Eleven, the Qliphoth, and Thelema
-
@Michael Staley said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"This is just one of (probably) a thousand reasons that I don't take Grant as a real authority on Thelema."To be fair, Jim, Kenneth Grant has never represented himself as an authority on Thelema."
If that 's the case, we agree on that point.
"\Yes, there are inaccuracies in Grant's works. He's not a scholar; he writes in the fervour of inspiration, and sometimes gets his facts wrong. In his early years he lacked a sympathetic editor, who could have brought these to his attention. However, there is a real strength and insight to his work, and the inaccuracies do not detract from this."
You and I disagree quite a lot on this. Many of his inaccuracies (and not only in his early work) make his entire line of argument and presentation invalid over and over again. As a technical manual, the work is completely crippled.
-
@Michael Staley said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"This is just one of (probably) a thousand reasons that I don't take Grant as a real authority on Thelema. (On his direct experience with Crowley, yes. On the real love of his live, Buddhism, yes, if he'd ever written on it. On Thelema, no.)"To be fair, Jim, Kenneth Grant has never represented himself as an authority on Thelema."
Really? Never? Not even in whatever Typhonian OTO?
"He is just writes about how he sees it, how he experiences it, and the conclusions he has come to. He does have a high regard for Buddhism (as do many of us, I'm sure, including of course Crowley), but I'm not sure it's his first love, your contact's view notwithstanding."
It seems more like hes writing fiction.
"Despite the typically sneering remarks by Aum418, Grant commands a great and growing respect for his vast body of profound work. There is a great deal of interest for instance in the recent republication of Outside the Circles of Time. "
THere are also millions upon millions of evangelical Christians - does that mean anything?
"Yes, there are inaccuracies in Grant's works. He's not a scholar; he writes in the fervour of inspiration, and sometimes gets his facts wrong."
I'd say almost always.
"In his early years he lacked a sympathetic editor, who could have brought these to his attention. However, there is a real strength and insight to his work, and the inaccuracies do not detract from this."
And, with Eshelman, I have to disagree. His work is more fictional and of an LSD-infused over-active imagination than anything.
IAO131
-
Isn't this all mainly concerning the view that Thelema is a Theurgic philosophy, the goal being to become at 'One' with the Universe and what Crowley was getting at in reference to the Qliphoth is that through their pathworking hidden knowledge and abilities are attained making it possible to separate from the Universe?
-
93, All,
FWIW, although I've never met Grant (those few pages I've read of his work have far from impressed me), in my experience, every single person I've worked with in ceremony that has considered his work to be of any importance has turned out to be nearly incompetent. To wit, there's a distinct lack of focus on the task at hand and what skills they do employ are sloppy, ill-timed, and quite often at odds with the rest of the participants, even to the point of arriving very late, blowing off rehearsals, and unduly influencing others--especially through sexual persuasion.
I've no idea why this is, but it's nearly to a man, and quite frustrating.
Maybe it's the aliens...
93s,
L.P.D, Nu
-
A few points on Grant's work:
Grant is a poet. It is through poetry that he came to know of Crowley, he heard of him through Dylan Thomas, whi was similarly influenced by Victor Neuberg.
Grant has made it clear that to him occultism, especially gematria, is an inspired creative art, not a dry mathematical pseudo-science.
Anything is grist to his mill, including halves of quotations (Ten and not eleven) and the gematria of students, usually unchecked.
As a result of the 100+ gematria errors in Outside The Circles Of Time, I was asked to check the gematria in Hecate's Fountain by the editor, the late Chris Johnson (who subsequently took the credit).
There were so many errors that Johnson refused to show them all to Grant, but couldn't ignore the basic blunder of IXAXAAR=333, this being a central part of the book.
IXAXAAR is clearly Greek, it is from a Greek manuscript, and although IXAXAA adds up to 133, whoever provided the analysis must have got carried away, so that when he or she got as far as 133 they saw the R, remembered that Resh =200 and went "333! Wow!". An understandable error, given the amount of time we spend on Hebrew gematria. Unfortunately while Resh = 200, the Greek letter Rho = 100 so it doesn't work. Out of desperation I suggested a Hebrew transliteration of IShAShAAR, which does equal 333 but pretends that you would have two alephs in a row in Hebrew, which makes no sense (neither does Xi being Shin rather than Cheth).
My despairing IShAShAAR version got into the book, Grant thanked Johnson for his valuable contribution and loads of other gematria errors remained.
In spite of this, and Grant's inordinate fondness of Dion Fortune, whose work I really don't like, I really admire him. He has put the fire back into an increasingly dry system. He has reminded us that Thelema is more than just the AA, the OTO and study and ritual. He is a 24/7 Thelemite.
And no, I am not a member of the Typhonian Order and never have been, and in fact was introduced and initiated into Thelema by a 6th degree ex-Typhonian member who had stormed out of it!
-
I don't know much about Grant.
However, in "the Magickal Revival", Grant cites Albert Churchward and says that the sun revolves around Sirius every 26,000 years.
Which is fascinating, until you realize that Sirius A is only about twice the mass of the sun (and Sirius B is only about equal to the mass of the Sun)... much too small for the Sun to be revolving around...
So, he's fun to read, but I don't see how I could take him that Siriusly...
-
Isn't there a specific place in Crowley's system where an investigation of the Qliphoth is recommended: Liber Carcerorum?
i.e., yes, Crowley does recommend some dealing with the Qliphoth at some stage, but it's a defined stage clearly laid out in his teaching, not hidden like some "booby trap". IIRC a few other writers on Magick have said something like this, but I think it's just nonsense reflecting either their own fear of initiation or their need to pitch their books to a certain type of gullible audience in order to make money.
And as Jim has said, in actual fact Fortune *was *a Crowley fan, but felt it wasn't appropriate to fully stand by him in her writings. It seems rather mercenary of her, but then again, on the other hand, her writings are a great gateway into this stuff for many people, and their lack of Crowley-lauding meant her work wasn't in any danger of being interfered with.
-
@gurugeorge said
"Isn't there a specific place in Crowley's system where an investigation of the Qliphoth is recommended: Liber Carcerorum?"
That work itself is part of the 3=8 curriculum. However, there are no assignments regarding it and no tests required, other than the general 3=8 instruction to complete one's Qabalistic knowledge.
The final exam of the 1=10, after other astral tests have been passed, has always been to investigate the Q'lippoth of one's own Sun-sign.