Professional Documents
Culture Documents
William Behum
SubStance, Volume 39, Number 1, 2010 (Issue 121), pp. 125-140 (Article)
125
126
William Behun
127
For the most part, this Mercury is dominated by salt, fixed in its corporeal
form and bearing the indelible stamp of simplistic materiality and limitation. Here we see that there is no question of materiality as something
fundamentally different from Spirit; the two are always inexorably intertwined. Mercury is not simply spiritual and salt material; rather, these
represent the orientation of something that is always simultaneously both
spiritual and material. The aim of magical practice as it pertains to the
body of light is to liberate this body from its lower form.
While I intend to focus primarily on the Western tradition here, the
body of light does appear in Eastern traditions as well. Parallels to both
the theory and the practices that lead to the formation of the body of light
can be found in Yoga, Taoism, and Buddhism. We see this particularly in
the emphasis on the heart as the seed and source of the spiritual body.
Luc Benoist, in his summary of the Gunonian corpus entitled The Esoteric Path, notes that according to the Chinese this [spiritual heart] is the
embryo of the immortal one (31). The idea of not only a spiritual heart,
but an entire spiritual body, is one that recurs within Oriental traditions
in a number of forms, some of which do not parallel the idea of the body
of light in the Western tradition. On the other hand, some are described
in such similar terms that it is hard to imagine that a singular phenomenon is not being described. In Mahayana Buddhism, we find detailed
descriptions of the body of transformation, designated by the term
nirmanakaya, which can stand for both to the physical body and the body
through which one achieves enlightenment (Evola, 2001, 200). Certain
basic notions of Buddhism also dovetail with Deleuze and Guattaris ideas
regarding the pre-subjective quality of the BwO. Again, Benoist writes
even the individual self has no essential reality; it is only the temporary
meeting place of changing influences (67). If in fact we can link the BwO
and the principle of the body of light or spiritual body, this Buddhist notion may prove an interesting juncture.
Meads text, which we have already characterized as one of the most
important sources for understanding the subtle body within Western
esotericism, examines a number of variations on the idea of the body
of light and its development from an historical perspective, identifying
it in its guises as the spirit-body, the radiant body and the Gnostic
Christian resurrection-body. In each case, what he is describing is the
body of the initiate that is either created or liberated through a series of
arduous practices or trials. It is through this body that the initiate has
contact with the spiritual world, and can thus act within that sphere. In
one sense, the body of light is always present as that which vivifies the
material body, just as Spirit enlivens all things within the material Cosmos.
As Mead puts it, all things in the Cosmos are made quick by Spirit (39).
128
William Behun
129
130
William Behun
131
132
William Behun
The image of a body systematized and territorialized by a determinate system in which every part, every organ plays an appointed,
predetermined role permeates modern culture. Challenges are reappropriated, co-opted and confined within the system of organs. It is against
this image, this confinement, that Deleuze and Guattari contrast the BwO.
As they say, to the strata as a whole, the BwO opposes disarticulation
experimentation nomadism (159). The world is no longer experienced
as a lawfully determined system, as a cosmos, but rather as a chaos of
possibility liberated from the construction of laws systematically imposed
by capital and its allied systems of power.
Concomitant with this liberation is a sense of joy or pleasure that
comes with the opening of possibilities. Deleuze and Guattari describe
it as having achieved a state in which desire no longer lacks anything
(156). This does not mean that all desires have been satisfied, since that
would be a different kind of emptiness. Rather, desire itself becomes
desirable. Desire is not simply a lack to be filled, but itself a positive
intensity. The authors describe it as a joy that is imminent to desire as
if the desire were filled by itself and its contemplation, a joy that implies
no lack or impossibility. (155). Turning back for a moment to Evola, in
a description that seems to apply perfectly to the BwO, he writes these
bodies are not other bodies, but rather other ways to live that which
is commonly understood as a body (2001, 196). This new way of living,
this new way of experiencing the world is an inherently joyful one, full
of gaiety, ecstasy and dance (Deleuze & Guattari, 150). The making of
the BwO is an act that transforms our way of engaging and living in a
world. Nevertheless, it is not easy, nor is it without pitfalls.
