The function of ritual in High Ritual Magick

Or, why self-induced dementia can be fun, fun, fun...

I fully expect this article to receive no comments at all. So why am I going to write it and publish it here?

In part, because having an audience of any kind is helpful in clarifying thinking. In part, because to do so gives honor to the gods (the gods that are dead). And in part, because I live in the hope that, one day, someone who does actually understand will read, respond, and begin a conversation with me on these topics. I know there are others who share what might be termed my 'faith' out there - but they're very hard to find.

Let me begin at the beginning. I was once a Christian. Then I became (as a consequence of deep-seated disgust at the cowardice, hypocrisy, and self-seeking slavishness of Christians generally) a 'christian'. I am now, some twenty-odd years after my initial conversion experience, a Christian Heretic.

Let me give you a statement of my faith, as I presently understand it. The man born in Bethlehem, whom Christians worship as an expression of a triune Godhead, was just that - a man. Perhaps a very special man, a man endowed with great spirituality, deep understanding of the human condition, and capacities that to his contemporaries appeared miraculous, but nonetheless, a man as I am a man.

Jesus the man is someone whom I could have respected. Jesus the Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah come to save Mankind from its sin, is no longer, even remotely, a part of my life. How then can I call myself a Christian Heretic? Read this (Link) and you will see how. It's not my intention to repeat myself here, so for further explication on that head you must read that article also.

I am entirely convinced that God is. I am equally convinced that that this God is the same God misidentified as Jehovah or Yahweh, whose dealings with the Jewish race are recorded in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. I am further convinced that this God may be known, worshipped, served, that his presence may be suffered and enjoyed in the life of those fortunate (and accursed) enough to have discovered the truth of his existence.

Why fortunate? Because the Will of the believer, enacted through ritual Magick, draws his attention. Why accursed? Because the Will of the believer, enacted through ritual Magick, draws his attention.

How do I conceive my God? As an artist. Artists are neither moral nor immoral. They are amoral, serving an aesthetic which encompasses the highest endeavours of the intellect and the most corrupt, degenerate, impulses of the soul. My God is no different. His favourite hobbies are genocide and heroic self-sacrifice. His Church encompasses sexual perverts, serial killers and ascetic, celibate saints. He made the Light and the Darkness, and accepts worshippers who serve him by Day and by Night. Why? Because his purposes, insofar as they can be comprehended at all, are aesthetic. He has no interest in 'salvation' (nor any in 'damnation'). Those things which make for salvation, for damnation, serve his turn equally, in the interest of producing a universe that to him (or her, or it) is 'beautiful'. And if, to certain kinds or types or aspects of that creation, such a universe turns out to be more of hell than heaven, then so what?

Since the finite cannot comprehend the Infinite it cannot judge it.

We may not be able to comprehend, or judge, but we can participate. We can do so knowingly, or in ignorance. What marks the difference is the extent to which we participate in accordance with our conscious Will, on the basis of Desires which are known and understood (rather than instinctive, reactive, and so apparently incomprehensible). And for the knowing, comprehending Soul that has come to terms with its Appetites, that understands that God neither condemns nor approves such Appetites but uses them in the service of a purpose which is not to be known, then ritual (which is neither prayer, nor supplication, nor the bribery of 'worship') is the means by which acquaintance with God (in the Gnostic sense of the term acquaintance) is made manifest.

Ritual can take many forms. There is the High Thelemic form (by which I first became re-acquainted with God, after many years spent in the desolation of not-quite-belief, not-quite-denial); there is the form of Chaos, which expresses Will while eschewing the structures of High Magick; there is the semi-instinctive response of Wicca - which is Magick without understanding; and there are the infinite forms which Magick assumes under the guise of Shamanism, Voodoo, and the practices of the Eastern Yogis, Vedantists, and Mystics generally.

Those who have read this article (Link) will have some insight into my practice as a Magickian. The nature of that practice involves inducing what to many will only be comprehensible as a state of temporary insanity: a temporary state in this world leading to a permanent state of equal or greater insanity in another. And that other place (which in the eschatology of the Christians, and also of other belief systems, would usually be described as Hell) I designate as the Outside of Everything.

Hell, like Heaven, is not a particular place. Hell, like Heaven, is what you make it. And for some, such as myself, my Hell is my Heaven, my Heaven my Hell. As it's written somewhere... In my Father's house are many mansions... where every desire finds its fulfilment. But entry therein has it's price, and that price is paid here, in this life. And what determines the price, and which of these many mansions one eventually finds onself in, is Will, and Desire, and the road one travels to reach that destination is ritual.

Ritual determines nothing, while Will determines all. What ritual does is reconstruct, reintegrate, and refocus the entire personality so that it accords with, is the perfect expression of, the Will which it carries. At the same time, though it determines nothing, ritual also transforms both personality and Will, so that both conform to the hidden purposes of God's aesthetic intention.

Whether that intention is for what is commonly called 'good', or just as commonly called 'evil'.

What you are determines what you Will. What you Will determines what you are - here and hereafter.
2,047 views 10 replies
Reply #1 Top
Way over my head, but I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this nonetheless.
Reply #2 Top
Well said, O Emperor. I share the faith of using ritual as a focus for the Will, though I follow the twisting path of Chaos. My journey hasn't lasted quite as long as yours (I'm 32 and left the Christian church at 17), but I seem to have come to much the same point on my own road. However, I am a proponent of what the "Western Occult Tradition" [tm] would call "low magick": the use of Art to smooth one's path in the world. The ritual aspect is still definitely there, at least in my case; no matter the purpose to which It is applied, the Will is more effective if the circumstances you create can aid Its focus, if the insanity within can change the world without in a way of your choosing. Where there's a Will there's a way, indeed.

