|
Aleister Crowley Diary Entry Tuesday, 25 May 1920
All yesterday I nursed Leah [Leah Hirsig]—no time for work or play, and no inclination either, to say sooth.
9.15 p.m. Yes, I am utterly bored; the Apophis stage of some IA0,[1] I suppose. I've not even anything to wish for. Midas is my middle name. Yes, ye young alchemists beware! It sounds all right to turn silver into gold, lead into gold; but you're only too horribly likely to stumble on the secret which turns everything into gold. Once that happens, where's the value of gold? I fully understand how necessary is the final renunciation of Buddha; though renunciation is an absurd term, in the case. The problem is, however, whether this renunciation is possible, whether there is or can be, any kind of Nothing which does not contain the necessity of creation within itself.
And so I come to the end of a quite fat MS book within thirty-four days.
Love is the law, love under will.
The Sun our Father being in 4° Gemini and the Moon in 18° Virgo. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law I
In opening this new volume, which I somehow feel to be important, I ask an Oracle of Thelema.
It's: 'Through the fourth, ultimate sparks of the intimate fire.'[2]
This sounds as if it might be that The Book of the Law solved even this present problem of Nibbana for me. The theorem may be stated roughly as follows:
The universe must be expressible either as ± n, or as Zero. That is, it is either unbalanced or balanced. The former theory (Theism) is unthinkable; but Zero, when examined, proves to contain the possibility of being expressed as n - n, and this possibility must in its turn be considered as ±p. This thesis appears to me a reductio ad absurdum of the very basis of our mathematical thinking. We knew before, of course, that all reasoning is bound to end in some mystery or some absurdity; the above is only one more antimony, a little deeper than Kant's, perhaps, but of the same character. Mathematicians would doubtless agree that all signs are arbitrary, elaborations of an abacus, and that all 'truth' is merely our name for statements that content our reason; so that it is lower than reason, and within it; not higher and beyond, as transcendentalists argue. I seem never to have seen this point before, though 'men of sense' instinctively affirm it, I suppose. The pragmatists are mere tradesmen with their definition of Truth, as 'the useful to be thought'; but why not 'the necessary to be thought'? There is a sort of subjectivity in this view; we might put it, 'All that we can know of Truth is "that which we are bound to think" '. The search for Truth amounts, then, to the result of the analysis of the Mind; and here let us remember my fear of the results of that analysis as I expressed them a month ago.
(Digression: I've been regretting the Form of this Diary; but it's quite right that these speculations should alternate with the record of the purchase of a pair of socks!)
This analysis is the right method after all. Now, are we justified in assuming, as we always do, that our reason is either correct or incorrect? That if any proposition can be shown to be congruous with 'A is A' it is 'true', and so on? Does the 'reason' of the oyster comply with the same canon as man's? We assume it. We make the necessity in our thought the standard of the Laws of Nature; and this implicitly declares Reason to be Absolute. This has nothing to do with the weakness or error in any one mind or in all minds; all that we rely on is the existence of some purely mental standard by which we could always correct our thinking, if we knew how. It is then this power which constrains our thought, to, which our minds owe fealty, that we call 'Truth'; and this 'Truth' is not a proposition at all, but a 'Law'. We cannot think what it is, obviously, as it is a final condition of philosophical thought in the same way as Space and Time are conditions of phenomenal thought. But can there be some third type of thought which can escape the bonds of that, as that can of this ? Samadhic realization, one is tempted to answer—while angels hesitate. All my 'philosophic' thought, as above, is direct reflection upon the meaning of Samadhic experience. Is it simply that the reflections are distorted and dim? I have shown the impossibility of any true Zero, and thus destroyed every axiom, blown up the foundation of my mind. In failing to distinguish between None and Two, I cannot even cling to the straw of 'phases', since Time and Space are long since perished. None is Two, without conditions; and therefore it is a positive idea, and we are just as right to inquire how it came to be as in the case of Haeckel's monad, or one's aunt's umbrella. We are, however, this one small step advanced by our initiations, that we can be quite sure this 'None Two' is, since all possible theories of Ontology simplify out to it. (Now compare Liber I,[3] what is said there of the Task of a Magus, and say whether I have not achieved it!)
