Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
or
Beyond God and Evil
As the individual travels his long journey from birth to the grave, there is
one thing that is certain. When he becomes fully cogniscient of the world in
which he lives, he starts to build up a philosophy of life. Now this
philosophy may be of a religious nature, it may be existentialist, or may
simply be one of disinterest in discovering the rationale behind the mystery
of life. Whatever personal or public philosophy he chooses adds to the
universal progression toward the truth. The nature of this discourse is to
attempt to integrate the source of theosophical development, and to
interpret this in relation to a more scientific view of the universe. In short,
the nature of the God-Concept. However, we must bear in mind that this
truth is subjective, and differs widely between even siblings. All paths, if
valid for the individual concerned, are valid as personal systems, and in the
end, all reach the same point. There is a multiplicity of paths, and one final
destination.
First we must consider the different ways in which man has tried to
accomplish these ends. The first to be discussed in depth is organised
religion.
If we start in the modern age, we see that there are two main types of
conventional religious institution, the deistic, and the philosophic. The deist
school embody the principle that the God-Concept is an entity, with an
individual personality. The problem with this type of theory is that it
becomes generic, although initially the product of one or several minds, it
becomes accepted by many millions. No problem I hear you say, but what if
this doctrine is invalid for even the smallest proportion of it's adherents??
The crux of the matter is that if the origin of the doctrine is flawed in any
way then the whole future of the followers is in doubt. Many will not find
themselves fulfilled, and will go to the grave with their view incomplete, and
their future unsure. If we take Christianity as an example, then we find
many followers paying lip-service to the God in question, with no deep
grasp or acceptance of the theology. This is further compounded by the fact
that these major deistic institutions are not simply concerned with the God-
Concept. We find that they also embody cultural and governmental factors,
which perpetuate the system, be it flawed or valid. Such additions to the
philosophy do not endear it to true thinkers, since it places constraints upon
the individual believer, and builds up an organisation out of a concept. This
is to be baulked at, as it induces further generations to be born into the
system, and thus indoctrinated into a philosophy that may not be right for
them.
An additional aspect of organised religion is that of the use of it to convey
important learning which could not be easily distributed otherwise. This
information often had it's base in the recognition by the elders of certain
factors in the environment which were detrimental to the human body. For
example, in Judaism, there still remains the custom of circumcising every
new–born male. This has been completely accepted into the religion as a
sign of membership of the order, and a sign of devotion to God. Now, if
we, with recourse to history, take a look at the environment in which the
early Jews lived, we find that the sandy, dusty regions in which they lived,
loose apparel and lack of personal hygiene would have lead to extreme
uncleanliness of the male organ. It is a recognised medical fact now that the
prolonged prescense of the secretions within the prepuce of the penis
predispose to penile cancer, and in those days, also infection. It can be
inferred that this link was recognised even then, and as they had no way of
imparting this knowledge, other than by religious teaching, or practise, we
can see that it is very likely that this mundane reason was the major factor in
the development of the circumcision practise. Other examples such as the
ban on eating pork since the pig was a very unclean animal, the recognition
that blood was a carrier of many diseases (in those days, parasitic infections
of the blood were rife), and that promiscuous activity often lead to venereal
disease as was recognised in ancient Greece.
These examples show that social and medical learning were often included
in the religious thread, in order for the widespread practise of safer living.
Whilst entirely valid in a cultural setting, these additions to religious thought
are abhorrent insofar as they embellish the content of the belief system, and
can lead to confusion in later years. For example, the sect of Jehovah's
Witnesses remain strong in their acceptance on the ban of blood. From a
point of view removed from theirs, it can be seen that this is an
anachronism, left over from the days when blood really was not particularly
safe. In modern times, this tenet has probably lead to the loss of many lives
which could have otherwise been saved by modern medical science. So,
whilst highly desirable in the days of mass ignorance, these additions to the
religious concept do not have validity in the modern day. Indeed, they
distort further the picture of the original dogma of the particular religion.
