College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

Thankyou, Hermitas, for that reference. As you say, it doesn't throw any light on my question, but it was an interesting thread to read.

Best wishes,

Michael.

In his later life, Crowley propounded the view that the Aeons of Isis, Osiris and Horus were each of approximately 2,000 years duration, bounded by the astronomical phenomena of Precession. However, that was not his opinion in the early years following the reception of The Book of the Law.

Chapter III verse 34 of The Book of the Law includes the following:

But your holy place shall be untouched throughout the centuries: though with fire and sword it be burnt down & shattered, yet an invisible house there standeth, and shall stand until the fall of the Great Equinox; when Hrumachis shall arise and the doublewanded one assume my throne and place.

In the ‘Old Comment’, published in The Equinox Vol. I No. 7, Crowley commented on this passage as follows:

Following him [Horus] will arise the Equinox of Ma, the Goddess of Justice, it may be a hundred or ten thousand years from now; for the Computation of Time is not here as There.

In the Introduction to the 1938 edition of The Book of the Law, Crowley remarked concerning the third chapter:

It explains that certain vast ‘stars’ (or aggregates of experience) may be described as Gods. One of these is in charge of the destinies of this planet for periods of 2,000 years . . .

And subsequently in the same Introduction, speaking of Horus:

*He rules the present period of 2,000 years, beginning in 1904 . . . *

Does anyone know when Crowley first began to think in terms of the Aeons haveing more or less fixed spans of time? When did the change occur?

In the late 1980s I undertook a Working based closely on Liber V vel Reguli, working daily for about a year or so, and found it very interesting.

There were certain things that I didn't stick to - I rarely use robes or weapons, and I didn't mark the position of Boleskine when passing that point of the circle, though on the other hand I did retain the spiral dances - but I found it to have powerful effects on consciousness/awareness.

During the last few weeks of practise, I found that violence was following me around, manifesting in people around me though never touching me personally. Towards the end of this period, one evening I was walking across the road, and heard a muffled explosion. I remember thinking at the time "Ah, the IRA bombing campaign has started early this year", then saw that a car in front of me had burst into flames from under its engine bonnet. At the same time, there was a sudden and strong sensation in my solar plexus, and I knew with absolute certainty that this event was connected with my daily working.

So, exploding cars and surrounding violence apart, this is a very interesting Working to undertake and one that I can recommend.

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"However, I've been interested in getting a better understanding of Grant -- having only read The Magical Revival once last year sometime -- and, since you're the guy in the know, any suggestions/recommendations/guidelines? Should I just read through the trilogy and see what I can see? Or is there a historical/biographical overview of his work that might give me a better framework to start with?"

In my view it's best to read the trilogies sequentially. The first trilogy - The Magical Revival, Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God, and Cults of the Shadow - is the most straightforward, and will provide a basis for the subsequent two trilogies.

There is an article, Scintillations in Mauve, an overview of the trilogies which was published in the last issue of Starfire. A link to it:

www.starfirepublishing.co.uk/downloads/scintillations_in_mauve.pdf

This can of course be saved locally.

@Iamus said

"I wonder if Nema wasn't primed by Grant's writings to see Liber Pennae Penumbra as announcing the the dual current/AEon."

I don't think that's the case. She first wrote to Grant in 1975 whilst Cults of the Shadow was being printed. Up until that point, Grant had been somewhat sceptical of Achad's announcement in April 1948 of the inception of the Ma-Ion. Liber Pennae Praenumbra and the account of its reception led him to reassess Achad's work. The fruits of this reassessment can be seen in Part 1 of the subsequent book, Nightside of Eden, published in 1977.

@Iamus said

"Ignoring her interpretation, it seems to me that the work is a vision of a coming AEon, but one that's is firmly rooted in the perspective of the current AEon. That would make it not totally disimilar from the the Apocalypse of John under the view that that work is actually a vision of the AEon of Horus, but seen from an Osirian perspective. Obviously Pennae Penumbra doesn't see the AEon of Maat as armageddon; similarly there's no anti-Horus parallel to the way the Beast was seen as the anti-Christ."

