Magick Without Tears Chapter 5. The Universe: The 0=2 Equation
Author: Aleister Crowley Publisher: St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications. Publish Date: 1954 Review Date: Status:💥
Annotations
52
So then let me now give myself the delight, and you the comfort, of stating the problem from its beginning, and proving the soundness of the solution-of showing that the contradiction of this Equation is unthinkable
92
A. We are aware. B. We cannot doubt the existence (whether “real” or “illusory” makes no difference) of something, because doubt itself is a form of awareness. C. We lump together all that of which we are aware under the convenient name of “Existence,” or “The Universe.” “Cosmos is not so good for this purpose; that word implies “order,” which in the present stage of our argument, is a mere assumption.
93
D. We also tend to think of the Universe as containing things of which we are not aware; but this is altogether unjustifiable, although it is difficult to think at all without making some such assumption. For instance, one may come upon a new branch of knowledge-say, histology or Hammurabi or the language of the Iroquois or the poems of the Hermaphrodite of Panormita. It seems to be they are all ready waiting for us; we simply cannot believe that we are making it all up as we go along. For all that, it is sheer sophistry; we may merely be unfolding the contents of our own minds. Then again, does a thing cease to exist if we forget it? The answer is that one cannot be sure.
93
Personally, I feel convinced of the existence of an Universe outside my own immediate awareness; but it is true, even so, that it does not exist for me unless and until it takes its place as part of my consciousness.
93
E. All this paragraph D is in the nature of a digression, for what you may think of it does not at all touch the argument of this letter. But it had to be put in, just to prevent your mind from raising irreievant objections. Let me continue, then, from C.
93
F. Something is.2 This something appears incalculably vast and complex. How did it come to be? This, briefly, is the “Riddle of the Universe,” which has been always the first preoccupation of all serious philosophers since men began to think at all.
93
G. The orthodox idiot answer, usually wrapped up in obscure terms in the hope of concealing from the enquirer the fact that it is not an answer at all, but an evasion, is: God created it. Then, obviously, who created God? Sometimes we have a Demiurge, a creative God behind whom is an eternal formless Greatness-anything to confuse the issue! Sometimes the Universe is supported by an elephant; he, in turn, stands on a tortoise … by that time it is hoped that the
enquirer is too tired and muddled to ask what holds up the tortoise. Sometimes, a great Father and Mother crystallize out of some huge cloudy confusion of “Elements” -and so on. But nobody answers the question; at least, none of these God-inventing mules, with their incurably commonplace minds.
94
H. Serious philosophy has always begun by discarding all these puerilities. It has of necessity been divided into these schools: the Nihilist. the Monist, and the Dualist.
94
I. The last of these is, on the surface, the most plausible; for almost the first thing that we notice on inspecting the Universe is what the Hindu schools call “the Pairs of Opposites.” This, too, is very convenient, because it lends itself so readily to orthodox theology; so we have Ormuzd and Ahriman, the Devas and the Asuras, Osiris and Set, et cetera and da capo, personifications of ”Good” and “Evil.” The foes may be fairly matched; but more often the tale tells of a
revolt in heaven. In this case, “Evil” is temporary; soon, especially with the financial help of the devout, the “devil” will be “cast into the Bottomless Pit” and “the Saints will reign with Christ in glory for ever and ever, Amen!” Often a
”redeemer,” a “dying God,” is needed to secure victory to Omnipotence; and this is usually what little vulgar boys might call a ‘touching story’!
94
J. The Monist (or Advaitist) school, is at once subtler and more refined; it seems to approach the ultimate reality (as opposed to the superficial examination of the Dualists) more closely. It seems to me that this doctrine is based upon a sorites of doubtful validity. To tell you the hideously shameful truth, I hate this doctrine so rabidly that I can hardly trust myself to present it fairly! But I will try. Meanwhile, you can study it in the Upanishads, in the Bhagavad-Gita, in Ernst Haeckel’s The Riddle of the Universe, and dozens of other classics. The dogma appears to excite its dupes to dithyrambs. I have to admit the “poetry” of the idea; but there is something in me which vehemently rejects it with excruciating and vindictive violence. Possibly, this is because part of our own system runs parallel with the first equations of theirs.
