Magika as the Buddhism of the West

Despite the apparent differences in the foundations of the paths of individual development in the East and the West, despite divergent cultures and religions, Magic (or, more precisely, Crowley’s term, Magika as a system of theory and practice) has much in common with the parallel, though oppositely directed path — Buddhism (especially in its Mahayana forms, and even more so in Vajrayana). It is no accident that one of the greatest figures of Magika (and Crowley’s teacher) A. Bennet became a Buddhist monk, and Crowley himself was strongly drawn to yoga.

The most important similarity lies in the recognition of the human mind’s capacity for unlimited development. Unlike religions that regard the human mind as “created” and limited, Magika, like Buddhism, recognizes the mind as the primary basis, the sole reality that constructs all being in and from itself. At the same time, both systems deny the substantiality and indestructibility of the soul in the classical sense of an “immortal ground,” a “spark,” limiting its existence to the framework of the current embodiment. Thus, despite the illusory and limited nature of manifested existence, it contains the key to its own transcendence — the use of the resources of this state to go beyond it.

And if religions insist on the necessity of submission and service to a god or gods, Magika and Buddhism insist on self-development not as homage to higher beings but as a way of realizing the actual nature of the mind.

While recognizing the reality (within the limits of “reality” itself) of the activities and agency of the higher hierarchies, both systems nevertheless hold that a fully realized human mind (“the Buddha-nature,” the Ipsissimus) stands above any gods, angels, and similar beings, who remain subject to the laws of manifested nature.

Moreover, both systems consider the truly important aim of existence not merely “development,” “righteousness,” or anything of that sort, but the transcendence of conditioned existence — a transcendent leap in which the mind abandons all the limits that confine it and becomes an absolute, unlimited agent. In other words, both systems direct the mind not along an “evolutionary” but a “revolutionary” way of development, calling it not merely to “accumulate good deeds” or to “soothe its soul,” but to surpass itself, to become transformed from an object into a subject of the world process.

Another crucial element uniting the two systems is the recognition of the law of cause and effect as the chief engine of the world process. According to these views, the world is governed not by “Providence” nor by the arbitrary will of a deity able to “punish” or “pardon,” but by the flow of one phenomenon into another under the influence of their own tendencies, the striving for equilibrium of the existing systems themselves.

From this follows a shared and crucial worldview and practical conclusion: a person’s fate is in their own hands. He himself generates its elements; in him lie their heaven and their hell — and his chance to break free of all that conditioning. Accordingly, for both the Buddhist and the magus the center of all attention is their own activity, which creates the conditions for further development and pays off certain debts of the past.

In fact, all the “Noble Truths” formulated by the Buddha are entirely the foundation of Magika as well, although the practical conclusions drawn from them differ. This really concerns only the Fourth Noble Truth: “the cessation of suffering has been found” — Buddhists find the way to this cessation in meditation, while the Magi find it in ritual activity, although the goal is the same — heightening awareness while reducing conditioning. Both systems point to the importance of integration of the mind, to the fact that it matters to “become master of one’s mind,” to govern the psychocosm.

Even the approach to this development is essentially the same: both systems insist that the key to development is practice; mere speculation about “spirituality” leads nowhere, and that awareness is not simply “understanding” but understanding that leads to action — that is, an understanding that changes the way the one who understands acts. Such understanding in the West is called “Gnosis,” and in the East — “Dharma,” to emphasize the dynamic nature of the process itself.

Therefore, all the striving of the magus, as of the Buddhist, is directed toward “realizing” himself, although the methods and directions of that realization are diametrically opposed — Buddhism insists on the necessity of “returning” to a “prenatal” state through meditative concentration, while Magika insists on full realization of potential through active deeds. Nevertheless, these differences are significant only as concrete manifestations of the Way of attainment; the goal itself proves identical — and the state of an Arhat, who has calmed all the passions and movements of the mind, is effectively identical to that of the Ipsissimus — the fully realized magus who has actualized all the potentials of their mind and identified it with the world-mind. Moreover, despite the “prenatal” state of enlightened mind, Arhats do not always dissolve their minds into a homogeneous cosmic unmanifest; they often choose the Bodhisattva state, preserving a delineated individuality for the sake of aiding suffering beings. It turns out that, as usual, moving in opposite directions along the Uroboros, at their extreme development the opposites merge: the snake bites its tail.