But I certainly see no way to get to a Nought which is not Two, that is, to the idea of Nibbana. I don't say that I want to; for I can't agree that this 'None Two' is sorrow. I acquiesce. I only felt bad about things because I was just parturiating these babe-thoughts. I was bored. I heard Alostrael [Leah Hirsig] yelling with enteritis. I had 'attained' all possible adeptship, and there was no sense in my existing any further. I couldn't enjoy attainment, because it was perfect; there was nothing 'bad' to contrast with it. Now I've blundered into the creative phase, and I'm full of Sat-Chit-Ananda to bursting!
And I note that Laotze makes no attempt to announce a Tao which is truly free from Teh. Teh is the necessary quality of Tao, even though Tao, withdrawing Teh into itself, seems to ignore the fact. The only pause I make is this, that mine own Holy Guardian Angel, Aiwaz, whose crown is Thelema, whose robe Agape, whose body the Lost Word that He declared to me, spake in Book Seven and Twenty, saying: 'Here is Nothing under its three forms'. Can there then be not only Nothing manifested, Teh or Two, a Nothing Unmanifested, Tao or Naught, but a Nothing Absolute?
11.10 p.m. Having heard from Diana ( Jane [Jane Wolfe])[4] in this town Cephaloedium[5] sacred to Her and Juppiter, that She will come to me on the Eve of Saint John[6] Her veil, I ask the Sacred Oracle of Thelema to give me word of Her.
'I know that awful sound of primal joy; let us follow on the wings of the gale even unto the holy house of Hath or; let us offer the five jewels of the cow upon her altar!'
This refers directly to some voice which is come to me when the whole world is broken up into a mighty wind as a result of my having been like a black eunuch and struck off the head of 'the light' one, the breaker of bread and salt', with the scimitar of the idea addressed as 'God' in Liber VII. This God is presumably Pan. (The passage is in the Jupiter chapter.) That is to say, I must have denied Light (black) and Creation (eunuch) and through the perfect knowledge of Pan destroyed my Desire, which is just what U5 have done in these recent Trances. (I suggest Jane, אנו = 57 and Wolfe = ואלפ (plusoאo) = 117, in all 174 = Jabulon!)[7] I go with her (I surmise) upon the wings of the gale (her inspiration?) to the holy house of Hathor (Panormus?) and offer the five jewels of the cow (the 5 senses or elements?) upon her altar (Love?).
Continuing the chapter, 'again the inhuman voice' (her further inspiration?) which causes me to rear my Titan bulk into the teeth of the gale, and swing me out over the sea. (Titan is 666; this means that I take some huge step to preach my Law.) I will now invoke her by the might of my lyre!)
1—[Crowley used the formula of IAO in this context in a particular sense. I or Isis stands for the first stage of the Work. A or Apophis for the corrupt or dark stage, Apophis being the Black Dragon. O or Osiris, the glorified body resurrected from the Abyss.] 2—[The Book of the Law, chapter 3, verse 67. There is a series of ordeals through which the aspirant to adeptship has to pass; they are described in verses 64 to 67 of this chapter. The fourth ordeal is the ultimate one—the absorption of the individual into the Cosmic Whole.] 3—[Liber I or The Book of the Magus. 'An account of the Grade of Magus, the highest grade which it is ever possible to manifest in any way whatever upon this plane. Or so it is said by the Masters of the Temple.] 4—[Crowley identifies Jane Wolfe with the lunar goddess, Diana.] 5—[The ancient name for Cefalu.] 6—[St. John, Baptist's Day is June 24.] 7—[The Hebrew for Jane Wolfe adds up to 174, which is the number of Jabulon, an important masonic password. Crowley was a 33° mason.]
|