95
K. The Monists perceive quite clearly and correctly that it is absurd to answer the question “How came these Many things (of which we are aware) to be?” by saying that they came from Many; and “Many” in this connection includes Two. The Universe must therefore be a single phenomenon: make it eternal and all the rest of it-i.e., remove all limit of any kind-and the Universe explains itself. How then can Opposites exist, as we observe them to do? Is it not the very essence of our original sorites that the Many must be reducible to the One? They see how awkward this is; so the “devil” of the Dualist is emulsified and evaporated into “illusion”; what they call “Maya” or some equivalent term.
95
”Reality” for them consists solely of Brahman, the supreme Being “without quantity or quality.” They are compelled to deny him all attributes, even that of Existence; for to do so would instantly limit them, and so hurl them headlong back into Dualism. All that of which we are aware must obviously possess limits, or it could have no intelligible meaning for us; if we want “pork,” we must specify its qualities and quantities; at the very least, we must be able to distinguish it from “that-which-is-not-pork.” But-one moment, please!
95
L. There is in Advaitism a most fascinating danger; that is that, up to a certain point, “Religious Experience” tends to support this theory. A word on this. Vulgar minds, such as are happy with a personal God, Vishnu, Jesus, Melcarth, Mithras, or another, often excite themselves-call it “Energized Enthusiasm” if you want to be sarcastic!-to the point of experiencing actual Visions of the objects of their devotion. But these people have not so much as asked themselves the original question of “How come?” which is our present subject. Sweep them into the discard!
96
M. Beyond Vishnarupadarshana, the vision of the Form of Vishnu, beyond that yet loftier vision which corresponds in Hindu classification to our “Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel,” is that called Atmadarshana, the vision (or apprehension, a much better word) of the Universe as a single phenomenon, outside all limitations, whether of time, space, causality, or what not.
96
Very good, then! Here we are with direct realization of the Advaitist theory of the Universe. Everything fits perfectly. Also, when I say “realization,” I want you to understand that I mean what I say in a sense so intense and so absolute that it is impossible to convey my meaning to anyone who has not undergone that experience.
96
How do we judge the “reality” of an ordinary impression upon consciousness? Chiefly by its intensity, by its persistence, by the fact that nobody can argue us out of our belief in it. As people said of Berkeley’s ‘ldealism’-“his arguments are irrefutable but they fail to carry conviction.” No sceptical, no idealist queries can persuade us that a kick in the pants is not ‘real’ in any reasonable sense of the word. Moreover memory reassures us. However vivid a dream may be at the time, however it may persist throughout the years (though it is rare for any dream, unless frequently repeated, or linked to waking impressions by some happy conjunction of circumstances, to remain long in the mind with any clear-cut vision) it is hardly ever mistaken for an event of actual life. Good: then, as waking life is to dream, so-yes, more so!-is Religious Experience as above described to that life common to all of us. It is not merely easy, it is natural, not merely natural, but inevitable, for anyone who has experienced “Samadhi” (this word conveniently groups the higher types of vision.4) to regard normal life as “illusion” by comparison with this state in which all problems are resolved, all doubts driven out, all limitations abolished
97
But even beyond Atmadarshana comes the experience called Shivadarshana,5 in which this Atman (or Brahman), this limit-destroying Universe, is itself abolished and annihilated. (And, with its occurrence, smash goes the whole of the Advaitist theory!)
- Possibly almost identical with the Buddhist Neroda-Samapatti
97
It is a commonplace to say that no words can describe this final destruction. Such is the fact; and there is nothing one can do about it but put it down boldly as I have done above. It does not matter to our present purpose; all that we need to know is that the strongest prop of the Monist structure has broken off short. Moreover, is it really adequate to postulate an origin of the Universe, as they inevitably do? Merely to deny that there ever was a beginning by saying that this “One” is eternal fails to satisfy me.
97
What is very much worse, I cannot see that to call Evil “illusion” helps us at all. When the Christian Scientist hears that his wife has been savagely mauled by her Peke, he has to smile, and say that “there is a claim of error.” Not good enough.
97❗️
N. It has taken a long while to clear the ground. That I d
id not e xpect; the above propositions are so familiar to me, t
hey run so cleanly through my mind, that, until I came to s
et them down in order, I had no idea what a long and difficul
t business it all w
as. Still, it’s a long lane, etc. We have seen that “Two” (
or “Many”) are unsatisfactory as origin, if only because t
he
98
58
98
can always be reduced to “One”; and “One” itself is n
o better, because, among other things, it finds itself forced t
o deny the very premises on which it was foun
ded. Shall we be any better off if we assume that Ex nihilo nihil
fit is a falsehood, that the origin of All Things is N
othing? Let us s ee!
