Arashizuru It represented an Angel or Messenger blowing a trumpet, attached to which was a flag, bearing the symbol of the Aeon of Osiris… The card therefore represented the crwoley of the world by Fire. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. I find that most Thelemites are some form of naturalists. Julien marked it as to-read May 30, Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers. Preview — Berashith by Aleister Crowley. Lists with This Book.
|Published (Last):||12 October 2019|
|PDF File Size:||12.88 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.55 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Thou wilt not comprehend it, as when understanding some common thing. Of Mohammedanism I shall not now treat, as, in whatever light we may decide to regard it and its esoteric schools are often orthodox , in any case it must fall under one of the three heads of Nihilism, Advaitism, and Dvaitism.
Taking the ordinary hypothesis of the universe, that of its infinity, or at any rate that of the infinity of God, or of the infinity of some substance or idea actually existing, we first come to the question of the possibility of the coexistence of God and man. The Christians, in the category of the existent, enumerate among other things, whose consideration we may discard for the purposes of this argument, God, an infinite being; man; Satan presumably, finite beings. These are not aspects of one being, but separate and even antagonistic existences.
All are equally real: we cannot accept mystics of the type of Caird as being orthodox exponents of the religion of Christ. The Hindus enumerate Brahma, infinite in all dimensions and directions - indistinguishable from the Pleroma of the Gnostics - and Maya, illusion.
This is in a sense the antithesis of noumenon and phenomenon, noumenon being negated of all predicates until it becomes almost extinguished in the Nichts under the title of Alles. The Buddhists express no opinion. Let us consider the force-quality in the existences conceived of by these two religions respectively, remembering that the God of the Christians is infinite, and yet discussing the alternative if we could suppose him to be a finite God.
In any equilibrated system of forces, we may sum and represent them as a triangle or a series of triangles which again resolve into one. In any moving system, if the resultant motion be applied in a contrary direction, the equilibrium can also be thus represented.
And if any one of the original forces in such a system may be considered, that one is equal to the resultant of remainder. Then of our forces as M is also the resultant of G, S and - x.
So that we can regard either the supreme, and there is no reason for worshipping one rather than another. All are finite. This argument the Christians clearly see: hence the development of God from the petty joss of Genesis to the intangible, but self-contradictory spectre of today.
But if other forces can G be infinite, the have no possible effect on it. We must reject it, unless we want to fall into Positivism, Materialism, or something of the sort.
But if, then, we call God infinite, how are we to regard man and Satan? The fallacy lies not in my demonstration which is also that of orthodoxy that a finite God is absurd, but in the assumption that man has any real force. In any category, infinity excludes finity, unless that finity be an identical part of that infinity.
In the category of existing things, space being infinite, for on that hypothesis we are still working, either matter fills or does not fill it.
If the former, matter is infinitely great; if the latter, infinitely small. Whether the matter-universe be light-years in diameter or half a mile makes no difference; it is infinitely small - in effect, Nothing.
The unmathematical illusion that it does exist is what the Hindus call Maya. If, on the other hand, the matter-universe is infinite, Brahma and God are crowded out, and the possibility of religion is equally excluded.
We may now shift our objective. The Hindus cannot account intelligibly, though they try hard, for Maya, the cause of all suffering. Their position is radically weak, but at least we may say for them that they have tried to square their religion with their common sense.
The Christians, on the other hand, though they saw whither, the Manichean Heresy 2 must lead, and crushed it, have not officially admitted the precisely similar conclusion with regard to man, and denied the existence of the human soul as distinct from the divine soul. Trismegistus, Iamblicus, Porphyry, Boehme, and the mystics generally have of course substantially done so, though occasionally with rather inexplicable reservations, similar to those made in some cases by the Vedantists themselves.
Man then being disproved, God the person disappears forever, and becomes Atman, Pleroma, Ain Soph, what name you will, infinite in all directions and in all categories - to deny one is to destroy the entire argument and throw us back to our old Dvaitistic bases. I entirely sympathize with my unhappy friend Rev. Mansel, B. But on his basal hypothesis of an infinite God, infinite space, time, and so on, no other conclusion is possible. Dean Mansel is found in the impossible position of one who will neither give up his premises nor dispute the validity of logical processes, but who shrinks in horror from the inevitable conclusion; he supposes there must be something wrong somewhere, and concludes that the sole use of reason is to discover its own inferiority to faith.
As Deussen 4 well points out, faith in the Christian sense merely amounts to being convinced on insufficient grounds. Why should an infinite Ego fill a non-existent body with imaginary food cooked in thought only over an illusionary fire by a cook who is not there? Why should infinite power use such finite means, and very often fail even then? There is no room for worship or morality in the Advaitist system.
All the specious pleas of the Bhagavad-Gita, and the ethical works of Western Advaitist philosophers, are more or less consciously confusion of thought.
But no subtlety can turn the practical argument; the grinning mouths of the Dvaitist guns keep the fort of Ethics, and warn metaphysics to keep off the rather green grass of religion. That its apologists should have devoted so much time, thought, scholarship, and ingenuity to this question is the best proof of the fatuity of the Advaitist position.
There is then a flaw somewhere. I boldly take up the glove against all previous wisdom, revert to the most elementary ideas of cannibal savages, challenge all the most vital premises and axiomata that have passed current coin with philosophy for centuries, and present my theory.
I clearly foresee the one difficulty, and will discuss it in advance. If my conclusions on this point are not accepted, we may at once get back to our previous irritable agnosticism, and look for our Messiah elsewhere. But if we can see together on this one point, I think things will go fairly smoothly afterwards.
