Thelema and Postmodernism

by Uncategorized

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.

The Power Behind the Mass

by Uncategorized

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.

The Food of the Gods

by Uncategorized

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.

It made its way into my post on the upward and downward paths in the Mass. It showed up in my NOTOCON talk. It’s lurking in the background of my recent article on healing and magic.

It really is just taking over.

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.

This is the means by which one becomes a god.

Harpocrates and the Gnostic Mass

by Uncategorized

Harpocrates occupies an ambiguous spot in Thelemic theology. On the one hand, he is Aleph or Kether: spirit in its most transcendent form. On the other hand, he is Heh-final or Malkuth: spirit in Assiah. Kether is in Malkuth and vice versa—As Above, So Below, etc.

Kether is the “Child” of Nuit and any Hadit. “Nu being 56 and Had 9, their conjunction results in 65, Adonai, the Holy Guardian Angel.” (Old Comment on AL I.1)

In Liber LXV, V:65, we read:

So also is the end of the book, and the Lord Adonai is about it on all sides like a Thunderbolt, and a Pylon, and a Snake, and a Phallus, and in the midst thereof he is like the Woman that jetteth out the milk of the stars from her paps; yea, the milk of the stars from her paps.

Thus we may attribute each of the four elements to a letter of the formula ADNI in the following fashion:

Aleph = Air
Daleth = Fire
Nun = Water
Yod = Earth

If we assign these counterclockwise starting in the east, we get the usual attributions from the Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram.

If we place Heh-final (Harpocrates) in the midst thereof, we get a pentagrammaton enumerating to 70, the value of Ayin, which is attributed to the Lord of the Gates of Matter, the Devil, and Baphomet. (See Gunther, Initiation in the Aeon of the Child (2009), p.152.) This matches with Crowley’s claim in The Book of Thoth that, “There is no doubt that this mysterious figure [Baphomet] is a magical image of this same idea [embodied in figures like the Fool and Harpocrates].”

Thus we might think of Baphomet (the “product” of the Gnostic Mass) as the form taken by the Holy Guardian Angel in Malkuth or perhaps in Assiah.

There is some further justification for this idea in Magick in Theory and Practice, Chapter V:

The first process is to find the I in the V — initiation, purification, finding the Secret Root of oneself, the epicene Virgin who is 10 (Malkuth) but spelt in full 20 (Jupiter).

This Yod in the “Virgin” expands to the Babe in the Egg by formulating the Secret Wisdom of Truth of Hermes in the Silence of the Fool. He acquires the Eye-Wand, beholding the acting and being adored. The Inverted Pentagram — Baphomet — the Hermaphrodite fully grown — begets himself on himself as V again.

If the particle the Priest breaks off the bread is I, Yod, or his Secret Root, then putting it in the cup of wine (“the essence of the joy of the Earth” or Malkuth) would be equivalent to creating the “Yod in the ‘Virgin'”. And indeed, this is the very process Crowley describes as leading to the formation or expression of this Yod as Baphomet.

Interestingly the colors attributed to spirit in Assiah are red, blue, yellow, black, and white, the colors worn by the five officers of the Gnostic Mass.

This is another way in which the Gnostic Mass can be seen as an invocation of the Holy Guardian Angel on the material plane (i.e., in a physical talisman like the Eucharist).

On the Dual Aspects of the Priest and the Eucharist in the Gnostic Mass

by Uncategorized

ABSTRACT
The Lord Secret and Most Holy in the Gnostic Mass is the Secret Root of the self, symbolized in the Mass by the serpent crown and the particle broken off the host. It is represented by I/Yod in the magical formula VIAOV. By being depressed into the cup of wine (the priest’s “blood”), it passes into pure potentiality or spirit, represented by the letter A in VIAOV. This is identical with it becoming Harpocrates or the Holy Guardian Angel. From there it moves back into manifestation, now with an added solar character. This is represented by O in VIAOV and is called the Lion-Serpent or BAPHOMET. BAPHOMET is therefore an eidolon of the Holy Guardian Angel of each, having an extroverted, solar nature and an introverted, serpentine nature. While the introverted aspect, the Lord Secret and Most Holy, reflects the Secret Self of the individual, the extroverted aspect, the Lord Visible and Sensible, represents that very same principle in manifestation, utilizing the process of life and death for its expression down the generations. It is by virtue of the Priest embodying both of these aspects (as symbolized by the mantles granted him by the Priestess) that he is able to transform a symbolic part of his own body into this eidolon for public use.

One of the curious features of Liber XV: The Gnostic Mass is the mention and invocation of two Lords. One of these two Lords corresponds with the Sun.

By the power of ☩ Iron, I say unto thee, Arise. In the name of our Lord the ☩ Sun

Thou that art One, our Lord in the Universe the Sun

Lord visible and sensible of whom this earth is but a frozen spark turning about thee with annual and diurnal motion

Let this offering be borne upon the waves of Æthyr to our Lord and Father the Sun that travelleth over the Heavens in his name ON.

