formula is indicated by how it is represented in Reguli on the human body and on the Tree of Life.

In the ritual, Aiwass, Therion, and Babalon are attributed to the cross paths of the Tree of Life: Daleth, Teth, and Pe respectively. The cross paths are important as they mediate between the Pillar of Severity and the Pillar of Mercy.

Tree of Life emphasizing the cross paths of Daleth (Aiwass), Teth (Therion), and Peh (Babalon), and how they add up to 93.

As taught in the Golden Dawn 4°=7 ritual, the left pillar, the Pillar of Severity, is associated with the letter Shin, which is assigned to elemental fire, while the right pillar, the Pillar of Mercy, is Mem or elemental water. The Middle Pillar is then Aleph, which is elemental air. Fire is archetypally masculine, water feminine, and air androgyne.

Diagram of the three pillars of the Tree of Life, assigned to Shin/Fire, Aleph/Air, and Mem/Water respectively.

However, these sexual characteristics are not assigned to the pillars in a straightforward way. While the Pillar of Severity is fiery and masculine, the topmost sephira, Binah, is archetypally feminine. She is the supernal Mother. And opposite her, on the Pillar of Mercy, we find Chokmah, which is archetypally masculine, the supernal Father. They are “reflected” in Netzach (masculine-feminine) and Hod (feminine-masculine) respectively, as Kether is reflected in Tiphareth. This reflection occurs both horizontally across the Tree (Binah and Netzach and Chokmah and Hod are opposite each other across the Middle Pillar) and vertically down the Tree (they are opposite Tiphareth). The vertical and horizontal “components” of Liber V vel Reguli work with this double-reflection of sexual energy.

One can view this double-reflection of magical sexual polarity taking place on the Tree as a movement of energy down the Tree of Life from Kether into the subsequent Sephiroth along the paths. One androgyne current emerging from Kether, represented by the path of Aleph, becomes masculine upon reaching Chokmah. There it progresses down the tree along the archetypally masculine paths of Vau, Yod, Ayin, and Resh, into Yesod. In Yesod it is met by a complementary feminine path, originating with Beth’s entry into Binah, and progressing down the Tree along the paths of Cheth, Lamed, Nun, and Tzaddi.

Tree of Life emphasizing the paths of A-V-Y-O-R and B-Ch-L-N-Tz as they descend from Kether into Yesod.

This exchange and “mixing in Yesod” is represented on the Art card, Atu XIV. Art is a hieroglyph of the path of Samekh, which links Yesod with Tiphareth. Here we see the Lion and the Eagle which have exchanged their colors as represented earlier on the Lovers card, Atu VI. If the paths on the Tree represent these essences or potencies, then they were exchanged at Tiphareth, a sphere which, among other things, is the site in which the Rose (Kteis) and Cross (phallus) are conjoined. The caldron is Yesod, which is linked with the sexual organs and the Muladhara cakra. We see spiritual air—presumably the Medicine of Metals—rising out of the caldron, represented by the arrow, as the Caput Mortuum (skull) drops to the bottom.

The cross paths are important to this process, because they are mediating the exchange of energies down the Tree. They are in a sense guiding and determining the separation and mixing of these sexual polarities. That these paths add up to 93 is significant. It tells us that the 93 magical current has something essential to do with the production of sexual polarity from out of androgyny and back again. It has to do with the movement of 0 to 2 (magick) and from 2 to 0 (mysticism), both as a personal spiritual journey and as a cosmological process. Aiwass, Therion, and Babalon are personages representing these governing principles.

For me personally, this is not simply theory. When I’m serving as Priest in the Gnostic Mass, I picture this exchange of energy occurring—moving down and wrapping around and joining mine and the Priestess’s hearts—at the consummation of the eucharist. We are linked energetically at the levels of mind (Daleth and Kether), heart (Teth and Tiphareth), and body (Peh and Yesod). The Tree of Life with the cross-paths can also be used as scaffolding for visualizations during sex magick workings.

If the horizontal component is governed by Aiwass, Therion, and Babalon, the vertical component is governed by Nuit, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, and Hadit. Nuit is associated with the Sahasrara cakra/Kether/the Three Negative Veils; Ra-Hoor-Khuit is linked specifically with the Anahata cakra and the paths of Teth, Yod, and Lamed (which add to 49), but also arguably with the entirety of the Tree in manifestation (hence Microprosopus); and Hadit is linked with the Muladhara cakra and Yesod and/or Malkuth (Crowley refers to this as the “seed” in his commentary).