Consider 6 Darkness! Can we philosophically or actually regard as different the darkness produced by interference of light and that existing in the mere absence of light? Is Unity really identical with. Charcoal and diamond are obviously different in the categories of color, crystallization, hardness, and so on; but are they not really so even in that of existence? The third example is to my mind the best.
Worked out, neither has meaning; unworked, both have meaning, and that a different meaning in one case and the other. We have thus two terms, both unreal, both inconceivable, yet both representing intelligible and diverse ideas to our minds and this is the point!
Let us apply this idea to the Beginning of all things, about which the Christians lie frankly, the Hindus prevaricate, and the Buddhists are discreetly silent, while not contradicting even the gross and ridiculous accounts of the more fantastic Hindu visionaries.
In fact, I really do claim to have re-discovered the long-lost and central Arcanum of those divine philosophers. I have no serious objection to a finite god, or gods, distinct from men and things. In fact, personally, I believe in them all, and admit them to possess inconceivable though not infinite power.
The Buddhists admit the existence of Maha-Brahma, but his power and knowledge are limited; and his agelong day must end. At the Fall, for instance, Tetragrammaton Elohim has to summon his angels hastily to guard the Tree of Life, lest he should be proved a liar.
For had it occurred to Adam to of that Tree before their transgression was discovered, or had the Serpent been aware of its properties, Adam would indeed have lived and not died. So that a mere accident saved the remnants of the already besmirched reputation of the Hebrew tribal Fetish.
When Buddha was asked how things came to be, he took refuge in silence, which his disciples very conveniently interpreted as meaning that the question tended not to edification.
I take it that the Buddha ignorant, doubtless, of algebra had sufficiently studied philosophy and possessed enough worldly wisdom to be well aware that any system he might promulgate would be instantly attacked and annihilated by the acumen of his numerous and versatile opponents.
Here you are! Three shies a penny! Change all bad arguments. When we say that the cosmos sprang from the 0, what kind of 0 do we mean? But let us suppose that these five are all. Should he cease to occupy space and to exist, his formula would then be X0.
This is the Advaitist idea of the future of man; his personality, bereft of all its qualities, disappears and is lost, while in its place arises the impersonal Unity, The Pleroma, Parabrahma, or the Allah of the Unity-adoring followers of Mohammed.
To the Muslim fakir, Allah is by no means a personal God. Unity is thus unaffected, whether or no it be extended in any of the categories. But we have already agreed to look to 0 for the Uncaused. If our 0 was the ordinary 0 of mathematics, there was not truly absolute 0, for 0 is, as I have shown, dependent on the idea of categories.
If these existed, then the whole question is merely thrown back; we must reach a state in which the 0 is absolute. Not only must we get rid of all subjects, but of all predicates. By 0 in mathematics we really mean 0n, where n is the final term of a natural scale of dimensions, categories, or predicates.
Our Cosmic Egg, then, from which the present universe arose, was Nothingness, extended in no categories, or, graphically, This expression is in its present form meaningless. Let us discover its value by a simple mathematical process! It happened, when this our Great inversion took place, from the essence of all nothingness to finity extended in innumerable categories, that an incalculably vast system was produced.
Merely by chance, chance in the truest sense of the term, we are found with gods, men, stars, planets, devils, colors, forces, and all the materials of the Cosmos: and with time, space, and causality, the conditions limiting and involving them all. The idea of existence was just as much unformulated as that of toasted cheese. The idea of an absolute and of an infinite 11 God is relegated to the limbo of all similar idle and pernicious perversions of truth.
Infinity remains, but only as a mathematical conception as impossible in nature as the square root of -I. Against all this mathematical, or semi-mathematical, reasoning, it may doubtless be objected that our whole system of numbers, and of manipulating them is merely a series of conventions. But this, theoretically true, is practically absurd. So also my equation, fantastic as it may seem, has a perfect and absolute parallel in logic.
I imply that the black pig is in the sty. All I have done is to represent the conversion as a change, rather than as merely another way of expressing the same thing. But the whole thing is inconceivable - to ratiocination, though not to thought.
It is the Advaita blunder to make it so; and many a schoolboy has fed off the mantelpiece for less. There is yet another proof- the proof by exclusion. I have shown, and metaphysicians practically admit, the falsity alike of Dvaitism and Advaitism. The third, the only remaining theory, this theory, must, however antecedently improbable, however difficult to assimilate, be true. There is not, and could not be, any cause.
Les 5 premiers versets de la Genèse : Bereshit
Thou wilt not comprehend it, as when understanding some common thing. Of Mohammedanism I shall not now treat, as, in whatever light we may decide to regard it and its esoteric schools are often orthodox , in any case it must fall under one of the three heads of Nihilism, Advaitism, and Dvaitism. Taking the ordinary hypothesis of the universe, that of its infinity, or at any rate that of the infinity of God, or of the infinity of some substance or idea actually existing, we first come to the question of the possibility of the co-existence of God and man. The Christians, in the category of the existent, enumerate among other things, whose consideration we may discard for the purposes of this argument, God, an infinite being; man; Satan presumably, finite beings. These are not aspects of one being, but separate and even antagonistic existences. All are equally real: we cannot accept mystics of the type of Caird as being orthodox exponents of the religion of Christ.
Berashith: An Essay in Ontology
Samuzshura This is given further explanation in Book of Lies ch. Brandon added it Jan 22, Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Nikolas Eccher added berashkth Dec 24, Darren Mitton marked it as to-read Oct 22, Berashith An Essay In Ontology bdrashith some remarks on ceremonial magic man, of a daring nature, thou subtle production! Learn more about Amazon Prime. Eschatology — The Marker of Christian Occultism. There is an ongoing and perhaps eternal debate about whether Thelema is a religion, philosophy, or way of life or all of them or none of them. I am beginning to suspect myself of crowleg head with all its cohort of ills.