Apart from that, I bid you greetings, good sir. (deep bow)
Reply #3 Top
Quite interesting. While I may not agree with what you say, I find it refereshing and intriguing.
Reply #4 Top
To LordIbuprofen:

Nothing wrong with smoothing our path in the world. Nothing wrong with a path that is no more than a path through this world. Ritual, as I said, opens many doors, depending on the Will of the Magickian, and the path I walk now is certainly smoother than those I struggled along before I became re-acquainted with God in the guise of the Bornless One.

But as a consequence of that re-acquaintance I also discovered a definite objective, and to achieve it I need to have at my disposal greater material resources than have ever been mine. It's for the sake of the destination that, in my case, the path has become smoother.

And certainly I agree with you in this:

the Will is more effective if the circumstances you create can aid Its focus, if the insanity within can change the world without in a way of your choosing.


Reply #5 Top
To SiRMetMan:

Perhaps I'd find it just as refreshing to hear in what ways you don't agree with me...
Reply #6 Top
To little_whip:

I know the dilemma you feel you face, that you describe so well. But it occurred to me, after our conversation of the other night on this topic, that perhaps you have found your True Will, and it is being expressed, even now. Many times you've said you drew me to you, and I agree. But you drew me to you for a particular purpose - so that you might have an opportunity to truly express the submission that so marks your character and your personality.

The fact that it has taken forms you didn't expect (and perhaps wouldn't have contemplated accepting had you imagined them beforhand) is to me evidence that something other than the sexual impulse with which you first associated masochistic servitude is at work.

Malice's Magick neither tamed you nor subdued you to his side. Mark's dominance was a thing of the net, and served your will as much as it did his - perhaps more so.

What is between us is other and different. And that's so for a reason. I'm not fool enough to think that even I could bind you to the extent that I have without the operation and involvement of Others...
Reply #7 Top
I concider myslef an agnostic, and prefer to tem myself a 'thinker' rather then a 'believer', though that may not be as true as I would like. While I don't find much plausablity in any of the existing belief systems I have been exposed to, it is quite refereshing and intriguing to see a perspective from outside the "big three" of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. While I may not subscribe fully to your perspective on the nature of existance, I do think that a different perspective can open up new paths of thinking that could lead to great things. Yes, that is quite vauge, but I guess that's the best I can do.

I really find the whole idea of God as Artist quite interesting, though. The idea that God is neither benevolent nor malevolent really intrigues me, as I don't think that I have heard the idea expressed, at least so succinctly, before. I'd really like to know more about your perspective on the nature of existance.
Reply #8 Top
To SiRMetMan:

I suppose, putting it at its most succinct, I'd be inclined to say that human existance is a by-blow, an epiphenomenon, of God's creative enterprise in the universe at large. And our self-centered fascination with what God thinks of us, his supposed consuming interest in the life of Man here on Earth and elsewhere, is something on a par with a worm or nematode supposing (if they could suppose) that the foot that crushes it does so because of some purpose impenetrable to it and entirely mysterious - rather than the mere unthinking accident that such an event actually is.

We are, in comparison to the unspeakable vastness, beauty and terror of the universe, so utterly and entirely insignificant that to imagine God taking cognizance of our existence at all (let alone with sufficient interest to bear us good or ill-will) is in itself a crime of lese majeste, and an act of hubris entirely worthy of damnation - if God had any interest in our damnation or salvation - which I doubt.

I believe that to most people of a religious cast of mind (or spirit, or person - however you may wish to describe it) such a perspective is one of horror and futility. But it makes a deal more sense to me than supposing that infinite wisdom, infintie power, and infinite creativity, would stoop to involve itself in one infinitesimal fragment of its endless creativity.

Which is not to say that God cannot be approached, cannot be experienced, cannot be evoked within the life of a person whose cast of soul, whose personality, whose spirit, is bent upon doing so. That which is created (and life, in all its forms, wherever it is found, whether or not it is by us perceived to be life, is a function of God's creative enterprise) bears the stamp, the imprint, of its Maker. All life bears within it, in some entirely incomprehensible manner, the Imago Dei.

It is because we, as much as dolphins, dahlias, and mountaintains, bear that imprint that such evocation is possible. Largely, for most of my life as a spiritual person, my approach to God was one of supplication. I begged and whined and complained and bitched, I stamped my feet and threw hissy-fits in the face of God - which, so far as I can see (at least among Christians, the one great religious tradition with which I am intimately familiar) is the substantial meaning of both 'prayer' and 'worship'.

I need a job, God. Give me one.
My car is broke, God. Fix it.
Someone I love is dieing, God. Don't let them.
The world is a bad place, God. Make it better.

Or -

We love you God, gives us what we want.
We know what you want the world to be, God. Make it like we say.


Craven slaves, crying on their knees in the dark, begging their Master for favors. Such things disgust me.

The tenets of Thelemic High Ritual completed my divorce from Christianity, while re-acquainting me with the God I had had intimations of in my childhood. A God amoral, nihilistic, utterly unconcerned for anything other than beauty. And in the ritual it teaches I found the means to evoke the presence of God, and that of those ministering entities referred to as 'angels' and 'demons'. And I found too that even the least of the least of the least may collaborate in God's creativity.

If, that is, they are willing to bear the attentions of the Artist in question.
Reply #9 Top
I fully expect this article to receive no comments at all. So why am I going to write it and publish it here?

In part, because having an audience of any kind is helpful in clarifying thinking.


I agree 100%. Passed that I'm afraid ya lost me...
Reply #10 Top
I also agree that the self-centered approach of Christianity et al is disgusting. Assuming that we are the IMAGE of God just seems so incredably concieted and...disgusting. I don't know another word for it.