Macranthropy and Theurgic Ascension

I have already discussed in detail the nature of substrate monism in a previous two-part article, but I wanted to show how monism can be used to fortify the magical process of theurgy. Since I defined macranthropy as an important step in the formulation of a monistic perspective, I have also found it very important in explaining how a modern pagan engaging with a plurality of gods and goddesses can evolve their beliefs into a form of pagan monism. So, it would seem that macranthropy is the missing key to the process of theurgic ascension and the adoption of an occult philosophy.

Let me take the definition that I proposed for macranthropy found in the my previous articles and copy it here so that we have a working definition from which to proceed.

“That process of coalescing a pantheon of deities into a single met-deity is called “macranthropy,” from macranthropus or “cosmic person.”

Macranthropy, or the creation of a meta-deity from a pantheon of many deities, allows for the paradox of both focusing on a single unified deity as well as focusing on the individual deities within the pantheon. ”

So it would seem that macranthropy is a mechanism where a henotheistic practice would be expanded to the point where that deity would assume a kind of super-deity or cosmic being perspective. How that would work in a theurgy of ascension through magical progression is actually quite simple and natural. In fact, macranthropy helps fill in an important gap in the overall process. Let’s go over what this structure would look like with macranthropy acting as an important bridge.

In the form of theurgy that I work, there are actually two targets. The first target is the personification of my own self as a deity, or what I call the God/dess Within. It is analogous to the Higher Self or Atman, and the objective is to gain as much of a conscious connection with that entity as possible. To facilitate that end I have chosen a specific godhead to act as an attribute of that being-ness, and I believe that it is a very important task to engage with that deity within a form of intensive spiritual alignment. In this fashion I have determined the microcosmic focus for the work as a powerful extension that reaches into the core of my higher self.

The second target is the corresponding macrocosmic godhead, and for this I would choose a deity that would be compatible with the specific godhead associated with my higher self. By compatible, I mean that it should be from the same cultural pantheon and represent an analogous quality. Since I happen to be a heterosexual male, then the godhead of my higher self is masculine and the corresponding macrocosmic godhead is female. (For those who have a different sexual orientation, these choices would be different, of course.) In my mind there is a powerful polarity between these two beings that will facilitate their joining into a unified expression of the One. Therefore, carefully choosing these two deities is a very important part of the work. The deity representing one’s higher self would be an analogue of one’s self, and the deity representing the macrocosmic godhead should be compatible with that deity of one’s higher self.

Once these two deities are chosen, then it is up to the theurgist to build up a powerful representation of them in his or her mind. It isn’t enough to just select these deities, one must also become powerfully intimate and completely knowledgeable of them as well. The mechanism for establishing an intimate contact with these two deities is through the process of spiritual alignment, but there are some differences in the methodology and degree in how one proceeds with each of them. The godhead representing one’s higher self is the first target to whom the magician must develop a powerful relationship, so all of the steps of alignment are fully incorporated, and this is performed for as long a period as necessary so that the higher self becomes fully realized in the guise of the chosen godhead.

For instance, if the godhead representing the higher self was Osiris of the Egyptian pantheon of deities, then the corresponding godhead representing the macrocosmic godhead would have to be Isis. To pick any other deity as the overall target would be silly, for instance, Sekhmet, Hecate or Ishtar. It is important that the deities chosen for this work makes overall objective sense, and that there is enough historical material to fill out the practices of spiritual alignment for both deities. 

Alignment is defined as devotion, invocation, assumption, sacrifice and communion. Devotion consists of regular and periodic services to the godhead, such as offerings, paeans, hymns, praise and cultic services. I define cultic services as any task associated with keeping up the personal shrine of the deity including the overall temple environment. Invocation is the regular and periodic summoning of the deity, sacrifice is the giving of permanent and special offerings, communion is the sharing and ingesting of sacraments, and godhead assumption is where the seeker as cult priest assumes the mantle of the qualities and persona of the deity. I have covered these items in previous posts, and you can find them here, here and here. A complete examination of these required practices and their development is an important step in this process of theurgic ascension, and this is done for both deities.

Once a full and complete alignment is established with the godhead representing the higher self, then this connection can be augmented through the use of the ritual of the invocation of the Bornless (Headless) One. Other ordeals can also be performed, such as the Lunar Abramelin Ordeal or the Talismanic Portae Lucis Ordeal, or a combination of them. It is important to note that the foundation for theurgic ascension is to acquire a near-conscious connection with the higher self. Once this connection has been powerfully established, then the magician may perform the following process of theurgic ascension.

I have defined theurgic ascension to consist of the following five steps, and these five steps are focused on the target deity representing the macrocosmic expression of the godhead. The magician must, in addition, ensure that he or she also has that potent connection to the higher self, and the tasks of alignment are required for that deity as well as the target deity - both must be served ardently and passionately. It might even be necessary for all other activities to cease at that time so that the focus on the godhead of the higher self and the godhead of the macrocosm might be completely undisturbed and as perfect as possible. The lunar cycle is the gauge and measurement for the cycles of devotion, invocation, assumption, sacrifice and communion, but each person will have their own preferences as to when the greater ordeal is to be performed. The following five steps are sharply focused on the target macrocosmic deity.