Alongside this Lord Visible and Sensible, sometimes in the same passage, we find reference made to a Secret and Ineffable Lord.

I believe in one secret and ineffable LORD

By the power of ☩ Iron, I say unto thee, Arise. In the name of our Lord the ☩ Sun, and of our Lord ☩ …

Lord secret and most holy, source of light, source of life, source of love, source of liberty

Lord most secret, bless this spiritual food unto our bodies

The Priest of the Gnostic Mass represents both of these Lords and acts on behalf of both of them in the ceremony. We know this, because the Priestess bequeaths two mantles to the Priest at the beginning of the ceremony: the robe and the crown. Donning him with the robe, she says, “Be the flame of the Sun thine ambience, O thou PRIEST of the SUN!” Then placing the crown upon his forehead she says, “Be the Serpent thy crown, O thou PRIEST of the LORD!” By making him the Priest of the Sun, the Priestess is arguably also placing him in the role of CHAOS, who we learn from the first article of the Creed is “the sole viceregent of the Sun upon the Earth”. By making him Priest of the Lord (Ineffable), the Priestess now also associates the Priest with those qualities of the Lord mentioned in the second Collect: “Lord secret and most holy, source of Light, source of Life, source of Love, source of Liberty”.

In chapter V of Magick in Theory and Practice, Crowley indirectly associates this Lord Secret and Most Holy with the I of the VIAOV formula by means of these four attributes, and by extension with Yod .

Iota is the secret Life ………….. Serpent
— Light …………. Lamp
— Love ………….. Wand
— Liberty ……….. Wings
— Silence ……….. Cloak”
These symbols are all shewn in the Atu “The Hermit”.

They are the powers of the Yod, whose extension is the Vau.

Yod is the Hand wherewith man does his Will.

Crowley expands on the relationship between this Secret and Ineffable Lord and the individual later in the same chapter:

The first process is to find the I in the V—initiation, purification, finding the Secret Root of oneself, the epicene Virgin who is 10 (Malkuth) but spelt in full 20 (Jupiter).

This can be understood as a brief description of the process of initiation in the context of A∴ A∴ whereby one attains to the Knowledge and Conversation of one’s Holy Guardian Angel. But this formula also has special significance for the Mass. In Part VI of the Mass, the Priest had declared the host to be his own body with the words “TOUTO ESTI TO SÔMA MOU” (“this is my body”). Then in Part VIII of the Mass, he breaks off a piece of this host and declares it to be his “seed”: “TOUTO ESTI TO SPERMA MOU” (“this is my seed”). This should be understood as an example of the Priest (V) isolating the Secret Root of himself (I) as symbolized by the bread particle. But this Secret Root or sperma of the Priest is identical with the Lord Secret and Most Holy. It is by virtue of his office of Priest of the (Ineffable) Lord that the Priest is able to perform this function in the ceremony. The symbol of this office further strengthens this association, as the serpent is in the shape of a spermatozoon.

The particle is placed on the tip of the lance, and, the Priest clasping the cup, the Priest and Priestess together depress the tip of the lance with the particle into the wine in the cup. Shortly thereafter, the Priest says, “O Lion and O Serpent that destroy the destroyer, be mighty among us.” From the third article of the Creed, we know that the Lion-Serpent invoked here is none other than BAPHOMET. Crowley’s commentary on the formula of VIAOV sheds light on this section of the Mass as well:

This Yod in the “Virgin” expands to the Babe in the Egg by formulating the Secret Wisdom of Truth of Hermes in the Silence of the Fool. He acquires the Eye-Wand, beholding the acting and being adored. The Inverted Pentagram—Baphomet—the Hermaphrodite fully grown—begets himself on himself as V again.

The bread particle or sperma—the Lord Secret and Most Holy—upon being depressed into the “blood” of the Priest in the cup “expands to the Babe in the Egg,” which earlier in this chapter Crowley associates with Harpocrates. In the New Comment on AL I.7, Crowley states:

Hoor-paar-Kraat or Harpocrates, the “Babe in the Egg of Blue”, is not merely the God of Silence in a conventional sense. He represents the Higher Self, the Holy Guardian Angel. The connexion is with the symbolism of the Dwarf in Mythology. He contains everything in Himself, but is unmanifested

In other words, the isolated “Secret Root” of the Priest—his sperma—has become a Holy Guardian Angel. This was accomplished “by formulating the Secret Wisdom of Truth of Hermes in the Silence of the Fool”. Hermes or Thoth is associated with the path of Beth on the Tree of Life, whereas the Fool is associated with the path of Aleph. Both extend from/lead into Kether. Crowley explains the connection between Harpocrates, Aleph, Beth, and Kether in a passage from the Book of Thoth:

Arriving at highly sophisticated theogony, there appears a perfectly clear and concrete symbol of this doctrine. Harpocrates is the God of Silence; and this silence has a very special meaning. (See attached essay, Appendix.) The first is Kether, the pure Being invented as an aspect of pure Nothing. In his manifestation, he is not One, but Two; he is only One because he is 0. He exists; Eheieh, his divine name, which signifies “I Am” or “I shall Be”, is merely another way of saying that he Is Not; because One leads to nowhere, which is where it came from. So the only possible manifestation is in Two, and that manifestation must be in silence, because the number 3, the number of Binah-Understanding-has not yet been formulated. In other words, there is no Mother. All one has is the impulse of this manifestation; and that must take place in silence. That is to say, there is as yet no more than the impulse, which is unformulated; it is only when it is interpreted that it becomes the Word, the Logos. (See Atu I.)

