Occulture

by Carl Abrahamsson

  Crowley formulated that the emerging aeon was in need of new magical systems: “The true magick of Horus requires the passionate union of opposites.”2 This also goes well beyond the merely sexual metaphor. Passionate doesn’t necessarily mean loving or even benevolent. Big political cataclysms during which opponents clash often lead to constructive third-side solutions, either through compromise or unexpected quantum leaps. And they can certainly be passionate. It is within the unique moment where diametrical forces clash that energy is set free. If you have insight, understanding, and respect it’s absolutely possible to direct this energy toward new goals.

  Crowley felt overwhelmed by Liber AL, meaning “honor and duty bound,” and obligated to interpret the mysteries of the text. His entire magical work and authorship would soon focus on the creation of Thelema, a philosophy stemming from Liber AL. And that’s basically how it continued all the way up until his death in 1947.

  The OTO contained a more concrete structure, which attracted Crowley. The sources of the group’s teachings and mysteries have later been criticized for being not only mystical but also mythical. According to this possible myth the order received both textual sources and oral teachings and initiations from Asia via the Middle East. These thoughts or streams were in no way new but rather signs of a budding cosmopolitan knowledge and interest at the end of the nineteenth century, via an opening up of Asia Minor as well as Major. Perhaps this was in many ways a romanticized current, but that in no way makes the phenomenon less substantial or valid. The OTO quickly became an attractive fraternity among Freemasons who were lured in by the sexual mysteries themselves but also by the pretty relevant fact that here, even women were allowed initiation. Eventually, a synthesis of both parts was created: the German organization with a distinctly Freemasonic, albeit open-minded, structure and the chaotic Great Beast Crowley’s Thelema philosophy and its magical excellence.

  The books Hymns to the Goddess and Tantra of the Great Liberation, written by Arthur Avalon (John Woodroffe) and both published in 1913, brought in Hindu magical aspects to Western minds. The slightly later Shakti & Shakta (1918) and The Serpent Power (1919) carried on Avalon’s popularization of terms or notions like tantrism and kundalini yoga. Another parallel strain was the German Richard Wilhelm, whose translations from the Chinese were relevant in this context. His Secret of the Golden Flower was published in English in 1931, with an introduction by Carl Jung, and was an important insight into sexual aspects of Taoism. Taoism had become increasingly important for Crowley after a specifically Taoist epiphany or illumination in America in 1918: “Whoever seeks eternal life must search for the place whence human nature and life originally sprang.”3

  Crowley’s integration of the I-Ching, the Book of Changes, maybe didn’t have a distinctly sexual importance, but it’s indicative of an openness to cultures whose work with sexual magical techniques had up until this time been fairly unknown, or “mythical.” It was as if the time was now ripe for universal secrets concerning proto-generative energies to emerge from the depths and be reformulated by Westerners, either through translations (Wilhelm) or synthesis (Crowley, OTO). This didn’t necessarily mean instant explanations of everything for an unenlightened mass of people but definitely an availability of material and thereby an opportunity for proper studies.

  Crowley’s Gnostic Mass, written in 1913, became central in his life and system within the OTO, and still is. The idea was that this ceremony would be as central within the OTO and Thelema as the Catholic Mass within the Roman Catholic Church. For Crowley and his followers, the ceremonial performance of an intimate act, loaded with sexual symbolism and secrets from many different esoteric traditions, became a celebration of the proto-generative force in a sublime and aestheticized form. Crowley, who was scientifically inclined, was also concerned that he “would neither make nor imply any statement about nature which would not be endorsed by the most materialistic man of science.”4

  One section in the Gnostic Mass is the honoring of what Crowley called the gnostic saints. This is a long and thorough list of mythical and actual persons who directly or, most often, indirectly, helped out with the development of Thelema. Remarkably, the list consists only of men, which has led to many interesting debates and discussions within the Thelemic environment. Should one here simply regard Crowley as a child of his times, or was he actually just a male chauvinist pig? Or could it possibly be, as has been claimed, that the potential of women lies far beyond and above these worldly men’s destinies and manifestations? In an aggressively gender-baiting intellectual climate like ours it’s not surprising that this issue stirs up emotions. But at the same time it’s easy to see who is actually placed on the altar in the ceremony and who is worshiped not only as a concrete life giver but also as a metaphorical catalyst for all creation. Perhaps this is best expressed in the famous words of wisdom: “If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.” (Margaret Thatcher)

  The list of possible female gnostic saints could of course be quite long. Perhaps it wouldn’t actually contain Margaret Thatcher, but most definitely the woman who uttered “Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?” (Mae West)

  Sexual insights, techniques, and rituals were incorporated in the existing hierarchical degree system of the OTO. Crowley explored all of this intensely after he had received a carte blanche to study the degrees, and also to develop them. In this fervent work as not only a magician but now also a sex magician, Crowley naturally needed someone to work with. Perhaps his German Freemason brothers weren’t the most attractive candidates in this sexual context. The need for willing women became clear and urgent, women who were either attracted by the “Great Beast” in Crowley, by his reputation, or who simply didn’t have a clue what was going on on the astral planes during these cosmic sexual congresses.