Inasmuch as the BwO represents the positive liberation of human
agency within both the personal and the social sphere, there are dangers
present in making such a body. Deleuze and Guattari identify a number of
forms of the BwO that are either empty or cancerous--negative, diseased,
corrupted forms. The kind of far-reaching freedom that comes with making oneself a BwO is not without risks and dangers. The examples they
give are the hypochondriac body, paranoid body, schizo body, drugged
body, and masochist body (150). There are many opportunities for the
process to go wrong. There is always the danger in any drastic approach
to human agency that the dismantlement of strata, the erasure of deeply
ingrained structures leaves one paralyzed, unable to act; there is the risk
that one will empty out the BwO rather than filling it with possibilities
(152). The practice must never be purely one of destruction. Deleuze
and Guattari describe those who go astray as having emptied themselves
of their organs instead of looking for the point at which they are patiently
and momentarily dismantling the organization of the organs we call the
133
organism (161). Even within the field of wild experimentation and destratification, you have to keep enough of the organism for it to reform
each dawn (160).
So what then is the value of this practice? Why should we run the
risk of making a BwO? Deleuze and Guattari themselves say staying
stratified is not the worst that can happen (161). The answer is empowerment, with the emphasis on the word power. Our experience of the
world and our ability to act within it become increasingly defined by molecularity, increasing our options by failing to restrict them to recognized
or recognizable patterns. The BwO is unique, unrepeatable, not simply
the result of a predetermined set of causes. When we fail to suppress and
begin to recognize those possibilities that lie outside of the sphere of molar
self-similarity, anything becomes possible for us. The very category of
the impossible can become our chosen sphere of action.2 The romantic
ideal is a process of theosis, becoming God, identifying oneself with the
storm and the lightning and the flood. The romantic hero is unconquerable. Deleuze and Guattari recognize this parallel when they comment
that a freeing of the molecular was already found in romantic matters
of expression (346). To make oneself a BwO is precisely to take on this
power of the romantic hero. In making oneself a BwO, one identifies with
the potential totality of all BwOs, the plane of consistency (157). In this
sense, the BwO is something cosmic, something universal, something
transpersonal. The BwO cannot be restricted to any particular identity,
property or ownership. However, we are still locked into the main problem of this paper: what do these two bodies have to do with each other?
What progeny comes from their congress?
In describing both the body of light and the BwO, I have focused
on those elements and characteristics that I think draw the two together,
and certain similarities are immediately obvious. In fact the subtle body
is described by several sources as lacking internal structure, and sometimes explicitly as having no organs. Mead cites the patristic tradition in
emphasizing the uselessness of organic structure for spiritual endeavors:
What, Origen begins by asking, is the use, in the resurrection, of a body
of flesh, blood, sinews and bones, of limbs and organs? (Mead, 84). The
subtle body as a spiritual reality cannot be reduced to the mechanical or
systematic. Evola states this in particularly strong terms, writing the
immortal body is first of all a simple body, not composite (2001, 198; my
emphasis). Despite its connection with the heart or the cardiac center, the
subtle body according to Mead is not provided with organs (50). As with
the BwO, the orientation moves from the directional to the dimensional.
Deleuze and Guattaris description of the BwO is not of a spiritual
phenomenon in the religious or even theological sense-- something that
134
William Behun
135
between spirit and matter that is in stark contrast to the Platonic metaphysics that informs most philosophy and magical practices. Matter and spirit
must be understood as contiguous. For Deleuze and Guattari, the distinction between matter and spirit is best understood in molecular terms;
the difference between matter and spirit is one of intensity, rather than a
structural opposition. Matter and spirit are not two separate individuals,
but exist along a range of intensity wherein we understand matter as solidified or fixed spirit, and spirit as rarified matter. In this, we understand
a single individual in its material aspect as always already spiritualized.