However, there is one benefit of this type of system. And that is for the
individual who does not have any inclination or ability to discover their own
personal view. These individuals find themselves presented with a ready
made philosophy with which they can find themselves accepting as their
own. A rather facetious analogy is to that of food. One can conceptualise
and prepare a meal at home, with bare ingredients, or can go out to a
restaurant, and choose a meal which they think they may like. It is all
glamorised by trappings, nice surroundings, waiters and the like, but when it
comes down to it, at the end of the meal they may have enjoyed or hated it.
For the one who decides to cook his own meal it may also come to the
same conclusion, but at least he has made the effort to create something to
his own personal taste, has taken initiative, and created something novel.
We can see here the possible benefits, but also the major downsides of this
type of doctrine.
The second religious institution is that of the philosophical concept. These
tend on the whole to be Eastern in origin (although smaller examples can be
seen in the West, as for example the Quaker society, which although
couching itself in Christian language, is itself a separate entity, owing far
more to the Eastern than Western view of religion). We find that these
philosophical religions emphasise the personal work of the individual in
conforming to a set of values, and discovering their own link with the God-
Concept. Of course, like any organisation they have their disadvantages,
often similar to those of the Deist school, but they place great value in the
individual working out their own true view, with reference to their ideal,
which is more an example than a set concept. Personal spiritual
enlightenment seems far more evident in these societies than in the Deist
schools, since it is supported from an early age. The practical methods
employed by these systems are far more individually based than the deistic
group worship, and thus open the field for personal interpretation and
progress at a speed determined by the individuals themselves.
As a measure of their success we might consider the number of deviations
that occur within these systems, as separate sects. We then find that
Western religion engenders a great deal more dissension and dissatisfaction
with the system than with their Eastern counterparts. With Christianity for
example there have been more off-shoots and sub-groups than one can
count. The philosophical religions however have only a minor number of
religious diversions, and these tend to be in the practise of achieving the
true understanding of the God-concept. Some may say that this could be
purely due to cultural differences, with the oriental mind a lot less attracted
to rebellion and radical thought, preferring conformation and acquiescence.
This may play a small part, but it is by no way the only reason.
Reference to earlier forms of religious concept can now be made, based in
the light of the modern systems which are easily understood by the
individual who chooses to take a step back and view them from outside,
unallied to any particular point of reference.
From the first days of the human race, there is evidence to suggest that
mankind developed religion to explain the unknown, and to satisfy the need
for spiritual experience. This development of the God-Concept is
important, as we can see that mankind, through the æons, has attempted at
all stages to understand that which cannot be explained. A brief list of the
types of concept of God forms, from the earliest and primitive forms
through to the later religious dogmas follows. It is by no means exhaustive,
but provides a brief overview to the development of a more rationally
acceptable concept.
Natural Religion generally disassembles to either the worship of nature, or
the worship of the dead. In the following types of religion, these concepts
are touched upon to a lesser or greater extent. For example, animism is a
form of worship of nature, whilst the polytheistic beliefs in gods of death
and the underworld expound the latter.
Animism, one of the earliest types of religious belief, was a way that
primitive man could explain how things functioned in his world. It
proposed that all things were alive, and their character was exponent with
their function. For example, the wind rushing through the trees was thought
to be alive. The trees bending in the wind were also alive, as were the leaves
and twigs which fell from the tree during a storm. Here we see mankind
realising that there was some underlying principle in the world, which of
course he could not understand scientifically.
Polytheism, a later primitive belief was that of animism, extended to the
point where the individual living objects were in fact controlled by a
multiplicity of specific personified deities. For example, in the North
American Indian tribes, the wind was controlled by a being or God called
the Wendigo, a spirit form composed of air, with a vengeful temperament.
The Egyptians also had a multiplicity of deities, one for each of the
components of the world: e.g. Thoth, the god of knowledge, Isis, goddess
of fertility, and Amen-Ra, King-god of the Sun.
Theism is a general term used to define a concept of god in which there is a
supreme perfect being. This god is often in an anthropomorphic form –
that is to say has been personified into a being with a human form and
characteristics. This deity is omnipotent and omniprescient, and can
intervene in the physical world to produce effects noticeable to humans.