Whn Achad first announced the inception of the Ma-Ion, in subsequent correspondence with Gerald Yorke he made clear that he did not see the Ma-Ion as superceding the Aeon of Horus, but rather as complementing it, as ameliorating the Force and Fire of Horus. Interestingly there is a parallel with the work of Parsons here, as Parsons too thought that the fierceness of the Aeon of Horus needed counterbalancing. Liber Pennae Praenumbra strikes a somewhat different note in my opinion, but has its antecedents in the work of Crowley, Achad and Parsons.

@Iamus said

"If I'm on to something there, that would be be further proof that Nema's work is squarely within the current AEon, because it's view on AEons is essentially the same as that presented in Thelemic literature. I wonder if that sheds any light on Grant. Maybe someone more familiar with his work could comment. What if he's so caught up in the idea that new AEons/currents are a good thing that he's tried to force the process and leap beyond the AEon of Horus less than a century after its inauguration?"

It's an interesting point, but no, I don't think that Grant tried to force the process. Rather, he was picking up on something that Achad highlighted, that was parallelled to some extent in the work of Parsons when assessing the Babalon Working, and which was reflected in Liber Pennae Praenumbra several decades later.

@christinespandex said

"I'm new to all of this, but i've checked out kenneth grant and he seems mad as a hatter. The advantage of this is that I can see anyone who reveres him is probably on the same path of confusion and dispersion and should thus be avoided as well. Like attracts like."

I knew Kenneth Grant for more than thirty years, was his publisher from the mid nineties, and I can assure you that he was not "mad as a hatter". He was a highly intelligent man, astonishingly well-read, with a warm and generous character. He could, of course, also on occasion be stubborn and inflexible, but so can we all. His books can sometimes seem forbidding at first glance, as can that of many authors, but they repay perseverence.

Revere? This is to confuse the planes, surely? Although I have a high estimation of Grant, I didn't and don't revere him. I have a high estimation of the work of Crowley and Spare among many others, but I don't revere them. My favourite musical artist is probably Joni Mitchell, but I don't revere her. Why should it be otherwise?

A new discussion site The Primal Grimoire, focusing on the work of Kenneth Grant and the Typhonian Tradition, is now open to all for access and participation. The site guidelines are at present informal and reflect common-sense: be courteous, remain on-topic, and do not post material that infringes copyright, or links to such material. Posts will be moderated where such simple criteria are not observed.

There are at present three boards. The first concentrates on Grant's magical and mystical development, with a number of sub-forums each covering a phase of development. The second covers Grant's published work, with sub-forums for such categories as the Typhonian Trilogies, the Nightside Narratives, and the Carfax Monographs. The third board focuses on Grant's legacy and how it might develop.

Presently based on the ProBoards template, the site will continue to be developed over the coming weeks and months. The address:

theprimalgrimoire.proboards.com/

We look forward to your participation in the discussions.

My thanks to Jim Eshelman for facilitating the posting of this notice on the Temple of Thelema discussion site.

Best wishes,

Michael Staley,
Starfire Publishing Ltd.
www.starfirepublishing.co.uk/
email: <!-- e --><a href="mailto:admin@starfirepublishing.co.uk">admin@starfirepublishing.co.uk</a><!-- e -->

@milkBoxx said

"I own a copy of 'Night Side of Eden' by Grant and his wife certainly contributed to a great majority
of artwork. Strangely enough, some of the things I saw while reading this years ago I began seeing
in strange astral experiences of my own. Her art certainly speaks to the dark side of the subconsciousness,
albeit she's talented and the work was compelling and sticks with you."

I agree with you, milkBoxx; some of her work is extremely good, and it would be great to see an exhibition of her work sometime.

I largely agree with what you say, Los. I don't think, though, that it comes over as some sort of joke, but as something that is a lot deeper and more ambiguous than might appear at first sight.

@Archaeus said

"
@Michael Staley said
"
@Silenci said
"This is a good example of when "The Comment" should be obeyed."

This depends on whether or not you think that Crowley has the final word on The Book of the Law, and whether or not you consider the Tunis Comment that final word. I don't, and neither do I regard the Tunis Comment as a command or set of commands to be be obeyed. Nevertheless, I respect the view of those who think otherwise; it's a case that I can understand."

Well seeing as Crowley authored it (or dictated if you buy the story) I'd say the he most definitely does have the final say. There seem to be a lot of people seeking to claim they know what he intended better than he himself recently. I don't suppose there are many writers that get that treatmemt, it seems to be something reserved for those who write on spiritual matters."

