Livin Your Best Life

Master of the Temple wrote:In Thelema, we talk about one’s individual coordinates in the Universe, and how that creates one’s own unique perspective. Schopenhauer refers to this perspective as ‘Idea.’ And indeed, he summarizes the whole of phenomenological philosophy succinctly: “…this whole world, is only object in relation to subject, perception of a perceiver, in a word, idea.”

Expanding on this, he states that the subject is the knower, as the object in a world of objects “lies within the universal forms of knowledge,” which he will come to compare to Plato’s theory of forms. Schopenhauer then equates Idea with Will; each being but a different aspect of the Universe. “For as the world is in one aspect entirely idea, so in another it is entirely will.” But for the idea coming into form, these forms are put into a hierarchy of grades; the highest of which “express themselves in innumerable individuals and particulars, and are related to these as archetypes to their copies”—almost perfectly reflecting Plato’s speculation and perhaps even prefiguring Jung’s ideas on archetypes.

The phenomenal relation between subject and object, Schopenhauer determines, “has meaning and existence only through and for the other.” In other words, without the object of perception there is no ontological development of consciousness for the subject. So that all knowledge is intimately entwined with a-priori perception, which he calls the principle of sufficient reason. And it is this principle that forms the basis of experience and action that comes through “the law of causation and of motive.” Thus, we get time and space (position) as the ‘ground of being.’

Schopenhauer then quotes Plato:

“The things of this world which our senses perceive have no true being; they always become, they never are: they have only a relative being; they all exist merely in and through their relations to each other; their whole being may, therefore, quite as well be called non-being. They are consequently not objects of a true knowledge, for such a knowledge can only be of what exists for itself, and always in the same way; they, on the contrary, are only the objects of an opinion based on sensation. So long as we are confined to the perception of these, we are like men who sit in a dark cave, bound so fast that they cannot turn their heads, and who see nothing but the shadows of real things which pass between them and a fire burning behind them, the light of which casts the shadows on the wall opposite them; and even of themselves and of each other they see only the shadows on the wall. Their wisdom would thus consist in predicting the order of the shadows learned from experience. The real archetypes, on the other hand, to which these shadows correspond, the eternal Ideas, the original forms of all things, can alone be said to have being, because they always are, but never become nor pass away. To them belongs no multiplicity; for each of them is according to its nature only one, for it is the archetype itself, of which all particular transitory things of the same kind which are named after it are copies or shadows. They have also no coming into being nor passing away, for they are truly being, never becoming nor vanishing, like their fleeting shadows. Of these only can there be true knowledge, for the object of such knowledge can only be that which always and in every respect is; not that which is and again is not, according as we look at it.”

For all those ego-loser spiritual teachers who maintain this universe is an illusion (Maya), Schopenhauer has a response. “The world of objects is and remains idea, and therefore wholly and forever determined by the subject; that is to say, it has transcendental ideality. But it is not therefore illusion or mere appearance; it presents itself as that which it is, idea, and then as a series of ideas of which the common bond is the principle of sufficient reason.” Therefore, if the universe is illusion, all our knowledge must also be false or non-existent, and we ourselves (the subject) are not real.

The principle of sufficient reason that is the a-priori relation between subject and object, and that arouses consciousness then also gives us ideas about perception and becomes the ‘ground of our being.’ So that consciousness and being are essentially, one and the same. This leads to knowledge and understanding the ‘outer world’ of objects (a-priori) and demonstrates its truth, by way of causation, and thus, reason. But it is important to determine the “correct inference from effect on the immediate object to its cause. Error is opposed to truth, as deception of the reason: illusion is opposed to reality, as deception of the understanding.”

Regarding the ego-loser spiritual teachers mentioned above, Schopenhauer has something to add here, as they dispute the reality of this world. This “can only occur to a mind perverted by over-subtlety, and such discussion always arise from a false application of the principle of sufficient reason.” In other words, a false relation between subject and object and the false ideas that are created from this. Liber AL vel Legis addresses this by merely stating that reason is a lie. And of this, we have to refer to Hume who correctly asserts that our reason is directly affected by our passions, and thus becomes rationalization.

But is AL then throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Phenomenology, as a philosophical science must then be that which interferes with the passions and inserts a protective measure of objectivity; essentially removing the influence of the passions. And so that as Schopenhauer asserts, “That which is correctly known by reason is truth.” Yet it is neither from the subject, nor the object that consciousness comes into being, but from the Idea, and it is this that speaks to the inner nature of the world. It is the human faculty of reflection that then brings us to the correct idea. Schopenhauer says that “the knowledge of perception, [sic] is a reflected appearance of [the object], and that the “forms of perception do not affect it, and even the principle of sufficient reason which reigns over all objects has an entirely different aspect with regard to it.” This, he asserts is a highly endowed consciousness that distinguishes human consciousness from animals.

