The Starry Poison

In the Book of the Treasure of Alexander we find in the chapter concerning the fourth art an operation for dispelling “evil in poisons”. The antidote uses the gall bladder and brain of a ferret together with pearl, red coral mixed with Melissa and nuts. This must be done under the auspicious rays of Jupiter, who removes the evil in the poison. This poses an interesting dilemma as evil is stated as different from poison, albeit tend to make part of a poison.

If we stay in the world of plants we find that various types of Soleanae, especially the nightshade types are effective antidotes when poisoning hath already occurred. So, what is considered vicious and poisonous can upon the influence of evil be turned into something of a healing nature.

I suspect we find a harmony here between evil and d-evil. The icon of the devil is surely soaked in poison, but it is not the image of evil per se, like none of the nightshades are evil. This relationship seem to be quite consistent from the middle ages where we find terms like “evel” in Old English and in the Germanic roots “euvel” and gothic “ubils”. Given the insanity inherited in etymology, it might be valid to take into account all these developments simultaneously, I do believe evil, by virtue of its gothic word, can be traced back to the Greek and Roman idea of “hubris”. This would make sense seeing that the cardinal sin amongst the seven deadly ones, where “hubris”. Now, hubris is not solely pride as we modern westerners understand it. It is a pride related to destiny, to what Fate imparted in your purpose. In Antiquity “hubris” carried the penalty of death and in this was veiled that you acted in ways improper to your destiny. Hubris, like evil is an adjective, so it gives a direction or a certain coloring, to an action. In Antiquity “hubris” was usually referred to acts that led to humiliation and shame of people. It was and action done by a distorted sense of self importance that gave the illusion of a right to debunk others. In the Greek world “hubris” became the nucleolus of tragedies. Acts of hubris never ended well but were still situation within the greater comedic frame of human life, perfectly portrayed by Dante, if we care to read his work with the right frame of mind.

Hubris as “evil” related to what we know as moral. Moral is all about ones character and not some material decision made in a political order. A good character will always inspire to good things, largely abundance of all kinds, a good character seeks blessings for himself and all people. Poison in the hand of a good person is a medicine of healing. Bad characters always have some relation with restriction. It is about restricting blessings for others, envy, gluttony and hatred comes easy from the prideful one.  I dare say that whenever a person is deliberately attempting to usurp your good fortune by spreading poison evil is flourishing. In Latin “malus” were used for the same and it had a clear connotation to slander and gossip. We know it today as “evil tongues” and the same people who possess the “evil tongues” also possess frequently “the evil eye”, envy.  It is this tendency that goes down in history, of acting in ways that restrict other people’s fortune that is at the root of evil. This means that Saturn who hath domain over the nightshades is not evil. He is simply offering a remedy that by the additional coloring of the user can be turned into an evil. Evil is not a noun, but an adjective of the poisons. The d-evil as the master of knowledge of course easily turns into the vile one since this belongs to his domain, poisons, that mainly are considered antidotes, unless some greedy and gluttonous individual deiced to use the healing poison to end someone’s destiny. Evil is hidden within everything, as a color to our actions. So, any slander and ill will, any deliberate act of crushing someone’s happy fortune represents a deliberate unleashing of the evil resting within the healing poison.  This truth is found in the world of plants and it is found in planets and amongst humans. Evil is in the intent and the d-evil is simply the one who presides over the realm of the most illuminating poisons. Its abuse should fall at the feet of the abuser and not the devil.

The Light of Palo Mayombe

Palo Mayombe has a most sinister reputation. It is about the ‘darkest forms of black magic’ executed by unholy and sinister criminals that are solely using the nefarious and infamous nganga to do their evil desires. Since the ritual murders in the Mexican city of Matamoros two decades ago by a little band of drug dealers Palo Mayombe also entered as a shocking element in some horror movies. The palero is always depicted as a vile, arrogant and lost soul that communes with the most dirty and hostile of spirits. This image seems to be growing actually.