Given the traditional milieu from which most practices concerning the
body of light spring, this might appear to be more of a contrast, suggesting
that these two phenomena are not so closely linked as we had hoped to
imagine. However, looking at the alchemical tradition in particular, we
see that the rigid distinction between spirit and matter becomes distinctly
flexible. Evola refers to the body as a completed, organized, and stable
nature [which] is a fixed thing as opposed to the instability of psychic
principles or the volatility attributed to spirits (1995, 37) and gives this
contiguity of the body and soul a central place when he writes that in
any case, the formula--to release the corporeal and to embody the noncorporeal as we have said, is a recurrent and central theme of the whole
tradition (ibid., 157). Mead is even more explicit: for him the subtle body
is of the material order, but of a more dynamic nature than his physically
sensible frame (3). Ultimately, there is not spirit and matter, but rather
frozen waters and flowing waters: forces individualized and fixed and
forces in the elemental state (Evola, 1995, 36).
The achievement of (or return to) this elemental state is the object
of the other without organs and of the body of light. Philosophically,
this unfreezing is nothing other than the emergence of a real concept of
freedom--in line with what Schelling refers to as the feeling of freedom
[that] is ingrained in every individual (1992), which cannot be accounted
for by Augustinian notions of freedom as the turn to or from God or the
Kantian notion of freedom as rational autonomy. Schellings precursor
in this, to whom he acknowledges the most profound debt, is Spinoza,
for whom freedom is understood as indifference in our approach to all
things and the ability to face all possibilities with equanimity. It may seem
ironic that the fatalistic Spinoza should be the model of radical freedom;
however, it is first in Spinoza that we see the idea of freedom as absolute
compossibility. Deleuze and Guattari recognize this fundamental relationship and write that all BwOs pay homage to Spinoza. The BwO is the
field of immanence of desire, the plane of consistency specific to desire
(154). Whether understood in philosophical or esoteric or magical terms,
the purpose of the formation of these bodies is to expand ones range of
136
William Behun
possibilities and allow for a wider field of action, action that runs the risk
or opens the possibility of open defiance to the socially and economically
limited sphere of the possible or acceptable.
The magical practice of the body of light falls well within the category of traditional magic that reaches back into shamanic and priestly
practices despite its seemingly intellectualized and formalized structure.
The sorcerer, witch-doctor, shaman or hoodoo always stands in opposition
to the law of the tribe or community. The magus, by virtue of his power,
is exempted from law--even from the law of cause and effect, producing phenomena by the power of will. In fact, this antinomian element
is one of the defining characteristics of the initiate: one can point to the
accusations of libertinism that were leveled at the ancient Gnostics and
the initiatory rites in which the Templars were said to have participated,
that included denying Christ and spitting on the cross (Spence, 406). In
fact, it seems that violation of community law is both the method and the
result of initiatory work. In this sense, the development of the body of
light parallels the making of the BwO in that it opens up possibilities not
determined in advance by law and custom. In doing so, both allow for
engagements with our experience of the world that are not defined by
our logo-nomo-centric paradigms. This radically undermines systems of
power and social organization both in its practice and in its results, even
if those results verge into the realms of so-called perversion, madness
and criminality.
Again--and it bears repeating--the goal and the method of both the
BwO in the body of light (and arguably all initiatory action) are one and
the same. Evola tells us that we must embody the spirit and spiritualize the body in one and the same act. (1995, 156). There can be no easy
or ready-made distinction between means and ends; attainment is the
method. The focus in both cases is always upon action and practice.