This as ‘ideas of ideas’ is a conceptual awareness in contrast with the lesser awareness of animals that can only form precepts (ideas). Julian Jaynes also refers to this in his work, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. And it is these ‘ideas of ideas’ that we call abstract knowledge. And Schopenhauer elaborates on this: “Rational knowledge is therefore abstract consciousness, the permanent possession in concepts of the reason, of what has become known in another way.”

In order to attain to this conceptual awareness, Schopenhauer states that “this can only happen by an alteration taking place in the subject, which is analogous and corresponds to the great change of the whole nature of the object, and by virtue of which the subject, so are as it knows an Idea, is no more individual.” Ideas are thus transcendental knowledge, and transform us as individuals into our universal beingness. The apprehension of these ideas as archetypes presents an evolution of our understanding (qabalistic pun); taking us outside the a-priori (space-time), above the Abyss to Binah.

But Schopenhauer does not break entirely from David Hume, and inadvertently corroborates the assertion we gave from Liber AL vel Legis:

“Now, reason itself, strange as it may seem, is guilty of the same one-sidedness, indeed one might say of the same crude ignorance arising from vanity, for it classes under one concept, “feeling,” every modification of consciousness which does not immediately belong to its own mode of apprehension, that is to say, which is not an abstract concept. It has had to pay the penalty of this hitherto in misunderstanding and confusion in its own province, because its own procedure had not become clear to it through self-knowledge, for a special faculty of feeling has been set up, and new theories of it are constructed.”

Feeling, Schopenhauer asserts, is not a concept, nor abstract knowledge, but Qabalists understand that it is emotional, and thus, contra-balanced against the intellect on the Tree-of-Life (Netzach against Hod). But also, of the realm of feeling is what is conceptualized as virtue and holiness. These in the outer world of action, becomes “the expression of which is the whole man himself,” and thus a product of the Will. Indeed, as Schopenhauer also asserts, “every one knows what the world is without help, for he is himself that subject of knowledge of which the world is idea.” Therefore, as asserted in Thelema, ‘Thou hast no right, but to do thy will.’

Turning to culture, we are inspired by Schopenhauer’s introduction to the concept: “For at the present day every one who does not wish to remain uncultured, and to be numbered with the ignorant and incompetent multitude, must study speculative philosophy.” Thus, he attributes to the man or woman of Genius, an acculturation that distinguishes one from the human herd of the profane. In the transition to Idea one negates the “common knowledge of particular things,” which he says, “takes place suddenly; for knowledge breaks free from the service of the will, by the subject ceasing to be merely individual, and thus becoming the pure will-less subject of knowledge.” And we can deduce from this that Genius is then, a Master of the Temple in Thelemic terms.

The Genius then “forgets even his individuality, his will, and only continues to exist as the pure subject, the clear mirror of the object, so that it is as if the object alone were there, without any one to perceive it, and he can no longer separate the perceiver from the perception, but both have become one, because the whole consciousness is filled and occupied with one single sensuous picture.” And we find in this, a perfect description of Samadhi, so that the Idea becomes “the eternal form, the immediate objectivity of the will;” so that “the individual has lost himself;” becoming the “pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of knowledge.”

Note that the assertion of the will is a constant struggle in a world of contending forces, and can produce nothing but pain and longing, as the Buddhists assert. But through knowledge (qabalistic pun) one attains to the highest form; true being in Schopenhauer’s hierarchy of forms, and no longer subject to the world of shadows, as Plato relates. Further, Schopenhauer states the pure subject of knowledge knows only Ideas, and it is thus that the Ideas of the Master of the Temple pervades the collective consciousness of the human generation in the present and future; even that it is timeless and can be found to be also obvious in the past, though it wasn’t recognized before.

We can then deduce that the Minor Adept attains to the pure objectification of the Will (Thelema), which is the creation of beauty; it being truth of itself, but exists in form, by way of sufficient reason. But in transcendence of this, Idea becomes (no pun intended; cf. Plato quote) its complement; the Agape, which is fully declared in the gematric equivalence of these two Greek words. In transcending the phenomenal world and becoming the Master of the Temple, and pervading the collective psyche, one “becomes in this way directly conscious that, as such, he is the condition, that is, the supporter of the world and all objective existence; for this now shows itself as dependent upon his existence.”

Art then, becomes the teleological goal of universal existence (the Agape); its summit and master plan; that as Heidegger would assert, generates history that he gives to beingness. Though Schopenhauer presents some disagreement, on the subject, of art, Schopenhauer proves most profound—the history of art bringing beingness to a culture. Thus, in the Heideggerian sense, Divine Providence is the manifestation and descent of the Shekinah; Binah into Malkuth (Mother and Daughter).

“But what kind of knowledge is concerned with that which is outside and independent of all relations, that which alone is really essential to the world, the true content of its phenomena, which is subject to no change, and therefore is known with equal truth for all time, in a word, the Ideas, which are the direct and adequate objectivity of the thing in-itself, the will? We answer, Art, the work of genius. It repeats or reproduces the eternal Ideas grasped through pure contemplation, the essential and abiding in all the phenomena of the world; and according to what the material is in which it reproduces is sculptor or painting, poetry or music. Its one source is the knowledge of Ideas, its one aim the communication of this knowledge.”