Monotheism proposed a single god form, supreme in the universe, and who
was generally personified in some form. The earliest form appeared in 14th
Century BC Egypt, Pharaoh Akhnaton changed the belief of the country to
that of monotheism, in the worship of Aten, a universal power which
created the world. Judaism was the next major exponent of this concept of
God.
Dualism is a belief system where there exist two counterpart Gods, one of
good, and the other of evil, these co-existing in the divine world. Examples
of this are many, Zoroastrianism, with twin gods Ahura Mazda and
Ahriman; and the concepts of Satan or the Adversary in Christianity, Islam
and Judaism. Although these three religions claim to be monotheistic in that
they worship a single deity, the acceptance of an opposing counterpart,
whether actively or not implies at least passively the fact that they are
Dualists.
Pluralism is a compound belief, whereby several factors are implicit in the
formation of the world, all equal and powerful. The factors are generally
ascribed to be God, Mind, and Matter. These all interact to produce the
effects seen in the world. This is a much more philosophic view of God
than the theological doctrine. It is not worship of the God-Concept, in that
there is no supreme being, and hence is greatly at odds with deistic systems
of religion.
Monistic belief is one of unification. The universe, all it holds and god are
one and the same. In this system all are joined and there is no free will, the
actions of supposed individuals all controlled and defined by the one power
in control of everything, the Monad.
In Pantheism God is everything combined, similar to that of Monism.
However the main difference is that in Pantheism, rather than god being the
sum total of all, god is present in everything, and is a part of life, not the
controlling factor. It is an essence present in everything, and is not a
personified deity. This is at odds with conventional deistic religion, which
generally believes in a creator myth, and although it may no longer personify
God, it still deifies to the extent where god is perceived to be a discrete
entity. Let me extend this by saying that many of the organised 'spiritual'
religions believe that God is more an extension of the universe in the terms
of physics. The only way to explain this simply is to say that God is
perceived more as a force within every object inanimate or living, which is
currently beyond the limits of science to define.
In this brief discussion of the lesser accepted, and earlier forms of God-
Concept we can follow the thread running through. Man, in an attempt to
understand his world, explained away all that which he did not understand
by binding it up with the religious experience. With the aid of science we
can remove a great deal of the unknown, and so invalidate some of these
forms of belief, and see how even now, with a strong scientific component
to our current global society, the unknown still exists, and deism still
provides an explanation for the unknown. The more philosophic religions,
and philosophical doctrines do not try as hard to encompass the unknown,
but there is still inherent teaching in many to suggest that that which we do
not understand plays a part in the universal scheme explained by the system.
We can now move on to the humanitarian philosophical ideas, as opposed
to religion proper, since these stand for a more individual approach, and
non-theological view of the God-Concept. To enter this area in depth is
outside of the scope of this thesis. Many different works on the history and
basis of philosophical thought have been written; we concern ourselves only
with the fact that mankind has in latter civilization (not withstanding the
work of the Ancients) thought to abstractly conceptualise the phenomenon
of existence, and analyse it.
The third, and most diverse group of broad theosophical concepts is that of
the Occult. If, generalising, the concept of organised religion is devoted to
deism, that of philosophy to abstract concepts of the organisation of the
universe and mankind, then what can be said about the occult? In the most
general terms, the occult differ from the previous two in not only trying to
discern the nature of the God–concept, or whatever it is termed, but also to
try to influence and use this force on the terms of an individual. Put simply,
the first group worship this force, the second intellectualise it, and the third,
the occult, tries to use it.
Subclassifying the occult is wraught with difficulty. There are so many
variations on a theme that it can be difficult to gain an overall picture of this
vast area. One can break down the area into rough divisions only.
The traditions involved in each division may be classified as follows: The
Druidic / Wiccan school owes it's allegiance to worship of the natural
forces within a framework based on a Celtic Natural Religious tradition.