What a myopic attitude. Do you imagine that Crowley knew everything there was to know about The Book of the Law? He himself did not believe that to be the case, so it's curious that you do.

@Silenci said

"This is a good example of when "The Comment" should be obeyed."

This depends on whether or not you think that Crowley has the final word on The Book of the Law, and whether or not you consider the Tunis Comment that final word. I don't, and neither do I regard the Tunis Comment as a command or set of commands to be be obeyed. Nevertheless, I respect the view of those who think otherwise; it's a case that I can understand.

@AliceKnewI said

"
A woman's life being ignored - AGAIN!!!!!
"

Thank you for your Private Message, to which I'll reply soon.

In the meantime, though, I'd like to say that the lack of information on Steffi Grant is not because "a woman's life is being ignored - AGAIN!!!!!", but because she prefers to remain in the shadows. Her endeavours were - and still are - focused on Kenneth's work because that's the path she chose.

As well as her artwork, several of the Carfax Monographs were written by her, and she wrote an extremely good Introduction to Zos Speaks!.

Best wishes,

Michael.

@gmugmble said

"
@Michael Staley said
"(extracts from these letters were published in the fifth issue of Starfire in 1994)."

Which of course is unavailable. "

That issue of Starfire does come up on the second-hand market from time to time. The extracts were published in the course of an article entitled 'It's an Ill Wind that Bloweth'. Although the article does not appear in Ecpyrosis - a selection of essays and artwork from the first five issues of Starfire - it is available online on Peter Koenig's website.

As Jim said, Germer had no interest in ceremonial magic, and took no interest whatever the more formal aspects of grades such as grips, signs, passwords and the like. This is confirmed in letters he wrote to Kenneth Grant in the early 1950s (extracts from these letters were published in the fifth issue of Starfire in 1994). Crowley considered Germer a man of deep and profound attainment, selecting him as successor several years before his death. Nor was this view restricted to Crowley; in Gerald Yorke's correspondence of 1948 and 1949 with Achad, for instance - finally to be published later this year - Yorke also expressed a similar view of Germer.

Germer did a great job in the 1950s and early 1960s, publishing key works of Crowley's - The Vision and the Voice with Crowley's commentary, Magick without Tears, Liber Aleph - with little resources.

@bdc said

"in my opinion there isn't any division between spare's art, magick, writing, and life. i think he is misunderstood - principally by the chaos magick lot - because most seem to miss the point that his "system", if it can be called that, is purely personal to him, and many also make the mistake of trying to separate his magick from his art."

I agree with that. His vision of perpetual transformation and the transience of identity was expressed primarily through his artwork, and his written work grew out of that. It's clear from The Book of Pleasure, for instance, that the origin of the Sacred Alphabet, or Alphabet of Desire, is primarily in sensation. As such it is personal.

The problem is I think that most of us see ourselves as "followers" of illustrious persons such as Grant, Spare, Crowley, Bertiaux, Blavatsky, etc - great people against whom we suppose that we cannot hold a candle. In reality, it's not like that. There's a continuum of work upon which we all draw to a greater or lesser extent, but it is catalysed through our own magical and mystical experience, from which an intrinsic body of work develops. Others will in turn draw upon the work of ourselves and others, but again by a similar process develop their unique bodies of work.

@bdc said

"regarding crowley and spare, people tend to make a little too much out of their connection and spare's A.: A.: membership, and there's not much in common in their magical approaches. crowley was into a scientific exploration of magical practices and states, whereas spare is best considered as a pure artist (and a superb one at that)."

Again, I largely agree. However, the "scientific exploration of magical practices and states" is in my view only one aspect of Crowley's work. It's the sweep of his vision that is more interesting, articulated in works such as Liber Aleph, The Book of Thoth, Little Essays Toward Truth, and The Book of Lies.

@Zalthos said

"Is there anyone out there applying Spare's methods? Does anyone have an opinion on where his works stand within Crowley's paradigm?"

His works don't stand within Crowley's paradigm at all. Spare did have a brief association with Crowley in London in the early years of the 20th century. At one time Spare did have a passing interest in ceremonial magic as one aspect amongst many in mysticism and the occult. This can be seen from some of his paintings and drawings from this period which show magicians in ceremonial robes at altars. Although becoming a Probationer, he never went beyond that. From some of the references to ceremonial magic and fat magicians in The Book of Pleasure published in 1913, it is clear that he came to dislike Crowley. This is clear also from the first part of Zos Speaks!, where Kenneth Grant records some dismissive references about Crowley that Spare made to him at the time (1940s, 1950s) that the Grants knew Spare.