Schopenhauer continues by claiming the method of genius only has any validity or practical use in art. And whether through quiet contemplation, or raging passion, we can assert that art produces the eternal, teleological Idea in its ideal, Platonic forms; being archetypal in nature and disclosing the structural integrity of the human soul through all qabalistic worlds. Schopenhauer describes two methods that are disclosed in one through Aristotle and the other, through Plato.

“The first is the method of Aristotle; the second is, on the whole, that of Plato. The first is like the mighty storm, that rushes along without beginning and without aim, bending agitating, and carrying away everything before it; the second is like the silent sunbeam, that pierces through the storm quite unaffected by it. The first is like the unnumerable showing drops of the waterfall, which, constantly changing, never rest for an instant; the second is like the rainbow, quietly resting on this raging torrent. Only through the pure contemplation described above, which ends entirely in the object, can Ideas be comprehended; and the nature of genius consists in pre-eminent capacity for such contemplation.”

Assigning imagination as the “essential element of genius,” Schopenhauer states that art “extends the intellectual horizon of the man of genius beyond the objects which actually present themselves to him.” And through the artist, we find “works which have retained through all time an enduring value for mankind.” But also, of those who are not of genius in any consistent manner, they must be capable of transcending their personality in moments to enjoy the aesthetic pleasure of art, and hold just enough genius in them to recognize Genius. That the Master of the Temple becomes a voice for the Ages, in each generation, there must be those of lesser genius that can perceive such.

It is through beauty, that again, belongs to the realm of the Minor Adept that Genius must then lift one “to the purest kind of knowledge,” suggesting Da’ath, as the Holy Guardian Angel pushes one into the Abyss. We thus come to a state of ‘pure knowing,’ as we transition from a “sense of the beautiful to that of the sublime.” In this, we demonstrate moving from the individual Will (Thelema) to the Universal Will (Agape). Schopenhauer then goes onto seemingly providing a perfect description of the Ordeal of the Abyss, one’s glimpse into the City of the Pyramids with its casting of a star into the heavens, and then one’s immersion back into the Ruach.

“Then, in the undismayed beholder, the two-fold nature of his consciousness reaches the highest deree of distinctness. He perceives himself, on the one hand, as an individual, as the trail phenomenon of will, which the slightest touch of these forces can utterly destroy, helpless against powerful nature, dependent, the victim of chance, a vanishing nothing in the presence of stupendous might; and, on the other hand, as the eternal, peaceful, knowing subject, the condition of the object, and, therefore, the supporter of this whole world; the terrific strife of nature only his idea; the subject itself free and apart from all desires and necessities, in the quiet comprehension of the Ideas. This is the complete impression of the sublime. Here he obtains a glimpse of power beyond all comparison superior to the individual, threatening it with annihilation.”

The nature of the sublime is then, deeper than reflective consciousness, and can’t be reflected, as we might do in the lower grade of consciousness that marks the subject and object. One’s being is contrasted with nothingness, as Sartre asserts. But we must be more than the “transient phenomena of will,” as then the contrast or ‘two-fold nature’ could not come to be. Yet still, Schopenhauer seems to describe the confrontation with Choronzon in the Abyss, as he first reflects on that which he calls the charming in art, that refers more to base sensuality, than the sublime. This charming quality of lesser artwork, he states is to be avoided, as it excites the Will in what we might infer a narcissistic manner.

“There is also a negative species of the charming or exciting which is even more reprehensible than the positive form which has been discussed; this is the disgusting or the loathsome. It rouses the will of the beholder, just as what is properly speaking charming, and therefore disturbs pure aesthetic contemplation. But it is an active aversion and opposition which is excited by it; it arouses the will by presenting to it objects which it abhors. Therefore it has always been recognized by that it is altogether inadmissible in art, where even that is ugly, when it is not disgusting, is allowable in proper place, as we shall see later.”

In this, we can see Choronzon coming at the being in such a way that distracts the individual back into himself through this aversion, and in a state of sublime torture, thus that it is said one then becomes confined to the ‘lonely towers of the Abyss.’ The Idea as the knowing of the individual no longer then holds as a ‘pure will-less knowing’ but fully contains the individual in servitude to his or her own self-destruction.

In more Thelemic terms, Genius is ‘pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from lust of result.’ The work of Genius holds the character of the Universe, and indeed, the Idea of humanity; showing the physiognomy of the soul, while perhaps, containing passing emotion and passion in beauty, and a beauty that leads to the sublime. The “artist is not conscious in the abstract of the intention and aim of his work; not a concept, but an Idea floats before his mind; therefore he can give no justification of what he does. He works, as people say, from pure feeling, and unconsciously, indeed instinctively.” As often we hear artists say, ‘I had to create this, or I would have exploded,’ in seeming concurrence with the Gospel of Thomas, when Jesus says, that which you have in you must be brought forth in order to save you…if you do not bring it forth, it will destroy you.’