The first book in English that treated Palo Mayombe was a chapter in Gonzalez Wippler’s 1973 book about Santeria, eternally reprinted since then. I believe it was with this book Palo Mayombe lost its autonomy. The fact that a great number of paleros were also santeros might have resulted in her informants resorting to the more well known Santeria to explain Palo Mayombe concepts. Still, her presentation contributed to a distorted understanding of Palo Mayombe.  There was also the Kimbisa order developed by Andres Petit. The Kimbisa order utilized a well thought and intelligent syncretism which was not random or accidental in any way. Not only this, but most likely his Kimbisa order was developed from Palo already syncretised with Christianity in Africa.

It is from Gonzalez Wippler’s work we have the idea of Palo Mayombe as ‘the dark side of Santeria’. Here she presents a cult of men lacking dignity that is just out to harm for harms sake. You are left with the impression that if you ever cross a palero you just made your worst mistake and opened the doors of doom! By presenting these sinister and amoral men in her book on Santeria and articulating it as the religions dark side she contributed to a misrepresentation.

In spite of syncretism being popular nowadays Palo Mayombe has really very little to do with Santeria. It is an autonomous and independent cult/religion and not a sinister technology found in Santeria. The constant misinformation has in a wicked way been helpful in order to preserve Palo Mayombe under this veil of misinformation. At the same time quite a few individuals drawn to Palo Mayombe are dubious individuals that have embraced the sinister myth. It is almost like Palo Mayombe protects itself by misleading both those with vicious intent and those who are easily confused.

Palo Mayombe is about a pact made with ancestral knowledge through one of deaths intermediaries. The nganga or prenda becomes the focus for a union between the living and the dead. This is a union of light that unleashes Nzambi’s creative powers upon the world. The Tata Nganga as an extension of Nzambi extends this potency to the ‘muerto’ and by virtue of the powers of the creator, the created becomes creator. Life is given to earth and bones, breath and blood given to the garden where its body rests. We speak of an intense relationship as between parents and children, between God and angels. This is what we find at the heart of Palo Mayombe,

It is a nocturnal cult and the lunar phases are often observed – and as with everything that takes its life and light from the night and the moon it is not so readily understood. Because in night is mystery and at night the world turns into ‘other’. Herein lays the soul of the cult. Palo Mayombe is about capturing the secrets of night in the cauldron of wisdom. It is the path of the warrior in its most chivalric and rustic sense. It is about bringing the light of death to blaze in the night upon earth and woods.      

Finally...

The Wise Craft and the Modern Will

One can not do one's True Will intelligently unless one knows what it is.

Aleister Crowley, Magick, Book 4

True Will or Pure Will gives immediate associations to Aleister Crowley and his vision of Thelema. This vision was taken from the satirical stories of the Renaissance humanist Rabelais. What apparently caught Crowley’s attention was how Gargantua erected a hedonistic mock monastery in response to the rules in the 16^th Century monastic orders. The Catholic Church was confronted with a series of scandals and heresy, the reformation stirring at its burning foundation…and humanism opened up for ridicule in a level not seen since the Roman poet Petronius wrote his Satyricon.

Rabelais work is wonderful, at the gate of his Abbey of Thelema is written:

 Do here pursue with might

Grace, honour, praise, delight.

It gives a contrast to the hellfire and guilt ridden psychology of the late medieval Church that is about restraint, sin and purgatory. Rabelais says:  for it is agreeable with the nature of man to long after things forbidden and to desire what is denied us. Quite interesting, but this search is undertaken my honorable people who knows when and where to give praise and delight. And it is here the Thelemite vision reveals its utopia.

Crowley was instrumental in breaking the shackles of the Victorian mindset in his time that he experienced quite similar to what we find in 16^th Century monastic disciplines, which were the ideals proposed by the Church at large.

I like utopian visions. My hero Plato wrote one called ‘The Republic’, I like Locke and Hobbes when they detail their visions of a perfect society that is instrumental in the well being of its political participants. But it is still a vision, from the Greek root utopia refers to ‘a place that is not’ while its English homophone signifies ‘a good place’. We might say that they are mutually embracing and exclusive. We all want a good place but this is not what the world is. The ideal ventures through the fog of modern reality and serves as a rainbow of hope.