We might say that the Holy Spirit or Holy Guardian Angel—represented here by Aleph—is released from the sperma—represented by I or Yod—upon its dissolution in the “blood” or wine. This resultant Holy Spirit is identical with Kether, which itself represents All (Ain Sof) = None (Ain). It is pure potentiality which can only be turned into some state of affairs by means of the utterance of the Word. To put the same thing another way, the Holy Spirit has been created by the movement from 2 to 0, which we might call the process of mysticism. It can now be turned into a state of affairs by the opposite movement from 0 to 2, which is called magick. The first process is comprehended in the path of Aleph (the Fool), the second in the path of Beth (the Magus). The first requires silence, the second incantation or the Word.

In connection with the same passage from The Book of Thoth we read:

The Fool is also, evidently, an aspect of Pan; but this idea is shewn in his fullest development by Atu XV, whose letter is the semi-vowel A’ain, cognate with Aleph.

This is mirrored in the passage from MITAP we were just considering:

He acquires the Eye-Wand, beholding the acting and being adored. The Inverted Pentagram—Baphomet—the Hermaphrodite fully grown—begets himself on himself as V again.

That the Gnostic Mass is aimed at the production of such a being is given in its title of Liber XV, XV being the Roman numeral associated with the Devil card depicting Baphomet. Baphomet is described in the Creed and in Part VIII of the Mass as the Lion-Serpent. In his commentary to AL II.8, Crowley says, “Harpocrates is also the Dwarf-Soul, the Secret Self of every man, the Serpent with the Lion’s Head.” Again, we see the close association between the Holy Guardian Angel and the Eucharist of the Mass, but rather than being in its unmanifest form as Aleph, it has now developed into its manifest form of Baphomet or the Lion-Serpent. The original serpent or spermatozoon of the Priest dissolved into (N)one, only to reemerge with an added leonine (solar) aspect. It was reduced to 1 (the particle), then to none (at HRILIU becoming Aleph), now to reemerge as 2 with the dual form of Lion-Serpent.

The Lion is associated with Leo, which is ruled by the Sun (Lord Visible and Sensible). This is Horus or the extroverted aspect of Heru-Ra-Ha or the Holy Guardian Angel. The serpent is one of three emblems associated with Scorpio (the others being the eagle and the scorpion). Scorpio is attributed to the path of Nun, to which is assigned Atu XIII, Death. Death is the ordeal of the Second Grade of A∴ A∴, Adeptus, wherein Knowledge & Conversation occurs. The serpentine aspect of the Eucharist therefore represents the destructive or corrosive influence of the Holy Guardian Angel on the aspirant. “Serpent” is also the meaning of “Teth,” the path on the Tree of Life associated with Leo and Atu XI which depicts Beast and Babalon conjoined. This is the introverted or Harpocrates aspect of Heru-Ra-Ha. The union of these two symbols in the path of Teth strongly implies that we are not dealing here with two separate individuals (Lords) but rather with the same principle under two descriptions.

Notice how the dual character of the Eucharist as Lion-Serpent reflects the dual roles of the Priest as Priest of the Sun and Priest of the Lord. It is only by virtue of serving both of these roles that the Priest is able to create a Eucharist embodying both of these principles.

I would like to suggest that while the Lord Secret and Most Holy is the Secret Self or Secret Root of each individual, the Lord Visible and Sensible is the outward, visible, characteristic effect of that very same Self as it utilizes life and death for its own continuance “from generation to generation”. From the other side, while the Sun represents the Word Made Flesh, consciousness in time, or God manifest as sexual generation, the Secret Lord represents the utterly transcendent aspect of that process, that which maintains and promotes its self-identity paradoxically through the very same power of death which nullifies its vehicle of manifestation.

As we have seen previously, that BAPHOMET is an eight-lettered name is significant, as 8 is the number associated with Hod on the Tree of Life. This associates the Eucharist of the Mass with Mercury or Christ. This Mercurial Eucharist is a reflection of the original Mercury which served as the seed or sperma of the operation. It is precisely by virtue of its mercurial function that the Lord Secret and Most Holy is able to “continue knowledge from generation unto generation” as described in the fifth Collect. Since each one of us exists by virtue of such a transmission, the Eucharist is able to serve as an eidolon of the saving power of the Holy Spirit within each of us. Hence BAPHOMET as Lion-Serpent or God Made Flesh serves as an appropriate Christ figure for our cult.