If the end is the radical freedom to which we have referred, then the
means is the practical dismantlement of the obstacles to our liberation,
whether they be understood as physical, mental, or spiritual. From the
philosophical and psychological perspective that Deleuze and Guattari
take up, this is understood as a dismantling of the self: the BwO is what
remains when you take everything away (151). Evola, however, speaks
of it in remarkably similar terms when he writes that the way leading
to it lies in becoming free from all real and possible determinations, from
conquest of conquest, from nudity to nudity. (2001, 197). But as we
said regarding the negative or empty BwO, it is not enough simply to
dismantle our hollow out the self. The practice is ultimately one of building a process of regeneration (Mead, 31). The set of practices that can
lead to the formation of a body of light or a BwO require one to re-create
137
ones body, to retrace the obscure and mystical process in virtue of which
it organized itself [initially] (Evola, 2001, 198). The formation of this new
body that is open to all forms of activity and therefore radically powerful
takes place through a process of destruction and rebuilding, understood
in traditional esotericism as purification. This purification transforms
the fixed body into its more elemental state so that it might reform itself
along its own trajectory of desire. Hierocles tells us practically that the
object of the whole of the purificatory degrees was nothing else than
the restoration of this quintessential embodiment to its original state
(Mead, 64). However, this never happens simply through contemplation
or through mystical union with God. Nor does it happen as a result of
external grace or through the will of God or the gods. Moreover, it is certainly more than simply a philosophical construct; it is not at all a notion
or a concept but a practice, a set of practices (Deleuze & Guattari, 150).
Ultimately, though, no prescribed set of practices can guarantee the
formation either of a body of light or a BwO. If the two phenomena are
linked by any essential characteristic, it is that they are absolutely unique to
the individual. Perhaps this is why Deleuze and Guattari remain so vague
in their methodology for the formation of a BwO. The de-territorialization
of the psyche or the liberation of the mercury from the domination of salt
is not something that can be accomplished simply by following a standardized procedure. Alchemy has no cookbook; psychology has no assembly
manual. What works, what is effective in de-stratifying the body in one
instance, can be disastrous in another. The path that leads to liberation
and power for one magus may be an utter failure for another or even lead
to madness or death. This is the reason that so much esoteric and magical
literature insists on the necessity of training with a master, or receiving
hand-to-hand initiation. The danger always looms that one who is too
deeply steeped in theory, who learns magic as from a textbook, is liable to
misconstrue its meanings and will be unable to unlock them without the
proper key. The danger of this approach is that it shuts off possibilities for
experimentation, and throws up obstacles for desire. On the other hand,
magical work is practical, and uses specific techniques and prescriptions,
formulas and rites to achieve its goals and aims. It is on this point that I
think there is room to critique Deleuze and Guattari, who in their desire
to maintain the radical uniqueness of each BwO, failed to provide even
the most rudimentary guides along the path to its construction.
We should not be overly hasty to identify these two bodies, however.
There are significant differences, and certain dangers in drawing too close
a parallel. The most obvious is indulging in a kind of dualism that stands
in stark contrast to the main thrust of Deleuzean thinking. Rather, the
danger lies in seeing that dualism as having an ontological status, rather
William Behun
138
139
This seems very much in keeping with the practice that Deleuze
and Guattari are gesturing toward in both Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand
Plateaus. All of the practices associated with the formation of the body of
light are oriented toward identifying oneself not so much with the physical body and its ego matrix, but rather with something transpersonal and
more primordial than the individual or the organism. By embracing this
aspect of the body of light (while avoiding the pitfalls mentioned above),
we are given a useful set of tools for understanding ourselves and our
actions in a less stratified way, and can hope to experience ourselves in
the de-territorialized, molecular way that Deleuze and Guattari propose.
Likewise, I believe that the thinking around the BwO can be of use
to those engaged in magical or esoteric practice. It gives us a language
not embedded in a theological or philosophical tradition, which would
be counterproductive to the kind of work we are trying to accomplish.
It also suggests a relationship to political and social life, often lacking
in the overly individualistic methodologies of sorcerers and magicians.