1. Focus on the specific deity - adopt a form of henotheism and establish a full spiritual alignment for it. This would include devotion, invocation, sacrifice, communion and offerings, but not yet assumption (for obvious reasons). Each service is performed while under the guise of the godhead of the higher self, thus giving it far more potency.

2. Explore the polarity and potential union with the target deity - the macrocosmic deity becomes the personal lover of the self in the guise of the godhead of the higher self. This polarity must be experienced as the passion for union, and it must be inflated incrementally until it is almost unendurable.

3. Use macranthropy to expand the nature of the macrocosmic deity until is becomes the ultimate, absolute and only deity. All other deities in the chosen pantheon are just part of the overall body of the macrocosmic deity. This is performed through the devices of exhortations, meditations and visualizations. One could even conceivably perform Qabalistic pathworkings and attribute everything experienced as attributes and elements of the body of that cosmic godhead. While this is occurring, the very foundation of the godhead higher self will undergo a process of expansion as well, since it has established a powerful and passionate link to that macrocosmic godhead, thus becoming the perfect representation of the microcosm.

4. Facilitate ecstatic union (magical hieros gamos) - once the stage is set where the targeted godhead and the godhead of the higher self have achieved the highest degree of polarity and total realization of the microcosm and macrocosm, then (and only then) the magician performs the assumption of the targeted macrocosmic godhead. This is done periodically and repeatedly until the union of the microcosmic godhead and the macrocosmic godhead are fully objectified and all differences are slowly dissolved until they begin to disappear altogether. Other mechanisms that would establish a corresponding physical ecstasy could also be employed in this step, thereby making the power and efficacy of this process even more potent. (It is assumed, however, that just performing the macrocosmic godhead assumption after such an arduous process would be all that is needed for a corresponding spiritual and physical ecstasy, but other mechanisms, such as the careful and minute use of sacramental drugs, sex magic, breathing exercises and visualizations could also be employed.)

5. Full Assumption of the Cosmic Godhead - once step four is fully realized, then the magician can perform the invocation of the Bornless (Headless) One as the godhead of the higher self invoking the Cosmic Deity in a full and objective magical realization of this tangible expression of the One within and throughout the consciousness of the magician. In order to maintain this high state of being, the magician should continue to perform the full spiritual alignment rites of both the godhead of the higher self as well as the macrocosmic godhead.

Once such a powerful state of being, awake within the being of the One, has been achieved, there is the corresponding consideration of what the magician will do after acquiring enlightenment. Is it the end of the whole process? According to what I know about the magical initiation cycle, achieving enlightenment is only half of the process. The magician who is dissolved and one with the Absolute Spirit or Unity of Being has many possible paths and directions to proceed. Certainly, once this massive elevation has been fully realized, there is the corresponding requirement to do the will of One within the domain of the Many, and this would entail being a physical mediator for the descent of Spirit into the physical world and its ultimate ascent and recovery.

The enlightened magician would play a very important part in the process of world enlightenment, or the enlightenment of all of the human race. That would require him or her to be a bridge between the One and the Many, and function as one of the archetypes of the Few, to redeem and anneal the duality caused by the effects of the individual mind and the petty ego, one person at a time. This is an eminent task, but one that cannot be limited to just one enlightened individual. It will take a veritable army of enlightened individuals over a period of many millennia to accomplish this task. Even so, the task is accomplished individually, both in terms of achieving enlightenment as well as spreading it to others. Perhaps I have assisted in this task simply by writing up this article, and who knows what it will do to those who read it and undertake the great work that it reveals.  

So, that’s my take on a full and complete method of theurgic ascension. This process could be performed by a single individual, or by a couple, who would perform it separately as well as jointly. It also helps to have someone to objectify the experience, so doing it with a working partner is probably the best approach. This ordeal is certainly not for the half-hearted and requires a considerable amount of time, resources and an exclusive focus. Most magicians would find these requirements prohibitive since they would have to earn a living and do other things besides consistently and continuously working all of these various rites.

In order for these workings to be the most effective, a magician would also have to do a lot of research so that the lunar and solar calendar of events would be thoroughly known, and then incorporated into the daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal practices. I have no illusions as to the difficulty of this ordeal, but I am quite certain that it would work. When a magician would fully complete such an ordeal, then he or she would have achieved a full and complete conscious union with the One, and that will, I believe, fully establish a state of near perfect enlightenment.

Achieving such a lofty state of consciousness has its own rewards, of course, but it is, I believe, one of the ways in which the Great Work could be accomplished through the methodology of ritual magick. Hopefully, I will be able to some day have the opportunity to perform this ordeal and discover all of the intricacies involved in its resolution and realization. I look forward to that time, since it will likely be when I have retired from my daily regimen of work and material responsibilities so that I could have the time and resources to perform it. Until that time, at least I now have a mechanism to consider and to build up within my magical lore.

Macranthropy was the missing key to this overall process, and reading Thomas McEviley’s book helped me to realize all the parts that I needed in order to contemplate a magical solution to the problem of enlightenment and theurgic ascension.