My problem is with the contemporary idea of Will, thelema. This word is taken from Rabelais and he had a distinct target in mind – as such he turned himself into an opposer of the existing order, like Crowley did. So, for me the idea of thelema is a political and social revolt aimed against the current restraints of material society. Crowley’s vision of thelema was developed in response to social and political forces. As such, his idea of Magic as something only being possible by will/intent is not defined or limited to will in the sense of dharma/destiny, but a social and political act. As any political movements thelema catches the attention of rebels and troublemaker that just feel restrained. They are men and women of no grace nor of honour. They demonstrate that thelema is utopia.

What I find interesting is that Crowley later developed this basically political rebellion into something higher. He does speak of the ideal of the perfect nature being veiled within the idea of Will being suggested in other writings, like ‘Duty’. But here he is somehow rephrasing his political intent to be more in accord with the Hindu dharma. It still remains that his vision was one of political and social rebellion. This was the womb so to speak of the further developments of thelema or Will.

Thelemapedia defines Will as following:   

"The concept postulates that each individual has a unique and incommensurable inherent nature (which is identical to their "destiny") that determines their proper course in life, that is the mode of action that unites their purest personal will with the postulated course that preexists for them in the universe."


From my skepticism towards modernism I to tweak an eyebrow seeing that the idea of destiny is considered a postulate. In the same article it is also stated that no one can not know the will/destiny of another and at the same time Crowley believed (in later years) that it was of utmost importance to know the will of a child as early as possible so the ‘correct ordering of society’ could be arranged. He never left sight of the social and political horizon.

Kenneth Grant defines Will in conformity with advaita and dharma in ‘At the Feet of the Guru’, which harmonizes with Crowleys sentiments in Liber Aleph, the only book I consider worthy from the hand of Crowley, moved by the 45^th verse in the 1^st book of Liber Al: 

“Know firmly, O my Son, that the True Will connot err; for it is thine appointed Course in Heaven, in whose Order is Perfection.” 

This is beautiful and right, but still, thelema, Will, is a concept mirroring Crowley’s vision of a social utopia of honorable hedonistic men and women. Wonderful! But is it really applicable to the nature of witchcraft?

Crowley’s idea of Will as held in contemporary thelemite structures and sodalities goes counter to the spirit of the Craft due to its utopian and political orientation. Not to speak of the focus given on the organizational binary structure – the order vs. the family and the social rebellion vs. the social alienation. Is not the ‘witch’ the one that step back from profane ordering of political structure and nurtures the land in league with the eternal laws of nature? What is the point of the rebellion that imposes social change?

The idea of Will is obscure in thelema, but not in the Craft. The Craft is intimately tied in with the Lady of the Wheel and abides and moves the natural, not social, circles.  Thelema is a modern social rebellion moved by romanticisms and ambition, it is absolutely worldly. The Craft proper will not, as I see it, be properly presented within a thelemite frame of mind as the witch leaps into an active role in modern profane politics.

Etymologically as well ‘will’ carries a desirous and hopeful potency that is strange to the ‘will’ of the ‘witch’. It seems that thelema would resonate better if it was translated into ‘shall’ more than will, as here you do what is necessary and touch upon something vital, namely destiny. Destiny from the Latin ‘destinare’ means intent and purpose, by virtue of divine dictate. Here we find the idea of doing ones destiny with intent in conformity with divine dictate. The witch do what Crowley found close to impossible.

My point is that when we fuse a political utopia with traditional craft we end up in muddy waters because we are diffusing the planes. We want simultaneously to do our destiny and impose certain intents upon society without asking if we have the grace and honor necessary to accomplish this task.

Crowley’s and Rabelais’ vision is wonderful, a society of free men and women, honorable and full of grace that lives according their destiny. I do understand the attraction, but I still believe the fire that moves ‘the witch’ is the need fire and not the ‘lust fire’. If the one transforms into the other it is well and good, but in the end our point of reference must be celestial. We must keep our attention towards the stars where destiny has written our blessing and not in the forceful insisting of imposing our will upon the social structures of the world.

The Will of the ‘Witch’ is the desires of the Land and the Mother beneath our feet.