Furthermore, much of magic depends upon the psychological and mental
state of the practitioner. Since many understand magic as volitional manipulation of ones own psychology in order to produce desired results,
then an understanding of the psychological viewpoint most effective for
this can only make magical practice more effective. Preconceived notions,
theories, and worldviews can often be obstacles to esoteric work, and much
of the purificatory and initiatory practice of the tradition is intended to
remove these sorts of obstacles. If we can smooth out our own psyche by
using practices oriented towards the creation of a BwO, we accomplish
much the same thing. By looking at magical or esoteric work through the
lens of schizo-analysis, we can use the Western metaphysical tradition
as a toolkit, rather than experiencing it as a received and unquestionable
system.6 We should pause before dismissing out of hand the whole of the
Platonic or metaphysical tradition, which includes technologies that can
be deployed for liberatory purposes. Even Oedipal structures can form
part of the toolkit of the BwO, and there is no reason not to turn these
drives against themselves by reading them in a more nuanced fashion.
Ultimately, I believe that the writings surrounding the body of light
can offer us a more complete, or at least more fully suggestive set of technologies for building a BwO of a particular sort. Such writings may assist
us in overcoming obstacles to modes of desire that prevent or curtail free
action in the individual, political and cosmic spheres. They may merely
add to the repertoire of Deleuzian schizo-analysis, or may become a vital
tool for opening us up to a vastly wider arena of compossibility.
The Pennsylvania State University
William Behun
140
Works Cited
Benoist, L. The Esoteric Path. Trans. R. Waterfield, Trans. Wellingborough, UK: Crucible, 1988.
Boehme, J. The Signature of All Things. Cambridge, UK: James Clarke Company, 1987.
Crowley, A. Magick in Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Dover, 1976.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. A Thousand Plateaus. Trans. B. Massumi. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.
Evola, J. The Hermetic Tradition. Trans. E. E. Rhemus. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 1995.
-----. Introduction to Magic. Ed. M. Moynihan, trans. G. Stucco. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2001.
Mead, G. R. The Doctrine of the Subtle Body in the Western Tradition. London, UK: John M.
Watkins, 1919.
Schelling, F. Philosophical Inquiries into the Nature of Human Freedom. Trans. J. Gutmann. Peru,
IL: Open Court, 1992.
Spence, L. The Encyclopedia of the Occult. London, UK: Bracken Books, 1988.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
Notes
It is very much in keeping with Evolas sense of this word to think it in terms of puissance rather than pouvoir. Despite Evolas fascist political leanings, his sense of both
action and power seems strongly more liberatory than oppressive. It would be easy
to simply dismiss Evola because of his political orientation and activities at the end of
the Second World War while employed by the Nazi Ahnerbe. However, I think that this
would be unwise, as his writings on esoteric matters are profoundly insightful and offer
real liberatory potential.
There is a certain parallel here to the romantic notion of the aorgisches to draw a term
from Hlderlin. By this he means that which typifies Nature understood as a chaos,
something spiritual and therefore unconstrained. This stands in diametrical opposition
to Hegels understanding of Nature as purely mechanistic, the sphere of causation and
repetition, radically distinct from the world of Spirit and freedom.
Despite the use of the term whole here, which suggests a structure very different from
the BwO, which cannot really be thought of as a whole, I suggest that what Origen is
claiming here is that the body of light is conceived in such a way that actions or functions
are not relegated to any particular organ or part, which is much closer to the conception
of Deleuze and Guattari.
This can be translated as I have, by truth, while living, conquered the universe. It
refers to Crowleys claim that he had achieved a state of absolute liberation without the
heretofore assumed necessary step of casting off the physical body. This living victory
may be thought of in opposition to Christs victory, which requires his death, and which
manifests itself in his risen body, which is fundamentally different from his physical
frame.
I am indebted to Juliana Eimer for her suggestion of this as an especially appropriate
reference as well as many other insights here.
Certainly so-called Chaos Magick attempts to do this explicitly. The pantheon or
religious system that makes use of rituals and rites in this form of magic are adopted
on an ad hoc basis, neither taking them as absolutes for ones personal work, nor even
attributing to them any real validity.