The conjunction of Nuit and Hadit produces the godhead, Ra-Hoor-Khuit (or Heru-Ra-Ha, so as to include Hoor-paar-kraat). Hadit, as the consciousness or point of view of the individual, is implanted in Malkuth as a seed represented by Heh-final, the Virgin Daughter whose destiny is to be seated upon the Throne of the Mother (Binah). Crowley consistently related the three deities of the Book of the Law to the Tree of Life this way.

So one thing to take note of when attempting to understand LAShTAL is that it shares the same form or structure taken by these three personages in relation to the Tree of Life. You have two simple extremes mediated by a complex third thing sharing characteristics with both of the extremes. Indeed, the entire Tree of Life itself—or Ra-Hoor-Khuit—could be seen as a means of mediating between these oppositions.

LA and AL shown as two extremes with the Tree of Life (ShT/Ra-Hoor-Khuit) shown mediating them.

But how does the introduction of the horizontal component modify or inform this cosmological and theological process of the implantation, germination, and return of Hadit to the source?

The cross-paths enter into this as they are involved in the drawing of the Hexagram of Nature on the Tree of Life. Generally speaking, the hexagram is the symbol of the union of the individual with the divine, with the mirroring in the microcosm of the structure of the macrocosm. As such it is symbolic of the individual who has become divine. The cross-paths of Teth and Pe are involved in this hexagram—in fact are the only actual paths involved—as they form bases of the two interlocking triangles.

Tree of Life emphasizing how the path of Teth forms the base of a triangle linking Chesed and Geburah with Yesod, and how Peh forms the base of a triangle linking Hod and Netzach with Daath.

Typically the upward-pointing triangle represents fire and is therefore masculine, while the downward-pointing triangle is water and feminine. But a different connotation is suggested in Reguli where the base of the upward-pointing triangle is assigned to Babalon, and the base of the downward-pointing triangle is Therion. The polarities are reversed.

Same as the previous diagram, only now the downward pointing triangle is red, and the upward pointing triangle is blue. This is the Holy Hexagram projected on to the Tree of Life.

This suggests not so much the familiar Hexagram of Nature but rather the Magical Hexagram as described by Crowley in the Book of Lies, where fire points down and water up.

In the ordinary Hexagram, the Hexagram of nature, the red triangle is upwards, like fire, and the blue triangle downwards, like water. In the magical hexagram this is reversed; the descending red triangle is that of Horus, a sign specially revealed by him personally, at the Equinox of the Gods. (It is the flame desending upon the altar, and licking up the burnt offering.) The blue triangle represents the aspiration, since blue is the colour of devotion, and the triangle, kinetically considered, is the symbol of directed force.

Book of Lies, Chapter 69

Crowley explicitly associates force with the path of Teth in Reguli, as he associates fire with Shin. Hence ShT represents “force and fire”. In the context of the ritual, these triangles would interlock and interpenetrate around Tiphareth, representative of the Anahata cakra, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, and, as we saw earlier, Kteis-Phallus or the Rose-Cross.

As the upward-pointing blue triangle represents Babalon, the Mother, we could attribute the three Mother Letters (Aleph, Mem, and Shin) to its three points, as we might attribute the masculine trinity, IAO, to the three points of the downward-pointing red triangle. Their conjunction gives us the word AShIAVM, which has the same value as MShICh (Messiah) and NChSh (Nechesh, Serpent).

The Messiah or Anointed One affects the union between the individual and the divine. The Serpent in the Garden of Eden is the initiator of mankind into knowledge or gnosis. In Thelemic soteriology, this saving, initiating power is not one individual but rather the conjoining of two individuals, Therion (666) and Babalon (156). And the way in which this union between the divine and the individual is affected is sexual in nature.

The Holy Hexagram, now with 666/IAO and 156/HHH attributed to the red and blue triangles respectively.

In this formula AShIAVM, the three mother letters are concealed by the letter Heh, giving us AHIHVH, the Great Name which is the conjunction of AHIH and IHVH.

AHIH is the godname of Kether. It represents existence in is most abstract quality or Macroprosopus. In the context of Reguli, it is LA, Nuit and Hadit conjoined.

IHVH represents god in manifestation or Microprosopus. It enumerates to 26 by gematria, which is 13 x 2. 13 is the enumeration of AChD or unity. IHVH therefore expresses unity (AL) by means of duality (ShT or Beast and Babalon conjoined). It is the way in which nullity expresses itself in manifestation or as the Tree of Life or 0=2.

Antonio Lau has come to a similar conclusion in his analysis of how the formula of AHIHVH relates to the Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram:

The conclusion would be that all the points of the Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram (32) on the whole create another Hexagram that symbolizes the Qabalistic Zero, radiating from the center of the Column and flooding the whole Circle with the Limitless Light of Ain Soph Aur. And the Hexagram is the formula of unifying opposites (positive and negative, active and passive, male and female), by the 0=2 Equation.