This is more of a Religion than other occult beliefs, but follows the basic
concept that through manipulation of the God concept, change can be
achieved, and therefore falls into the Occult category.
The Judeo-Christian Occult takes it's origin from the tradition of Judaism
and Chrstianity. This is often based on mystery traditions from within this
religious framework, for example the QBLH. More occult orders follow this
path than any other derivation.
Eastern Mysticism lends itself more easily to Occult interpretation than does
Western religion, and this can be seen in the products of Western
interpretation of its' tenets. Proprietary Theosophy and it's offshoots (rather
than the true derivation of this word)) owes allegiance to this base.
Demonism and it's subdivisions stem from the Middle Ages, where the lack
of education and science prompted the intellectually active and less than
scrupulous neomagickian to follow the only available alternative to
mainstream Christianity by following the paradigm of the Adversary. A
more contrived and ludicrous offshoot can not be imagined.
Setianism, or Satanism in it's current interpretaion owes itself to the work of
a Carnival Showman and Confidence trickster, who has built up a
hedonistic and selfish system, based on Antichristian imagery, which
parallels, and has been influenced by the following sector of occult activity.
The Western Magickal Tradition concerns several more modern
philosophies and groups which have attempted to unite multiple disciplines
and origins within a single framework, such as our own beloved Order.
Many draw influence from a JudeoChristian base.
So, in light of a consideration of the major philosophical, theological and
occult theorems of the God-Concept, how may we formulate an ideal, or
near ideal understanding of what the basis behind this phenomenon? In
effect, a meta–analysis needs to be undertaken, trying to compare all beliefs,
to provide the best possible "fit". The following is one such consideration
of the subject, which has been developed over many years of study and
thought.
We may take as a premise that the God-Concept is in nature a force rather
than an entity in it's own right. Why? Well, taking into consideration that
the personified beings of the many deistic systems often have totally
different characteristics, there is little correlation between them. Compare if
you will the Goddess Kali of the Indian Thuggee cult, and Jesus Christ.
There can be no comparison between the inherently malignant Kali and the
altruistic Christ. All of them claim theirs is the one true Godhead, and all
other are false. Aside from the arrogance of this, it seems unlikely that one
group is right and all the others are wrong. What we see here is probably
due to interpretation and extrapolation of experiences with contact with the
God-Concept force.
So, given that it is in nature a force, we must then ask ourselves, what kind
of force does it represent? With recourse to physics, chemistry and biology,
the pure sciences, we can further try to divine it's nature. If we take the
macroscopic nature first, we look at biology. Considering the structure of
the human body, and the physiological processes occurring at cellular level,
we can automatically deduce that there is no specific part of the body which
houses such a force. The processes working to keep the individual cell
functioning are all fairly well recognised, if not entirely understood. These
devolve simple chemical reactions, working to some plan, to keep the
cellular functions in operation. There is nothing mystical in this. If we
examine neural tissue, since this has been considered in the past to play the
rôle of a conduit to the Divine, as exemplified by Rene Descartes theory
about the Pineal Gland, and the Crown of the Indian Chakras, we find that
this again was an attempt now generally disengendered to explain the
unknown, Neural tissue, at least the molecular biology of it is fairly well
understood. Of course, we do not yet know how consciousness and the
mind work, but most researchers believe it to be in simplicity a complex,
analogue computer, that for some reason, when all the components reach
activity, produce that which we call consciousness. Here, the sciences have
proved that at least on a biological level, there is nothing mysterious about
the brain. Of course, this area is still not well understood, but the principles
are well accepted, and there seems to be nothing divine about the working
of the brain. Research into consciousness through studying victims of head
trauma, and the now obsolete practise of psychosurgery have shown us that
consciousness, mind and will are all represented not in specific areas of the
brain, but spread through the whole. Removing the frontal lobes of a
psychotic individual, as was done in the past, renders the recipient
purposeless, still conscious, but unable to think rationally and abstractly.