Frater Barrabbas   

From Polytheism to Monism - A Natural Progression - Part 2

This is part 2 of a two part series of articles on the nature of pagan monism, it's history and importance to modern paganism. Since I have written that I am a monist, I felt that it was important to define exactly what that was, and how I used it in my study and practice. Part 2 contains an historical narrative that shows how monism developed and evolved over time. I will be focusing on that evolution within Greek philosophy, but such a transition also occurred elsewhere, most particularly in India, where monism was perfected and retained its non-dual nature.

A Very Brief Historical Exposition of Greek Philosophy     

The first Greek philosopher to propose a form of philosophical monism was the Ionian Greek, Thales of Miletus (624 - 546 BCE). He proposed what was known as a form of material monism, where the unifying attribute was proposed to be the element of water. While this was a new concept amongst the Greeks, it was not new to other cultures, such as Mesopotamia or Egypt, and it is likely that Thales, who was well traveled, may have acquired his perspective through the diffusion of ideas from other geographic cultures. (Thomas McEviley, in his book, proposes that the diffusion of ideas between different geographic locations occurred as readily as the dispersion of trade goods, and very likely followed the same pathways.)

Thale’s proposition is considered a semi-abstraction by modern philosophers, representing a kind of substrate monism, which is the hypothesis that reality has a foundational unity underlying all material manifestation. Thales chose water as his primordial element, but others who came after him proposed other elements, such as air or fire. The idea inherent in this hypothesis was that the primordial element changed its form and appearance through various processes (evaporation, condensation, contraction, etc.) to emulate the variety of different physical forms and substances. This new perspective represented a post mythological concept, merging the elements of both natural science and philosophic abstraction. However, it also retained a certain mythological flexibility along with its more material based hypothesis. Even so, this hypothesis took the idea of the origin of the material universe out of the mythic narrative involving the personalities and actions of deities to an abstract terminology. It was, in a word, the birth of philosophy out of religious and mythological discourse.

So substrate monism evolved, eventually losing its material form until that unifying attribute became Being itself. This occurred because if a material basis was ascribed as the source, then the very nature of that element became negated. For instance, if everything was based on the element of water, then the qualities of water ceased to be relevant or meaningful. This was also true no matter what physical attribute was ascribed to the source, whether water, air, fire, or all four elements - fire, water, air and earth - such as what Empedocles proposed later on. It was only when the substrate monism became associated with an attribute that was beyond any specific named entity or quality was it able to become established beyond logical refutation. That final determiner became the very nature of being itself, which was proposed as the unity underlying all things. In India, the substrate monism was called “brahman,” (with a small “b”) which means being, and in Greek, it was called “apeiron” (indefinite).

The process of demythologizing the concept of the One was started by the pre-Socratic philosopher named Anaximander (610 - 546 BCE) who proposed that the principle element was indeterminate, or as he named it, apeiron. Anaximander proposed that the One was unlimited and unbounded, thereby releasing its association with any quantifiable element or specifically identifiable thing, thereby making it a conceptual abstraction. Yet it was Xenophanes (570 - 475 BCE) who pushed the conceptualization of the One to its ultimate and conclusive definition. First of all, Xenophanes criticized anthropomorphism as a cultural or ego based projection, proposing that the One must be formless and contain no knowable attributes. He was the founder of Eleatic monism, which postulated that the One is coexistent with the world of the Many, but only the One is real.

Thus Eleatic monism was a kind of philosophic pantheism. He also proposed that the One is both the universal subject and object (everything that you see is the One, and everything that sees is the One). However, if the One is real, then senses that perceive the Many are actually experiencing an illusion. Therefore, knowledge of the Many cannot occur without introducing this error. The One is, the Many merely seem to be. Additionally, the One has two modes, formed and formless, but only the formless is real. The formed is the mechanism whereby the Many are created, therefore ensuring the integrity of the One. This is a distinction between the absolute (as the One) and relative being (the Many). Xenophanes proposed a world where the gods and humans both lived in a finite and illusory world similarly diminished by the transcendental One, being therefore a kind of psychic projection of themselves.

Once the source and underlying unity was defined as being, then a division occurred between that source as One, and everything else, which was called the Many. In order to establish a non-dual perspective, which was the underlying purpose to these hypotheses, it was important to signify one or the other as the true reality (they couldn’t both be real), and that made the corresponding other as unreal or illusory. Therefore, in India, the material world (the Many) was called Maya (illusion) and in Greek, Doxa (seeming) or Ananke (necessity), and these became personified as a kind of philosophical goddess in both systems.

It was further determined that the One was perfect, formless (yet conceptually spherical), static and unchanging, since the material world of the Many was constantly changing and mutating, although in a periodic and cyclic manner. The One had to be differentiated from the Many, so they assumed opposite qualities. The true reality was the transcendent One, and the illusory world of constant change was the material based Many. It was a polarity between Being and Non-being, but it had the unfortunate impact of negating the whole of the material world. There was also the problem of reconciling creation, where the One became manifested as the Many. Since the One was considered static and unmovable, and the Many was in constant motion, it was paradoxical to consider that somehow something static would be able to instigate the motion of the material world - something had to drive that which was in motion. Early thinking had postulated that the One actually existed in two states to enable creation of the Many, but this was quickly supplanted by the addition of a new quality.