  For Crowley, who in his bisexuality was a submissive homosexual, it was natural to experiment with homosexual energies within ritual contexts. And here we come to an interesting magical crossroads in this reasoning and story: How do homosexual activities work in a so-called sexual-dynamic polarity? The answer is, in exactly the same way as during heterosexual congress. There may be an initial sexual confusion (for outsiders) on the energy level, meaning there are two men or two women having sex. But what it all still boils down to is that two distinctly different energies have to meet to maximize the discharge with its inherent transcendental potential. The homosexual meeting can also in itself be transcendentally liberating if you look at it in the context of, for instance, a prejudiced or condemning surrounding. In that conflict, there is also a diametrical challenge that can be overcome and used creatively.

  Crowley formulated this magical principle in the term Babalon. Going back to the romantic notion of the Whore of Babylon in the so-called Revelation of the Christian Bible, he created an attractive rebellious principle that appealed both to his own fantasies and to women with a need to free themselves from patriarchal stereotypes. But the term contains much more than his own poetic definitions of personal preferences. The Babalon concept is a central part of the sex-magical teachings and techniques within the OTO and also within other organizations. The formula I mentioned earlier, 2 = 0, is an important key to this. Two parts, or rather two poles, make possible a temporary setting free of energy in transcendence, which can be used in ritual contexts. But it’s far too easy to get stuck in stereotypes or stagnant concepts in which rebellious archetypes quickly become reactionary.*6

  One clear example of an intellectually based sadomasochism that was typical of Crowley exists in Leah Hirsig’s oath to Crowley during the early 1920s at Cefalu, where Crowley had created an Abbey of Thelema, a monastery of sorts where Thelemites could develop themselves. Hirsig was one of Crowley’s main “scarlet women” or magical partners. They worked ritually together, imbued by the Babalon concept and inspired by the force set free in their sexual escapades.

  I dedicate myself wholly without stint t
o the Great Work.

  I will raise myself in pride:

  I will follow Ra-Hoor-Khuit in His way:

  I will work the way of wickedness:

  I will kill my heart:

  I will be loud and adulterous:

  I will be covered with jewels and rich garments:

  I will be shameless before all men:

  I, for token thereof, will freely prostitute my body to the lusts of each and every Living Creature that shall desire it:

  I claim the title Mystery of Mysteries, BABALON the Great and the Number 156, and the Robe of the Woman of Whoredoms and the Cup of Abominations:

  Witness mine Hand. Alostrael5

  The question now becomes: How much of this is (a) a genuinely intuitive yet willed magical formulation; (b) Crowley’s sexual fantasies; or (c) Hirsig’s own sexual fantasies?

  Crowley’s life is undoubtedly a story of complex relationships to both men and women, sexually as well as emotionally. It’s easy to criticize too harshly and claim that he used people financially and sexually. But at the same time we mustn’t forget that his work as a philosopher and author shows a considerably more altruistic, albeit distinctly post-Nietzschean, side that encourages all men and women’s undeniable potential and right to individual liberty. Crowley is certainly not alone in creating a great pathos of freedom and benevolence on a theoretical plane while he himself at times had obvious problems with the implementation on practical levels.

  Aleister Crowley was a child of his time, whose emotional cluster was built on a hatred of his upbringing in general and of his mother in particular. His integration of a feminine sexual role in the homosexual contacts and a rough, dominant masculine role in the heterosexual contacts seems to indicate some kind of dissolution of core identity. As these behaviors were integrated before his magical awakenings and initiations, we must suppose that these later integrations of the roles as distinct magical energies to a great extent were ex post facto constructions—albeit very creative and usable ones.

  Crowley was a genuine researcher who unfortunately quite often drifted into either benevolent hedonism or malevolent addiction. It’s perfectly legitimate to ask oneself whether his own experienced shortcomings were necessities he turned into virtues. I’m thinking both of his flamboyant bisexuality and his abuse of drugs. Maybe the related stigma at the time was easier to deal with on a personal, emotional level if he created an intricate raison d’être that turned both these areas into constructive building blocks in a personal, magical universe? I have a hard time believing that the specifically transcendental aspects of both these traits were used or integrated by him fully all the time and totally consciously.

  This entire line of reasoning also leads to a metaphysical speculation about the need for development. If the distinctly magical—that is, the potentially supra-creative—lies in the discharge between diametrical poles, then routine-based “normal” polarities should eventually become dissolved or weakened. A concrete example of this could be a human relationship that is diminishing after the sexual element within the relationship has weakened.

  Crowley’s Babalon concept is not built upon the assumption that all women must be loose or emancipated on terms dictated by certain men. It is rather based on rebellion within context. Everything that moves on in routine is eventually weakened and loses its right to exist. The stereotypical image of the Babalon archetype we can see in the Lust card in the Thoth Tarot deck and within the global Thelemic community, with a naked woman straddling a lion, is far from as controversial today as it was a century or even longer ago. The sexual neuroses and bad trips of the biblical authors for a long time created enormous possibilities for magical work inside the sexual-dynamic polarity and provocation. There and then, the “scarlet woman” was a potent symbol of emancipation. The more rigid and strict the conventions, the easier to rebel and thereby set free energy for magical purposes.