The whole brain is kept in a state of activation by structures within the brain
stem, and damage to these commonly produces the comatose state seen in
victims of head trauma. So we see that although there is localisation of
function within the brain, that which we call mind does not reside in any
critical location, being rather the integration of the whole.
So we are left with the question, is there something present in neural tissue
that is not in other cells of the body, which could act as a receptacle for
something other than that understood by neuroscience. The answer is no,
research can not provide evidence for this. Individuals with localised brain
damage, or even lacking half a brain still can function to some extent as
purposeful human beings, even lacking a significant percentage of the brain,
albeit with other facilities and functions altered. In anencephalic babies, that
is infants born with no cerebral cortices, refiexes centred in the lower levels
of the neural net still survive, and produce a parody of life, that is they
appear to be normal infants save for the cranial defect. So the spark of life
cannot be localised anywhere in the brain, nor in other locations proposed
in the past, such as the mesenteric ganglia also known as the solar plexus. It
is not volume dependent either, as can be shown be those lacking amounts
of neural tissue as referred to before.
At the molecular level, cells, although differing in certain functions, all show
certain homology, and the processes acting to keep the cell active or alive
have been characterised in the past, and show continuity of function
between all the forms of life. Even neural tissue is understood in principle,
in the context of molecular activity. The study of this has shown that the
brain contains cells working in the same way as others, except that they are
specialised to produce certain chemicals which are then secreted and act
upon neighbouring cells, through the contact of the synapse. However,
other cells are specialised for other functions, such as the pancreatic B cells
which secrete insulin in response to other chemical signals acting on the cell.
There is nothing novel about the way that cells do this.
Thus, the science of chemistry can provide no further explanation for that
which we call the God-Concept if we consider it either a part of, or annexed
to living cells.
Turning last to physics, we find a similar lack of explanation, however in
this field we find that there is a great deal more uncertainty than in the
higher sciences. These are ultimately based on physical principles that we
understand, yet physics has not been encompassed with the same amount
of understanding as has the others. Since it is a theoretical science, and is
the base for all we know in the higher levels of existence, it can only be used
to formulate principles which have been well observed or deduced through
scientific experiment, unlike for example chemistry which has recourse to
physics to explain in context atomic interactions and understand how these
atoms react to produce progressively more complex structures. But here we
can see that a basic tool for physics is mathematics, and this itself provides
all the rationale behind those deductions made about physical principles.
And ultimately mathematics is based upon observation and analysis of
abstract theories.
The discussion of the philosophy of science is beyond the remit of this
work, but what has been briefiy outlined above does go some way to show
that the whole foundation for current scientific thought derives from what
can be surmised from the material world, and that other energy forms
cannot be understood until they can be recognised. So we are left with the
question as to whether material existence is the only form of energy in the
multiverse. Since we are within this phase of energy ourselves, we cannot
take a step back to overview the entire schema, so we can only surmise from
within our own perspective. And this is why we cannot divine the Divine. It
is quite evident that the God-Concept must either be so fundamental to the
material phase that we have not yet worked down to it's level, or lies outside
that which we call the physical universe.
At this point of the analysis we can conclude that the God-Concept either
owes alliance to the doctrine of pantheism, or is something entirely outside
this sphere, and in essence is a form of energy touching upon our phase of
existence in ways of course we cannot understand or even conceptualise.
This conclusion, if a valid one, then proves that the God-Concept must be a
force of some kind, and cannot be an entity as we know it, or as religion has
characterised, the latter since we can derive that if it were an entity as some
personify it, it would have physical presence in this material phase.
This conclusion is of course based upon surmise and hypothesis, rather than
firm evidence. It is thus more than possible that it is incorrect, as history
tells us that other such highly convoluted and derived ideas are often wrong.
However, if we look at the whole rationale of science, we find exactly the
same, ultimately they are based upon observation and theory. And yet, in
the field of medicine, if we take it as one of the most applied forms of
science, insofar as it is based not only upon theory in it's field, but on the
summation of the theory of the field of chemistry, physics and mathematics,
it still proves to conform to established principles, and the more research
done still reveals nothing anathematous to it's scientific basis. So this in
itself is strong evidence that highly derived theories can stand up to critical
analysis.