Beginning with Pythagoras, the problem of how the static and unchanging One was able to manifest into the many was resolved through the use of intermediaries, in this case, the base-ten numbers, the four elements, and then later the triangle as the first perfect form (such as the tetractys, which is a triangle incorporating the numbers one through ten). Although Pythagoras considered the number 1 to represent the monistic godhead, the rest of the numbers established a kind of foundational mathematics that facilitated the creation of forms. These intermediaries were referred to as the Few, and they adopted both the static and changeableness qualities of the One and the material world. They were the drivers of the constant change of the material world. Later on, Plato would propose that the Few was also populated with the world of ideas (what Jung would later call archetypes), building a philosophical system that explained how the Many were formed from the One through the intermediation of the Few.

This model could thus be explained in the following manner.

One (static, contraction, formless, unchanging, transcendent, true reality, being)

                                       |

Few (static and changing, primordial forms, expansion, prime mover, ideas, proto-being)

                                       |

Many (changing, cyclic, driven, diverse forms, immanent, illusion, non-being)

There is a problem with this philosophical construct, and that is the fact that the material world is judged as illusory and without being. Since human beings who inhabit the material world seem to have aspects that could be considered relative to both that world and the true reality, one would have to propose that each human being contains within them an aspect of that source of all being. This element can be either considered illusory and ignored (as in Buddhism) or completely incorporated within one’s practice, such as in the Indian Tantras. Pagan magic (theurgy) would also follow the path established by Indian Tantra (in my opinion), but there is still the problem of how to engage with the material world when it is considered to be an illusion.

Another alternative philosophical perspective that contradicted and disputed the claim that the material world was illusory was inaugurated by the philosophical writings of Democritus (460 - 370 BCE). He proposed the opposite notion, that the material world apprehended by the senses was the only true reality and that the monist substrate was occupied by matter in the form of atoms. These two hypotheses were constantly at war with each other, since they represented two diametrical positions. Plato ended up being the one who lionized the former, and Aristotle, the latter. This dichotomy continues to this day, with those who are aligned to an occult or religious perspective in the west that is based on Platonism, and those who are aligned with a scientific perspective that is based on Aristotle. We can see it in the opposition of the modern philosophy of Kant and Locke, and it continues to trouble, more or less, adherents of either persuasion.

However, as a modern pagan, I find myself unable to fully adopt the original concept where the material world is judged to be merely an illusion. I have found both joy and sorrow living in a body in the material world, but I feel that all aspects of this sensory experience represent a greater overall good. Perhaps I am an optimist because nothing really tragic or devastating has ever  occurred to me in my life. I have managed to avoid war, destruction and catastrophe in my life so far, but even so, there seems to me to be a kind of fundamental reality and even a preciousness associated with life in the material world. This, despite the fact that death is an expected outcome of life, no matter what is done to forestall or mitigate it in some manner.

One pre-Socratic philosopher that I haven’t mentioned so far is Heraclitus of Ephesus (535 - 475 BCE). He was known as the “riddler” because his writings were considered to be so obscure. Professor McEviley has speculated that Heraclitus made his break-through philosophical proposals with the help of a translated copy of several of the Indian Upanishads. He took an interesting stand in regards to the paradox of the One and the Many, using a logic defying approach that unites all opposites, including the opposites of the One and the Many. He stated that there must be a balance between the One and the Many. In this fashion, we might approach the nature of the Many as saying that it is both an illusion as well as real, depending on our momentary point of view. It could also propose that the One is static and yet also capable of moving and changing, representing the fact that any hardened definition about something that is highly abstract (and absolute) cannot be fully completely validated.

I believe that there has to be some kind of variance in our philosophical perspectives and opinions instead of proposing absolutes, and that any hypothesis only approaches the greater truth to a certain extent. What this does is to make any and all systems of philosophy and religion to be uncertain and not knowable in the absolute sense; that the absolute reality is essentially unknowable and unknown. I suspect that this approach allows for a greater overall flexibility so that we, as modern occultists, can accept both our occult metaphysics and modern science simultaneously without any dichotomy or dissonance.

We can therefore rejoice in the majesty and beauty of the material world, marvel at the advances of modern science and see the manifestation of Spirit in the wonder of nature. We can also change this perspective and see what is behind the material reality that is the domain of Spirit, and we can also personally experience the union of all being that connects everything into a single essential experience of one-ness. All of these perspectives are valid in their turn, and none of them can either contradict or negate the others. If any of them can be experienced in some manner and rationally determined, then they are as real as the solid material reality in which we live.

Yet pervading the manifestation of these many diverse and different perspectives is the One, which can only be experienced within ourselves, and then in the most exalted states of consciousness. The Few, as the archetypes of the unifying consciousness of being as it exists in the domain of the Many, is also important, since it represents the instruments through which the One is able to impact and shape the material world. We can use these instruments to manipulate the material world or to achieve conscious union with the One.