As to Spare's methods, they shifted over the decades. In many quarters today Spare is characterised by his sigillisation techniques. However, these were developed during the time he was working on The Book of Pleasure. After World War I, sigils are absent from his work (the only exception I know of is the drawing Theurgy from the late 1920s) until he met Kenneth and Steffi Grant in the late 1940s. Stimulated by Kenneth Grant's interest, sigils resurge into some of Spare's drawing and paintings thereafter.

In my view Spare was essentially a mystic, and his Zos-Kia has affinities with Taoism. Some of his paintings and drawings communicate particularly effectively his vision of perpetual transformation and shifting identity, and for me this has affinity with Thelema as Going, not Being.

That aside, I don't think that Spare's work stands within Crowley's paradigm, any more than Crowley's work stands within Spare's paradigm. However, the work of both men has affinities with other magical and mystical traditions. Crowley, for instance, regarded Thelema as being closely related to Taoism; this can be seen from in particular Liber Aleph as well as his rearrangment of and comment upon Legge's translation of the Tao Teh Ching. It is these commonalities that resonate with me, superceding paradigms.

Obviously we can't know why, though there are several factors which have been mentioned above, chief amongst them Crowley's ambivalence to The Book of the Law at the time. Nor was this an isolated occurrence of a return to Egypt being suggested. By Crowley's account, the Abuldiz Working terminated with an instruction for Crowley to go to the desert in search of an egg under a palm tree; unfortunately, the record of the Abuldiz Working is incomplete. However, the theme was picked up in the Amalantrah Working of 1918, Crowley being exhorted to go to Egypt. I recall reading Crowley saying somewhere or other that Amalantrah and Abuldiz contacted him in order to get him back on track; as such they can be regarded as masks of Aiwass.

In spite of successes, Crowley didn't really trust the Abuldiz and Amalantrah Workings, and the same goes for the Shanghai Working of 1906 with Elaine Simpson. In the record of the Amalantrah Working there are records where he is waxing very enthusiastically about the accuracy of everything Amalantrah is communicating, only to be followed by another session where he is very cynical about the worth of anything Amalantrah had to communicate, even going so far as to disrupt the session in his frustration..

He never did go back to Egypt. Gerald Yorke did say in correspondence with Jones in 1948 that Crowley did make plans to go to Egypt, but that these plans never came off.

Thus the only conclusion we can draw from all this is that, despite the reception of The Book of the Law being the major event of his life and work, for some reason or another he had an aversion to going back to the scene of the revelation. We can't, I'm afraid, know the reasons for this reluctance.

My personal favourite of Little Essays Toward Truth is the essay on Silence, which in my view is one of the best things that Crowley wrote.

I also find very interesting Crowley's Commentary on Blavatsky's The Voice of the Silence, which he regarded as her masterwork. It's all about detecting and being attuned to the silent self, Harpocrates, Hoor-paar-kraat, which of course is connected with the Holy Guardian Angel, the bringing to men and women the Knowledge and Conversation of which he regarded as his particular work.

His drawing 'The Way', which he placed as the frontispiece to his Commentary on The Voice of the Silence, is in my view a glyph or articulation of this Voice, hence its placement.

Interesting that AncientChild doesn't rant about this in the way that he did on LAShTAL.

Personally I suspect that it was drug-fuelled hyperbole, but we'll never know. Whatever, it all adds to my view that Cefalu was a time of degeneracy for Crowley, and that he lost sight of a great deal. It's my belief that the World War I years in America were his zenith, in partular the time of writing Liber Aleph and of his Magical Retirement on Aesopus Island.

@Jim Eshelman said

"I think (I could be wrong about this) that Grant only reported that others - particularly Achad - had that view. I don't offhand recall encountering Grant actually holding that view."

You are wrong on this. It is clear from various writings, for example Outside the Circles of Time, that Grant wasn't simply reporting the views of Achad as developed in his 1948/1949 correspondence with Yorke, but was developing those views. For instance, he regarded the egg, which plays such a prominent role in the Amalantrah Working, as being an early precursor of the Aeon of Maat.

Best wishes,

Michael.