54 
MAGICK WITHOUT TEARS 
Demiurge, a creative God behind whom is an eternal formless 
Greatness-anything to confuse the issue! 
Sometimes the Universe is supported by an elephant; he, in 
turn, stands on a tortoise ... by that time it is hoped that the 
enquirer is too tired and muddled to ask what holds up the 
tortoise. 
Sometimes, a great Father and Mother crystallize out of 
some huge cloudy confusion of "Elements" - and so on. But 
nobody answers the question; at least, none of these 
God-inventing mules, with their incurably commonplace 
minds. 
H. Serious philosophy has always begun by discarding all 
these puerilities. It has of necessity been divided into these 
schools: the Nihilist, the Monist, and the Dualist. 
I. The last of these is, on the surface, the most plausible; 
for almost the first thing that we notice on inspecting the 
Universe is what the Hindu schools call "the Pairs of 
Opposites. " 
This, too, is very convenient, because it lends itself so 
readily to orthodox 
theology; so we have Ormuzd and 
Ahriman, the Devas and the Asuras, Osiris and Set, et cetera 
and da capo, personifications of "Good" and "Evil." The 
foes may be fairly matched; but more often the tale tells of a 
revolt in heaven. In this case, "Evil" is temporary; soon, 
especially with the financial help of the devout , the "devil" 
will be "cast into the Bottomless Pit" and "the Saints will 
reign with Christ in glory for ever and ever, Amen!" Often a 
"redeemer," a "dying God," is needed to secure victory to 
Omnipotence; and this is usually what little vulgar boys 
might call a 'touching story '! 
J. The Monist (or Advaitist) school, is at once subtler and 
more refined; it seems to approach the ultimate reality (as 
opposed to the superficial examination of the Dualists) more 
closely. 
It seems to me that this doctrine is based upon a sorites of 
doubtful validity. To tell you the hideously shameful truth, I 
hate this doctrine so rabidly that I can hardly trust myself to