Epilogue

I think that the origin of monism is a human response to the overwhelming great variety of material things found in the world. It is based on the same ordering principle or impulse that drove the derivation of early astronomy, geometry and basic music theory. It is the desire to find that one unifying principle behind the multiple derivations of the material world. It is based on the concept that if everything is distinct and unique, then the greater world is unknowable, and that anything can only be known singularly and distinctly. As Thomas McEviley has stated so eloquently:

“The preoccupation with the Problem of the One and the Many expressed a desire to know the universe in some larger sense than that, by finding principles which would render every situation knowable with or without direct experience of it. Superficial diversity was to be tamed and made knowable by apprehension of underlying unity.”

This need to know and understand the unknowable is what drives modern science and also occult and various spiritual speculations. To achieve this end, seekers search out common attributes that can be used to determine the underlying structures or unity that generates a greater knowledge out of the apparent diversity of various phenomena. This is why I believe that acquiring a monistic spiritual perspective is so important, natural and has profound consequences.

Frater Barrabbas       

From Polytheism to Monism - A Natural Progression - Part 1

This is part 1 of a two part series of articles on the nature of pagan monism, it's history and importance to modern paganism. Since I have written that I am a monist, I felt that it was important to define exactly what that was, and how I used it in my study and practice. Part 1 is an introduction to the concept of pagan monism, where I will attempt to lay down the basic elements of that system of philosophy in a manner that will make sense to the average Pagan and Wiccan.

I have been a pagan monist now for many years. Even so, I have always elected not to name or give attributes to that element of the One which I have tangibly experienced from time to time when I have worked my most intense magical rites or engaged in deep forms of meditation. It was only when I read the book “The Shape of Ancient Thought” by Thomas McEviley that I discovered the more intrinsic and varied aspects of that belief which I had adopted, and that the progression from polytheism to monism was a natural one and not an anomaly as some had led me to believe. This revelation helped me to advance my understanding of this phenomenon from that of a mythic perspective to one that unfolded into a kind of religious philosophy. Thus, with the aid of this book, I transformed myself from a religious faith-based adherent to an occult philosopher with a much wider view.

Monism is the belief that everything (as the Many) has its origin and source in the One, which can be called the Unity of All Being. I had conceived of that union as being mythologically represented by the sexual union of the Goddess and the God within my Wiccan duo-theological construct. That One was both the child (product) of their union as well as their origin and source. Despite being paradoxical, this explanation seemed natural to me and I have held it in my mind and heart for the many decades of my religious and magical practice. It has always been a mythological construct, and in order to make it more powerful and universal, I have found myself moving towards a philosophical perspective and away from the mythological.

Monism, however, is not to be confused with monotheism, which represents the belief in one deity as opposed to any other, and an elevation of that single deity into an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being, thereby acting independently and completely outside of all of creation. Monotheism is a very special case of monism, but it requires a completely closed system in order to withstand the rigors of logical analysis. Monotheistic religions are problematic since they must define all other experiences of deity outside their definition as either erroneous or diabolical, since they hold a monopoly on the one true definition and attributes of a singular and supreme being. Monism, on the other hand, is completely inclusive and can accommodate and even validate all variations of religious experience.

Monotheism devalues the material world, since that superlative being who created it is perfect and thereby totally transcends it. Nature is perceived as flawed and imperfect in contrast to the single deity, and all material beings are subject to death and decline, while the deity itself is immortal and ageless. Anything tainted by nature is considered to be rendered outside of the purview of the deity, and thereby the material world and living bodies are perceived as the source of corruption and evil. It is also a trap for the soul that resides in each and everyone of us. If nature is inherently evil and the deity is good, then there is a functional duality established between them, and it is most critically realized within the core of every human being; since the place where soul and body meet is a battle ground for good and evil. It is not unusual, therefore, that monotheism requires an adversary, a devil, or even a host of demons who are allowed to torment humanity as a form of tempering and a method of proving the integrity of each individual soul.

Monotheism also seems to devalue the individual by eliminating all consideration that there is an aspect of deity within each and every being, and this ultimately invites the duality of matter and spirit to emerge from within the core of humanity, since it easily explains the gulf between individual souls and the one (supposedly) true deity. That deity within human nature becomes nothing more than a soul, which can be elevated or consigned to destruction without any further consideration. The gulf between deity and humanity is absolute, and it can’t be bridged except by another deity (avatar) or by the perfection of faith and practice, and even then such a bridge is illusionary.

Despite perfect faith, pious good works or the elevation of an intermediary (Jesus), the monotheistic god is still absolute, and humans are minute, flawed and incapable of achieving union with their deity. Still, that absolute deity judges the individual soul and either rewards or punishes it. The soul is, of course, always in the state of being “other” to the deity, much as a master craftsman is to his created artifice. What this means is that we, the members of the human race, are forever doomed to wander the world bereft of the greater truth of spiritual union with that aloof and totally transcendent deity. Deity and humanity are, in a word, mutually exclusive.

A monist, in contrast to a monotheist, sees deity as a finite but important and valid manifestation. It is an essential spiritual emanation of the One, which is the only element that has any transcendental attributes. All Deities are real and all religions are valid to a point, but no single deity or creed has a monopoly on Spirit or the greater spiritual truth. The fact that monism (in some cases) also proposes that there is a corresponding attribute of deity within each human being, where everything is connected to that greater union through the intercession of the lesser union, and that there is no actual difference between the greater and lesser union (other than what we perceive as differences), represents a world that is devoid of duality. In short, everything is unified within the One, but that unity is greater than the sum of its parts. It also means that the union within us is accessible and can cause us to directly experience spiritual phenomena within its own domain. It also represents what Ken Wilber has called the “Eye of Spirit,” which is based on activating the God/dess Within and perceiving the world through it.