This sheds light on what it means that Reguli is meant to “invoke the energies of the Aeon of Horus.” The “first gesture” of the ritual—the drawing of the Elevenfold Seal—is depicting the unfolding process leading to the creation of the cosmos. It is also establishing the scaffolding—the cross-paths—that allow for the process of return. The “second gesture”—in which the Son raises the Daughter to the Throne of the Mother—is the familiar process of Tetragrammaton which, by means of sexual interaction between Son and Daughter, the process of return takes place. What Reguli adds to this conception is the idea that Nuit and Hadit (Daughter and Son) must become “sexually mature” as Babalon and Therion on their way of return.

AHIHVH is important for other aspects of Crowley’s spirituality. He relates it to the Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram. By means of the LRP it is indirectly connected with the production of the Medicine of Metals. The connection with the Medicine of Metals is made explicit through Crowley’s discussion of the production of the Eucharist of Six Elements in Magick in Theory and Practice Chapter 20. The production of this medicine is a secret guarded by the Sanctuary of the Gnosis of O.T.O. This formula is also the guiding structure behind Liber HHH, which describes some of the work of the Outer College of A∴A∴. At least one Thelemic author, J. Daniel Gunther, has made an extensive case for the AHIHVH formula being essential to a comprehension of Thelemic initiation in general. (See Initiation in the Aeon of the Child and The Angel and the Abyss.)

Frontispiece of Initiation in the Aeon of the Child depicting the AHIHVH hexagram with various occult symbolism projected over it.

As I said in my recent talk on art and magick, when a magical formula is involved in so many disparate aspects of Crowley’s magick—especially when it illuminates mysteries of both A∴A∴ and O.T.O.—you can bet it is essential to an understanding of Thelemic spirituality generally. I hope to deal with this formula in greater depth in subsequent writings, exploring more fully its importance for Thelemic magick generally.

As for Reguli, my treatment of it here is not exhaustive. I have hardly dealt with the function of the cross-path of Daleth or how Aiwass figures into all of this. (There’s another hexagram that uses the path of Daleth as the base of a triangle.) I didn’t even touch on the elemental attributions of the deities/quarters, and I barely dealt with the significance of the cakras. But hopefully this shows the way in which Reguli is expressive of the underlying ontology and theology of Thelema and how the sex magick implicit in it relates to Crowley’s broader spiritual concern as expressed in the AHIHVH formula.

Five concentric circles. Outer circle: absence, time, other, appearance. Second circle: presence, eternity, self, reality. Third circle: transcendence, immortality, love, incantation. Fourth circle: mystery, eternal creation, divine self, magical universe. Innermost circle: Secret of the Holy Graal.

The Secret of the Holy Graal

Five concentric circles. Outer circle: absence, time, other, appearance. Second circle: presence, eternity, self, reality. Third circle: transcendence, immortality, love, incantation. Fourth circle: mystery, eternal creation, divine self, magical universe. Innermost circle: Secret of the Holy Graal.

Not sure if I ever offered an explanation of my intention in making this.

This was meant to visualize some insights I had while listening to Alan Chapman’s Magia Teachings and reading Peter Kingsley’s book on Carl Jung, Catafalque, last summer.

The outer circle represents forms of absence. The flow of time is the absence of presence or the now. The other is the absence of self or self-subsistence. Appearance is the absence of reality.

Opposed to absence is the second circle of presence. Eternity is opposed to time by standing outside of it. It is the eternal present or the eternal now. Self is opposed to other. It is that which subsists, that which possesses itself. Reality is opposed to mere appearance by being the opposite of illusion.

Philosophy and spirituality aim to overcome absence and to achieve presence. They aim at timeless truth, the One Self or One Itself, the reality that lies behind the mere flow of appearances.

But overcoming absence is merely the first stage of the process. The next level of insight requires one to find absence in presence: eternity in the here and now, self in other and other in self, reality in appearance. Once both presence and absence are found in one another, their duality is transcended.

The union of time and eternity is immortality.

The union of self and other is love.

The union of appearance and reality is incantation or magical speech.

Aleister Crowley grasps this non-duality of duality and non-duality through the idea of 0=2. But 0=2 is not the mystery itself but rather the gateway to the mystery. 0=2 is the portal through which Thelemic spirituality opens on to the subterranean current of mystery underlying human transcendence as such.

Now we encounter eternal creation as the characteristic activity of the immortal God.

We find the divine self as the the loving comportment of All with Itself.

And we find the magical universe as the self-speaking totality.

Beyond even that mystery there is the mixing bowl or kratēr in which All is manifest: the divine individual, the sōtēr or the Holy Graal.