Given then, that the God-Concept is thus a force rather than entity, how
may we further characterise it? We are first confronted with the problem of
it's position in relation to the material phase. It may be, as previously
mentioned a physical principle so basic to the fundament of this plane that
we have not yet recognised it for what it is. The other possibility is that it
represents a higher plane of existence, another energy level superior to ours.
The distinction is at this point rather academic, since it is a matter of
perspective: whether it lies on a higher or a lower plane to our material
forms does not detract from the fact that as we have seen it's contact with
the human form appears crucial to what we refer to as life, and that the
human race cannot generally commune with it at will.
The question of how this force impinges on our universe, and influences it
is one of major importance, since it determines the nature of the link that
we have with the God–Concept. Does it pervade or contact all matter, or
only living organisms, or is it more selective than this? The question can be
evaluated somewhat, by recognising that human beings are obviously
subjective to this force, but what of other mammals and lower vertebrate,
and invertebrate life? If we take a logical view, we can surmise that, in fact,
all living organisms have the same inherent molecular basis, and theoretically
all are in touch with the force. Why? The only thing that separate humans
from lower mammals is evolutionary development of a consciousness
capable of abstract thought and learning. Otherwise, all higher life has the
same basic structure. It would be arrogant and false to think that we were
the only subjects of the force, for two simple reasons. The first is that our
consciousness stems from the development of an integrated, complex
neural net, and is biological in nature. As we have said before, this is a
higher function of planar energy or organisation of matter, and can
therefore not be isolated from other forms of existence. The difference is
thus quantitative rather than qualitative, it is a spectrum of organisation, and
it would be illogical to think that it could be annexed by some other form of
existence. The existence of life in humans lacking consciousness further
supports this theory, as we have already seen. The second reason is, as we
shall see elsewhere, the infiuence of the God-Concept affects not only the
human mind, but in some way affects everything material either directly, or
acting as a conduit for the hidden powers of the human mind. So we may
fairly confidently conclude that it's infiuence spreads not only over human
life but also lower animal life, and less confidently, over vegetable and inert
matter.
To further explain this interpretation of the God Concept, we must look to
our interaqction with it from within a framework of both Religion and the
Occult.
It has been known through the ages that a state of ecstasy or rapture can be
achieved during communion. This is notable across cultures and belief
systems. It is a fundament of many different systems that the highest form
of religious state is contact with the God Concept, whether it be passive or
active. Achieving this may differ greatly between systems… compare
Wiccan celebration with Buddhist meditation and Dervish frenzy.
Descriptions of this state all reveal a similar common effect; that of a sense
of deep satisfaction and feeling of joy, often with a sensation of unity.
How may this be reconciled across the myriad belief systems which vary so
significantly? It must be concluded that they all draw on the same event, but
differ in interpretation and achievement. Such is the only realistic outcome
of such a study. How can we discern the true nature of such an event? We
can only then assume that it is inherent in our physical or mental makeup, as
previously discussed. To be present in all cultures, and to affect a range of
individual from the most intelligent to the least, suggests a common
interface. This can only be planar. We have previously considered the
reasons for this hypothesis.
Knowledge of the God Concept may be achieved in numerous ways, all
differing in interpretation. However, we have shown here that it is a unique
force, which lies outside of common physics and philosophy. Further
surmise as to it's nature remains possible, but utterly unproveable at our
current stage of enlightenment. We can only conceptualise a higher plane, or
level of energy, through which we may, with training, interact. From a
practical point, it matters not, though to firmly define it is attractive, just as
primitive man defined wind as the vengeful Wendigo. We should avoid this,
despite an inherent uneasiness to do so, as only by remaining fully open to
new ideas and discoveries may we truly understand that great and wonderful
force we profess to study.
Stavex
Asar un-Nefer 5° = 6° RR et AC
6° = 5° Grade Thesis
London, 1998
(
geocities.com/athens/acropolis) (
geocities.com/athens)