I believe that we perceive Spirit and Godhead through the sensibilities of our internal godhead, and without it, we would be spiritually blind. When someone talks about their religious experiences which occur between them and their Deity and thereby objectifies them, or that they feel an intimate impression of that Godhead in their personal lives, then what they are talking about are the effects of their own internal godhead whether or not they are able to perceive it as such.

If someone thinks that their God guides their steps or causes catastrophes (an act of God in the material world) to teach them some kind of moral truth, then they are projecting that internal deity out into the material world. Religious people have a sensorial connection to that internal deity and it acts as the very foundation for their faith. Conversely, atheists and agnostics are unable to sense or feel a connection to their internal deity, and so for them, that deity has no basis in reality. Monism seems to have the answers to these and many other questions, so we should begin to discuss the nature of monism in greater detail and so share and revel in this knowledge.

Monism has a long history, longer in fact than the proclivity for monotheism, even though its various tenets were not thoroughly worked out until just before the time of the birth of Christianity. We can find the belief and practice of a form of monism in all of the ancient cultures that were nominally pagan back to the bronze age, and how it emerged as a full-fledged system of religious philosophy is both interesting and fascinating.

The idea that all gods somehow blend into a single super deity, or that there is some kind of greater unifying aspect of being above and beyond the host of deities within the accepted pantheon has been a commonly perceived phenomenon for many centuries before either monism or monotheism occurred. Egyptians called this unity “Neteru,” which is the word for god but without any qualifiers. Other cultures selected their chief deity as an amalgam of the super-deity, such as Brahman in India, Marduk in Mesopotamia, Zeus in Greece, or Amen-Ra in Egypt. Perhaps this indicates nothing more than an ordering principle at work, but what it represented was the first mythological stirring of monism.

Whichever ancient culture we happen to focus on, there appears to be a process in motion where the many gods and goddesses of a national pantheon are blended into a single deity. As everything becomes defined as a part of this vast meta-deity, including all of the material world and everything in it, then everything becomes imbued with the spirit and essence of that meta-deity. Such an all-inclusive definition of deity produces a world that is defined by a kind of spiritual pantheism. What has driven this process is the political amalgamation that has brought diverse and unique cultures clashing together to create a meta-culture (empire) that allowed for common laws, extensive trade and communications, and also elevated the chief deity of that conquering culture into a trans-cultural meta-deity. That process of coalescing a pantheon of deities into a single meta-deity is called “macranthropy,” from macranthropus or “cosmic person.”

Macranthropy, or the creation of a meta-deity from a pantheon of many deities, allows for the paradox of both focusing on a single unified deity as well as focusing on the individual deities within the pantheon. Unlike monotheism, a plurality of deities is allowed since they are seen as facets or attributes of the one meta-deity. The one meta-deity transcends all of the other deities in that pantheon, but it doesn’t negate or eliminate them. In fact, any of the deities in that pantheon could be used to establish a meta-deity. The starting point is, of course, a kind of henotheism, or where an individual focuses exclusively on just one deity within a pantheon for a specific purpose or achieving a goal. Macranthropy establishes a correspondence between the smaller or more numerous elements of a subset of the universe (microcosm) and the One, which is the transcendental point of union greater than all of the individual elements that it contains (macrocosm). All of the other anthropomorphic gods are seen as parts of a single anthropomorphic body of a meta-deity, thereby the shape of the universe itself is analogous to the human body.

As the idea of macranthropy evolves within a culture, then over time that transcendental meta-deity becomes divested of any attributes. It is no longer represented by any kind of exalted aspect of deity, and the notion of the macrocosmic union is rendered into a philosophical abstraction which is called the One, or the Good, or the Unity of Being. The meta-deity has been demythologized and now becomes a transcendent place holder instead of a super-godhead. Even though this process of abstraction has occurred, it has not subjugated or eliminated the notion that there are many diverse gods (or religions) that one might engage with or even worship as powerful and animated beings.

(As you can see, monotheism was never able to get beyond the more evolved notion that the Unity of Being has no attributes and therefore cannot function as a godhead. Monotheism, in my opinion, got stuck at the half-way point between a meta-deity and the philosophical notion of the One, which is much more subtle and complex. It was easier to just establish one’s concept of a single meta-deity as the singular universal godhead than attempting to demythologize that point of unity in order to realize its essential truth. Later on, a comprehensive theology had to be developed that explained and established the dogma of this singular godhead. That development was never able to completely dominate or eradicate all of the other religions in the world, so it remained an inconclusive sectarian perspective on the nature of spiritual truth.)

When the One becomes emptied of any attributes of a specific godhead or deity, then it becomes possible to realize it through the process of philosophy and contemplation - worship is no longer possible or desirable. Everything is left intact in such a cultural environment regarding the State and family based pagan religions, except now there is a known element that is truly transcendent. Further insights will lead certain select and inspired individuals to realize that the One is also resident within the center of each human being, and that there is no difference between the macrocosmic One and the microcosmic One - they are the same.