  This leads on to the question: What or who is Babalon today? I don’t think it’s feminists with bright neon hair colors and hundreds of university degrees in gender studies. Nor is it politically correct Net-based hipsters and social media rabulists and fabulists who usually, paradoxically, are completely intolerant toward anyone with a divergent point of view. A Babalon today, as always, is simply the person who dares defy the current norms or hegemonies, regardless if they exist on private, sexual planes or general, existential ones. The opposition you encounter within a restrictive sphere is the actual tool that can liberate enormous energies in favor of your own creativity and success.

  This also leads on to an important aspect that must never be forgotten. We all exist within individual contexts. Crowley’s Thelema philosophy is about individualism, about an enlightened egoism in which you assume responsibility for your own life and your own choices. All collective processes eventually lead to philosophical and moral stagnation. Unfortunately, it’s in the unenlightened human nature to proceed and advance at the cost of others. What could be easier than to hide behind a group or a collective ideal and become a spokesperson for other basically free individuals without asking for permission first? Regardless if you’re a man or a woman or something else, and no matter what you fight for, I think it’s important to remember that you are only you. That personal sphere in itself is an enormous responsibility.

  16

  The Economy of Magic

  There’s No Free Lunch or Free Magical Success

  Originally a lecture delivered at Nekropolis Bogcafé in Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015.

  IN SEVERAL SEQUENCES of the TV series Carnivale we can see the protagonist Ben Hawkins heal wounds and even bring people back from the dead. It looks impressive, but the process takes a toll on the young, almost unwilling magician. It’s because he knows there’s a price to pay. Around him, the vital energy needed for the operation at hand is always sucked from someone or something else. Human beings, fields of crops, and birds perish when he transfers that energy into the dead and the injured.

  The equation is obvious and brings us to the quintessential magical dilemma: You get, you give. You give, you get. It’s there in that classic Faustian deal and it is there as a basis for all kinds of sacrificial rituals, from the smallest of cults to the greatest of the world’s religions. And we can look at it from the smallest level of personal need or greed and up to global or even cosmic interrelationships.

  Although this is essentially a well-known axiom or equation all through various myths and teachings, I still notice that many young occultists within a Western sphere school themselves, or are schooled, in a kind of smash-and-grab mentality. This undoubtedly ties in with a general Occidental mind frame in which it’s apparently possible to just get and get and get. But we all know that somewhere in a third world country or at sea rests the toxic debris and waste of that attitude, which in turn is or will be eventually impossible to escape for anyone residing on this planet.

  For the Occidental occultist mind, quite often with no ties to larger moral or religious clusters, it seems possible to command spirits, demons, or other kinds of forces merely because it’s his or her will. The Occidental presents endless series of demands, in which the mere opening of the door and greeting should bring success and manifestation. It should be made clear, though, that this is not how things work. Not on the smallest of small levels, and not on the grandest of grand scales.

  Whether looking at outer or inner process, there’s a balance that needs to be set. The equation of supply, demand, and cost is all-pervading. Everything requires something to be able to produce the force or item that’s desired. The complicated web of outer productivity seems banal but serves as a good example: someone spends time and energy to make something that is then sold to a buyer, who pays for it with the magical energy of money, that in turn has been procured somehow in other generative circles.

  This is the most basic example of a relationship that permeates everything around us and in us. It’s almost as if it’s a general fundament, a prerequisite of civilize
d life. The mere demanding without willingness to give anything back is then a suggestion of massive potential or actual failure.

  If we begin on the grand scale, which is no less magical than the incense-clouded personal temples, we can see that in the major myths, there has always been some kind of existential sacrifice involved. Two main examples: the human being Jesus became a christic force by sacrificing his life with determination and free will. This created a phantasmagoric residue, a psychopomp that was then integrated by the Christian power structure as myth. The focus was on the deed itself and its implications.” Jesus died for your sins,” implying a transference of sacrificial magical energy beyond the realm of the personal human being Jesus. This, handled by a clever organization, can apparently work wonders too.

  A second example: the Buddha reached enlightenment by realizing the necessity of balance, where neither death-related ascetic behavior nor sensual debauchery was favored. In samsara, the world of the senses, it was necessary to renounce these extremes and also important to embrace the concept of karma, meaning in this context not “you will get good things and possible release from samsara if you do good things” but rather “if you do good things, you will get good things and possible release from samsara.” Although both positions are logically the same, morally they’re not.

  Long before this, a similar concept was in use in Egyptian mythology. The heart of a deceased person would be weighed on scales against the feather of Maat, the goddess of truth, by Anubis, god of the afterlife. If it was pure, everything was fine, and the deceased could move on to afterlife. If not, the heart would be devoured by the demon Ammit. The heart’s purity was defined by the moral standards of the day, and the tool used was a central one in economy and trade: the scales.