The Sword of Song

91 1902 tycarb AN ESSAY IN ONTOLOGY WITH SOME REMARKS ON CEREMONIAL MAGIC tycarb O M an, of a dar ing natur e, thou subtle pro- duction! Thou wilt not comprehend it, as when under- standing some common thing. ORACLES OF ZOROASTER. IN presenting this theory of the Universe to the world, I have but one hope of making any profound impression, viz.—that my theory has the merit of explaining the divergences between the three great forms of religion now existing in the world—Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity , and of adapting them to ontological science by conclusions not mystical but mathematical. Of M ohamme- dism I s hall not now treat, as , in whatever light we may decide to regard it (and its esoteric schools are often orthodox), in any case it must fall under one of the three heads of Nihilism, Advaitism, and Dvaitism. Taking the ordinary hy pothesis of the universe, that of its infinity , or at any rate that of the infinity of God, or of the infinity of some substance or idea actually existing, we first come to the question of the possi- bility of the co-existence of God and man. The Christians, in the category of the ex- istent, enumerate among other things, whose consideration we may discard for the purposes of this argumen t, God, an infinite being; man; Satan and his angels; man certainly, Satan presum ably, finite beings. These are not aspects of one being, but separate and even antagonistic existences. All are equally real; we cannot accept mystics of the type of Caird as being orthodox exponents of the religion of Christ. The Hindus enumerate Brahm, infinite i n all dimensions and directions—indistinguish- able from the Pleroma of the Gnostics—and Maya, illusion. This is in a sense the ante- thesis of noumenon and phenomenon, nou- menon being negated of all predicates until it becomes almost extinguished in the Nichts under the title of the Alles. (Cf. Max Müller on the m etaphysical Nirvana, in his Dham- mapada, Introductory Essay .) The Bud- dhists express no opinion. Let us consider the force-quality in the existences conceived of by those two religions respectively, rem embering that the God of the Christian is infinite, and yet discussing the alternative if we could suppose him to be a finite God. In any equilibrated sy stem of forces, we may sum and represent them as a triangle or series of triangles which again resolve into one. In any moving sy stem, if the resultant m otion be applied in a contrary direction, the equilibrium can also thus be represented. And if any one of the original forces in such a s ystem may be cons idered, that one is equal to the resultant of the re- mainder. Let x, the purpose of the universe, be the resultant of the forces G, S, and M (God, Satan, and Man). Then M is also the resultant of G, S, and - x. S o that we can regard either of our forces as supreme, and there is no reason for worshipping one rather that the other. All are finite. This argument the Chris tians clearly see: hence the development of God from the petty