I am getting ahead of myself here in this narration on monism, so lets examine the history of how monism emerged from religion in ancient Greece so we can establish the foundation of this special religious philosophy, keeping in mind that what happened there also happened in India and earlier in other places as well (Egypt and Mesopotamia). I want to present a very brief and simple history of philosophy in Greece and also focus on the basic elements of the concept of the One, the Many, and how they are resolved and interrelated within the notion of the Few. This will bridge the teachings of the early pre-Socratic philosopher Thales all the way down through Plato. I will attempt to show how powerful and useful monism is to modern pagans, and how it can shape and strengthen the philosophical basis of modern paganism.

To Be Continued...

Frater Barrabbas

Various Assorted Thoughts and Considerations About Ritual Magick - Part 1

This is part one of a two part series consisting of various assorted thoughts about recent blogsphere topics.
 

It’s nearing the end of the month, and there are a number of small topics and comments that I would like to present to my reading public. I have truly enjoyed all of the comments and responses that I got for my article on non-duality, and I have a few comments of my own to add and also clarify what I said previously. Additionally, I have recently got a copy of Mr. E. A. Koetting’s more recent book “Ipsissimus” where he discusses the concepts and ideas of enlightenment ala the Left Hand Path. As I read deeper into his material, I will, at some point, deliver an opinion on his work. Despite the fact that I don’t actually consider myself an adherent of the LHP philosophy, I am also not disposed completely to the Right Hand Path either. I would also like to put forward my opinions about the issues of the reality of spirits, the verification of evocation, and literary piracy v.s. online freedom (the SOPA/PIPA controversy). There are a lot topics here to briefly discuss, and they are mostly unrelated, hence the title “Various Assorted.”


Multiple Paths to Enlightenment

In October of last year, I posted an article entitled “Path to Enlightenment Through Magick,” where I explained my perspective on achieving enlightenment through the artifice of performing theurgistic magickal rituals, which I call ordeals. You can find that article here, in case you want to review it. I have forged a path, although it is not thoroughly tested (I am not yet “enlightened”), which would take me to a place that is decidedly between the objectives of the Right Hand Path and the Left Hand Path, making me a proponent of neither. I should quote this passage, taken from another blog article here, which pretty much sums up how I seek to achieve my objective by following neither ethical orientation.

“This is particularly true because I consider myself neither a follower of the left hand or the right hand path, being a denizen of that shadowy grey area that is more a practical reality than an alliance to some path or persuasion. I aspire in my magickal workings to integrate the HGA or Bornless One into my own self, and thus elevate myself to the level of a godhead, however thinly or briefly. This is certainly a lefthand path perspective. However, I also give veneration, offerings and worship to my ancestors and my gods, thus making me a follower of the right hand path.”

First off, I would like to state that following a particular dualistic path (RHP or LHP) is probably overly simplistic. Practical approaches to the practice of ritual magick and its ultimate goal of union with the One would require any magician to forge a path that is unique and specific to his or her life path, keeping in mind the inherited legacy and the various virtues and flaws that each individual possesses. What this means is that a theoretical discussion based on ideals typically breaks down to practical necessity, and that there are as many different paths to that ultimate goal of spiritual unity as there are individuals who might seek it. Unlike mysticism, or mystical traditions and paths, the path of the traditional magician likely doesn’t exist. There are certainly traditions that form the foundation of any practitioner in regards to their inherent practice, but ultimately, every magician worth his or her salt will leave that tradition behind in order to create something specific and unique to themselves. So while there are specific and set mystical traditions, there appear to be no set magickal traditions in regards to higher level pathways and practices. This also means that the division of RHP and LHP becomes meaningless after a certain point in a magician’s development.

As I have stated in my recent article on monism, it is through our own internal godhead that we are able to perceive the active role of Spirit in the world, and it is when we become truly aware of our own godhead, and fully activate it, that we gain an intimate connection to that overarching Deity which acts as the ultimate source of all things. (We will talk a bit more about this issue later in this article.) Therefore, as far as functioning as a ritual magician and performing theurgistic ordeals, the primary purpose and task is to awaken the godhead within one. Once that awakening and merging of consciousness occurs, then we can proceed with the combined mystical and magickal tasks of completing that union with the One.

I think that the division of paths, and the ideation of RHP or LHP are useful discussion tools when one is below the level of achieving full union with the inner godhead. At that point and beyond, such distinctions are probably useless.

(A tip of the hat to my reader and commentator, Nik64, who gave me the inspiration and idea to write up this point.)


Further Thoughts About Non-duality, Magick, and the Qabbalah

One of my readers (Josh) had some real issues with what I had recently written about non-dual perspectives (i.e., monism) in regards to magick and a pagan based religious idealism, stating that monism was somehow restricted to a single viewpoint and that it excludes all other perspectives, which he called “pluralism.” I don’t really know where he got this idea from, since I couldn’t find in my article where I stated that my perspective and view was singularly correct, and that all others were somehow false. Here’s a small segment of what Josh said in the comments section of my article.