98
- Shall we first glance at the mathematical aspect o
f Nothing? (Including its identical equation in Logic.) This I
worked out so long ago as 1902 e.g. in Berashi th, which y
ou will find reprinted in The Sword of Song, and in m
y Collected Works, Vol. I
. The argument may be summarized as f
98
When, in the ordinary way of business, we write 0, w
e should really write 0 “. For 0 implies that the subject is n
ot extended in any dimension under discussion. Thus a line m
ay be two feet in length, but in breadth and depth the
coefficient is Zero. We could describe it as 2f+ob+Od, o
r nH+ob+Od.
98
What I proposed in considering “What do we mean b
y Nothing?” was to consider every possible quality of a
ny object as a d
imension. For instance, one might describe this page as b
eing nf + n ‘b + n”d + 0 redness + 0 amiability + 0 velocity + 0
potential and so on, until you had noted and measured all the
qualities it possesses, and excluded all that it does not. F
or c onven ience, we may write this expression a
s xr+ b+d+r+ a+v+p_using the initials of the qualities which w
e call d
98
Just one further explanation in pure mathematics. T
o interpret X1 , X1 +I Or X 2, and SO On, We assume t
he reference to be to spatial dimensions. Thus suppose X1 to b
e a line a foot long, X2 will be a plane a foot squa re, and X3 a
cube measuring a foot in each dimension. But what a
bout X4
? There are no more spatial dimensions. M
odem mathematics has (unfortunately, I think) agreed to c
onsider this fourth dimension as time. Well, and X5
? To interpret t
his expression, we may begin to consider other qualities, such as
99
5
99
electric capacity, colour, moral attributes, and so on. But t
his remark, although necessary, leads us rather away from o
ur main thesis instead of toward i
99
P. What happens when we put a minus sign before t
he index (that small letter up on the right) instead of a p
lus? Quite simple. X2 =xi+ i =xi +xi. With a minus, we d
ivide instead of multiplying. Thus, X3 - 2 = X3 + X2 = xi , just a
s if you had merely subtracted the ’) from the 3 in the i
ndex. Now, at last, we come to the point of real importance t
o our thesis: how shall we interpret X 0? We may write i
t, obviously, as xi - 1 or x n-n. Good, divide. T
hen xi + xi = 1. This is the same, clearly enough, whatever X
may b
99
Q. Ah, but what we started to do was discover t
he meaning of Nothing. It is not correct to write it simply as 0
; for that 0 implies an index 0 1, or 0 2, or 0” . And if o
ur Nothing is to be absolute Nothing, then there is not only n
o figure, but no index either. So we must write it as 0 °.
What is the value of this expression? We proceed as before;
divide. on 1 0 = on - n = 0” + 0” = - x - .
1 on
Of course 0” + 1 remains O; but 1 + on = °”
· That is, we have a clash of the “infinitely great” with t
he “infinitely small”; that knocks out the “infinity” (
and Advaitism with it!) and leaves us with an indeterminate b
ut finite number of utter variety. That is: 0° can only b
e interpreted as “The Universe that we k
no
99
R. So much for one demonstration. Some people h
ave found fault with the algebra; but the logical Equivalent i
s precisely parallel. Suppose I wish to describe my study in one
respect: I can say “No dogs are in my study,” or “Dogs a
re not in my study.” I can make a little diagram: Dis the w
orld of dogs; S is my study. Here it is
100
60
100
The squares are quite separate. The whole world outside t
he square D is the world of no dogs: outside the square S, the
world of no-study. But suppose now that I want to make the
Zero absolute, like our 0 °, I must say “No dogs are not in m
y study.
” Or, “There is no absence-of-dog in my study.” That is t
he same as saying: “Some dogs are in my study”; diagram aga
i
100
In Diagram I, “the world where no dogs are” included t
he whole of my study; in Diagram 2 that absence-of-dog is n
o longer there; so one or more of them must have got i
n s
omehow. That’s that; I know it may be a little difficult at fir
st; fortunately there is a different way-the Chinese w
ay-of stating the theorem in very much simpler t
erm
100
S. The Chinese, like ourselves, begin with the idea o
f “Absolute Nothing.” They “make an effort, and call it t
he Tao”; but that is exactly what the Tao comes to m
ean, when we examine it. They see quite well, as we have d
one above, that merely to assert Nothing is not to explain t
he Universe; and they proceed to do so by means of a
mathematical equation even simpler than ours, involving as it
does no operations beyond simple addition and subtrac
tion. They say “Nothing obviously means Nothing; it has no
qualities nor quantities.” (The Advaitists said the same, a
nd then stultified themselves completely by calling it One!
