God in Crowley's Universe
-
Is it safe to say that Crowley's universe was an essentially Godless one in which there were multiple beings of varying degrees of power. And, indeed, did he believe everything was essentially alive and a "being" of some sort while at the same time nothing was really a "being" in he self-defined sense at all?
When I consider his philosophy and the star sponge, etc. it seems that it all comes down to the interconnectedness of everything, the emptiness of everything and the luminosity of everything. "The secret of nature is concentration," to me, seems to be saying that out of the Mind all things arise endlessly and it is easy to drift off into whatever fantasy display arises, but to remain aware of the invisible truth, the luminous emptiness of "mother space" which is the ground of all being, one achieves clarity by residing in full presence of the true state.
When this realization dawns, one sees that all things are perfect just as they are. All sufferings will pass, all manner of existence self-liberates. This being the case, there is nothing to truly do. This being the case, the True Will seems to be sort of a paradox or a joke. The True Will is natural and obvious: to exist and to be fulfilled, but as there is no real ego there is nothing to worry about. His practice of eliminating the "I" from speech shows to me that he knew the awareness that is present is an egoless awareness which does not die and yet does not maintain a static existence. This awareness is an ever-changing presence which is as much inside as outside and which continually self-liberates. The secret of concentration allows one to exist peacefully in both the absolute and relative realms by training the ordinary mind to be free of relative suffering while becoming firm in the recognition of nonduality, which is the higher reality. The True Will is here now and when "the man is made into a negative" (or ego-clinging is removed), the fullness of perfection is revealed to the experiencer. Duality and nonduality are united in experience, as they were from the very beginning!
But, there is no God which stands outside these realms. This is just the way the nature of mind has been from the beginning.
Does that make sense? Sorry if I went from question to a general rambling and back to a question. I couldn't think of another way to express the idea.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"Is it safe to say that Crowley's universe was an essentially Godless one in which there were multiple beings of varying degrees of power."
Quick answer that doesn't address each part of the rest of your post, but primarily the topic sentence above.
No, I don't think that's a correct assessment at all. It's at least half wrong
At least half wrong because held that there is no God to the same extent that he held there is God and that there are multiple Gods.
He often used (especially in relation to the mysteries of the Tiphereth) the motto Deus est Homo, usually translated "God is Man" (correct as long as you understand that homo means a member of the human species, not a specifically male member of the human species, or vir). I think he held this to be true more than anything, but it is also frequently misunderstood to mean, for example, that a human being as known through his or her personality is God. He wrote that there is no God but "man," but that didn't mean that God is limited to the scope by which humanity is usually understood - rather, it meant that humanity is actually of the scope by which God is normally understood.
I think it safe to say he worshipped the infinite - really infinite, not just "really big." And he didn't much give a fuck how somebody characterized it, because no characterization is good enough.
(Digression: I love the line credited to character Toby Ziegler on West Wing - when asked if he believed the Bible was the literal word of God - he responded, "Yes, I do, but I don't think any of us are smart enough to know for sure what it means." Or words to that effect.)
In the Probationer admission ceremony of A.'.A.'., the important counsel is given that, whenever one encounters the name of any god soever, he or she should not assume that it means any particular God other than the God directly known to the aspirant. I think this is the most important practical counsel on his position on these things.
-
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Did Crowley ever give any indication whether or not he believed less-than-man could become man and thus "god?" Also, did he consider praeterhuman entities such as Aiwass to be greater, less than or equal to man?