“The problem with monism (one view and one view only) is that those coming from a monistic viewpoint always try to demonize other views as dualism or dualistic, even when there is a multiplicity (more than two) views.”

I really think that Josh was thinking about his objections to “monotheism” rather than “monism,” and they are actually quite different. Stating that a certain deity is the one and only godhead (and all others are false) can create a closed system that eliminates the consideration of other factors, or other godheads and their spiritual creeds. Monotheism can produce exclusionary spiritual systems that negate pluralism. Adopting a mystical perspective seems to eliminate the possibility of believing in the exclusive truth of one’s religion, and it also separates or makes a distinction between individuals who espouse a faith based perspective or experience Spirit directly from those who are merely believers. Through the artifice of stating that both the internal and individual godhead and the ultimate unified source are co-equal and the same is to enshrine both a unitary perspective as well as a pluralistic perspective. Many variations of monotheism as they are practiced in the West exclude the possibility that the individual is also a distinct godhead in their own right, since such a perspective (“All art God) would violate the integrity of a strict monotheistic creed. Throughout the ages, there have been more than a few mystics who have been murdered or taken to task by narrow minded sectarians of their own creed, and that would include Jesus of Nazareth himself.

Lao Tzu says it quite well when he writes in the very first chapter of the Tao Te Ching:

“Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestation. These two spring from a common source, but differ in name.”

According to Lao Tzu, the mystery or paradox is the One that is actually None, and the pluralistic perspective sees the Spirit alive and thriving in all things. I believe that the same ability to embrace the One and the Many exists in all forms of mysticism, and is important in regards to ritual magick, too. So I don’t think that there is an absolutist perspective in monism, but there certainly can be an absolutist perspective in monotheism and extreme sectarianism.

I also stated that my personal perspective was based on the pagan theology that I originally accepted as a part of being a practicing witch. As a traditional Alexandrian witch, I believed in the existence of a Goddess and a God, and that when joined together, they became a kind of union that has no name or characteristic. Traditional witchcraft (ala BTW) embraces a kind of “dual-theology,” and that only some of its adherents (such as myself) will hold that there is something that transcends them both. Not everyone in my tradition believes that the Goddess and the God are forever joined into a fusion that is greater than the sum of their parts. Yet once I grew beyond the boundaries that were defined by Alexandrian witchcraft, I also discovered the reality and necessity of individual and distinct pagan Deities, since there seemed to be many qualities to the overall aspect of deity in my experience, and these many qualities could be easily realized through a form of pagan polytheism.

What I found after many years of practicing witchcraft and paganism is that the concept of a dual-theology is just one way to perceive the concept of polytheism. There is also a true polytheism that sees many different gods and goddesses as distinct personalities, and there is the concept that all of these deities coalesce into a single unity, which I call the One. All of these perspectives are true and correct, but also limited and only conditionally true. Deity is, by nature, paradoxical, so any one single definition, model, description or perspective limits something that is unlimited, indefinite and infinite. Therefore, I would think that by making this statement I am embracing both a monism and a pluralism simultaneously. How I can do that (and get away with it) is to state that what is being described can’t be described. As Lao Tzu says in the first chapter:

“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of ten thousand things.” 

Curiously, this whole issue of monism, monotheism, plurality, polytheism and the individuation of the Godhead has been getting a fair amount of buzz in various blogs, most specifically in the collected web journals that make up Patheos. Gus diZerega, who is the author of “Pagans and Christians,” brought up some very interesting points about how monotheism has some problems when characterizing their Godhead as being completely separate and distinct from everything, as a Deity that is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, while still being capable of being loving, directly experienced and intimate. These opposing perspectives are merely labeled as part of the paradox of a deity that is both immanent and transcendent, but there are some real problems to this perspective that labeling it all as a paradox does nothing to resolve. You can find his article here.

Anyway, I think that I have more succinctly stated my beliefs and perspectives on this topic, and so I can rest my case and move on to other topics. The only reason why I have been working on this topic and its related perspectives in regards to the practice or ritual magick is that when I have experienced the highest states of consciousness that I am able, the resultant state is unity. At that veritable peak of my magickal experiences, I am able to sense how everything is connected together, and that within that union I have found the ecstatic bliss of the One. I believe that it’s pretty hard to dismiss what I have experienced, and correspondingly, it’s pretty hard to adequately explain it using words or mental models.


Finally, I would like to announce that I will be attending a weekend intensive at the local Twin Cities store, the Eye of Horus, with John Michael Greer. He will be conducting a three day series of classes on pagan ceremonial magick. I will be very interested in learning to hear what John thinks about this topic, since he has recourse to much of this material written in its source languages, a skill to which I am quite deficient. These classes will be taking place on Friday, January 27, through Sunday, January 29. I will write up a critique of this class and let you know what I think of it. I am certain that it will be interesting and rewarding. I have been corresponding with John for a few months now, and I have found his letters to be refreshing, interesting, compelling and sometimes, quite humorous. He is another one of those remarkable men and women, and I encourage everyone to seek out these kinds of people and learn everything that can be learned from them. It is an excellent methodology for self-enrichment, and ultimately, if you have rubbed elbows with enough remarkable men and women, you may become one yourself. 

(To be continued..)

Frater Barrabbas