) “But,” continue the sages of the Middle Kingdom, “it i
s always possible to reduce any expression to Nothing b
y taking any two equal and opposite terms.” (
Thus n + (-n) = 0.) “We ought therefore to be able to get any
expression that we want from Nothing; we merely have to b
e careful that the terms shall be precisely opposite and e
qual.” (0 = n + ( -n).) This then they did, and began t
o diagrammatize the Universe as the I-a pair of opposites, t
he Yang or active Male, and the Yin or passive Female
101
The Chinese Cosmos
Diagram
103
6
103
principles. They represented the Yang by an u
nbroken ( ), the Yin by a broken ( —) line. (The fi
rst manifestation in Nature of these two is Thai Yang, the Sun,
and Thai Yin, the Moon.) This being a little large and l
oose, they doubled these lines, and obtained the four Hsiang. T
hey then took them three at a time, and got the eight Kwa. T
hese represent the development from the original I to the N
atural Order of the E
103
I shall call the male principle M, the Female F
Chart
103
Note how admirably they have preserved the idea of b
alance. M I and F I are perfection. M 2 and F 2 still keep balance i
n their lines. The four “elements” show imperfection; yet t
hey are all balanced as against each other. Note, too, how apt a
re the ideograms. M 3 shows the flames flickering on the h
earth, F 3, the wave on the solid bottom of the sea; M 4, t
he mutable air, with impenetrable space above, and finally F 4
, the thin crust of the earth masking the interior energies o
f the planet. They go on to double these Kwa, thus r
eaching the sixty-four hexagrams of the Yi King, which is not only a
Map, but a History of the Order of N
103
It is pure enthusiastic delight in the Harmony and B
eauty of the System that has led me thus far afield; my o
ne es.5ential purpose is to show how the Universe was derived b
y these Wise Men from N
othin
103
When you have assimilated these two sets of E
quations, when you have understood how 0=2 is the unique, t
he simple, and the necessary solution of the Riddle of t
he Universe, there will be, in a sense, little more for you to l
earn about the Theory of Magi
c
103
You should, however, remember most constantly that the
104
62
104
equation of the Universe, however complex it may see
m, inevitably reels out to Zero; for to accomplish this is t
he formula of your Work as a Mystic. To remind you, and to
amplify certain points of the above, let me quote from
Magick, pp. 152�3 , footnote 2.
104
All elements must at one time have been separat
e-that would be the case with great heat. Now when atoms g
et to the sun, we get that immense extreme heat, and a
ll the elements are themselves again. Imagine that e
ach atom of each element possesses the memory of all h
is adventures in combination. By the way, that a
tom (fortified with that memory) would not be the s
ame atom; yet it is, because it has gained nothing fro
m anywhere except this memory. Therefore, by the laps
e of time, and by virtue of memory, a thing could b
ecome something more than itself; thus a real development i
s possible. One can then see a reason for any ele
ment deciding to go through this series of incarn
ations, because so, and only so, can he go; and he suffers t
he lapse of memory which he has during these incarn
ations, because he knows he will come through unc
hange
104
Therefore you can have an infinite number of g
ods, individual and equal though diverse, each one supre
me a nd utterly indestructible. This is also the only
explanation of how a ”Perfect Being” could create a
world in which war, evil, e tc., exist. God is only a
n appearance, because (like “good ”) it cannot affect t
he substance itself, but only multiply Its comb
inations. This is something the same as mystic monotheism; b
ut the objection to that theory is that God has to creat
e things which are all parts of himself, so that t
heir interplay is false. If we presuppose many elements, the
ir interplay is natura
104
a
104
It is no objection to this theory to ask who made t
he elements-the elements are at least there, and God,
when you look for him, is not there. Theism i
s obscurum per obscurius. A male star is built up from the
105
6
105
centre outwards; a female from the circumfere
nce inwards. This is what is meant when we say that w
oman has no soul. It explains fully the difference between t
he s
exe
105
Every .. act of love under will” has the dual result ( 1) t
he creation of a child combining the qualities of its parents, (2)
the withdrawal by ecstasy into Nothingness. Please c
onsult what I have elsewhere written on “The Formula o
f Tetragrammaton”; the importance of this at the moment i
s to show how 0 and 2 appear constantly in Nature as t
he common Order of E
vent