| Kenneth Grant: Pseudo-Initiate |
| Written by Alan | |
| Thursday, 05 June 2008 | |
|
Kenneth Grant (born 1924) is a British occultist, founder of the Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis, and author of The Typhonian Trilogies (which includes his most celebrated work Outside the Circles of Time). Grant is currently enjoying a modest popularity within occultism, largely thanks to his autobiographical accounts of his relationship with the two greatest pin-ups of twentieth century magick, Aleister Crowley and Austin Osman Spare. As a prominent figure within occultism, and significant contributor to the history of twentieth century magick, just what is Grant's take on magick? What concepts does he promote within the occult sphere, and what exactly did he learn from Crowley and Spare? Grant’s Typhonian Trilogy Grant has written nine books expounding his magical thought, and I think Alan Moore, reviewing Against the Light: A Nightside Narrative in Kaos 14, sums it up best when he says: To open any Grant text following his relatively lucid Magical Revival is to plunge into an information soup, an overwhelming and hallucinatory bouillon of arcane fact, mystic speculation and apparent outright fantasy, as appetising (and as structured) as a dish of Gumbo…Sometimes it seems as if inferior ingredients have been included, from an unreliable source: the occult data and the correspondences that simply fail to check out when investigated, knowledge that appears to have been channelled rather than researched… For all its inaccuracy and impenetrability however, Grant’s work is strangely absorbing. Imaginative and eclectic magical systems, much like ex-theosophist Michael Bertiaux’s colourful Voudon Gnostic Workbook (which, I kid you not, includes instructions for contacting the spirits of the ‘Hoo’ and the ‘Doo’), can offer a highly entertaining view of the world, as chaos magicians have enthused for decades. Suggestively, Grant gives an overview of the like-minded Bertiaux in his Cults of the Shadow, and I think both can be considered contemporaries of the school of occultism that I like to call magical fantasy. But within Grant’s work, beside the joy of arbitrary and creative occult connections, we come across many supposedly factual feats of magick that defy credibility, and in terms of Grant’s relationship with Crowley and Spare, a number of stories that appear self serving. Grant’s relationship with Crowley Grant met Crowley towards the end of his life in 1944. A year later, Crowley wrote a letter (recounted in Remembering Alesiter Crowley) to the young twenty-one year old stating exactly what he thought of him: This is a terrible defect in your outlook on life; you cannot be content with the simplicity of reality and fact; you have to go off into a pipe-dream. Crikey. I wonder what Ol’ Crow would have made of his Typhonian Trilogy? It’s not all bad though; later, in 1946, Crowley went on to note: Value of Grant: if I die or go to USA, there must be a trained man to take care of the English OTO. In other words, there was no other ‘trained man’ in England at the time, and Crowley recognised some potential in Grant. If the correspondence in Remembering Aleister Crowley is anything to go by - with every other letter from Crowley expressing his disappointment with Grant - we can surmise perhaps Crowley overestimated his young Chela… Ordo Templi Orientis With Crowley’s death, Karl Germer took over caretaker duties of the OTO, and Grant went on to set up the New Isis Lodge in England. Unfortunately, Grant got ‘creative’ with the New Isis manifesto, falsely identifying Germer as the ‘World head of the OTO in the Outer’, and implying his endorsement. Grant got the boot, mysteriously changed his mind about Germer’s role as OHO, and proclaimed himself the genuine successor to Crowley. After all, didn’t Crowley identify Grant as a possible successor in the note above? The Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis (TOTO) was born, and never mind that Grant was now the self proclaimed successor to the Great Beast Himself, the TOTO was more importantly going to carry on Crowley’s vision of the Great Work….wasn’t it? In Starfire Vol. 2, No. 2, the TOTO officially states its ultimate aim: Briefly, the plan comports the eventual dissolution of all existing terrestrial governments. For these governments will be substituted ‘kingdoms’ administered by specially appointed ‘Kings’ of OTO, in the Tenth Degree. The Kingdoms will, in turn, be subject to a central government directed by a ‘Supreme and Most Holy King’ who shall be the Outer head of the Order. The Kings will be assisted by members of the Sovereign Sanctuary of the Gnosis in the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Degrees. They will prepare the way for Opening specified Outer Gateways to permit the influx of a great regenerative Magical Current. When the entire Planet becomes Thelematized by the vibrations of the Typhonian Current, then only will it have been prepared for restoration to Those that once possessed it, and that originated the initial life-wave. What a beautiful, beautiful dream… So just to clarify: the Great Work isn’t enlightenment for yourself and then everyone else, but the preparation of humanity for the arrival of our space brothers. Ok… LAM If we are to believe the account set forth in The Magical Revival, Grant was privy to one of Crowley’s greatest secrets, especially bequeathed to Grant in the form of a pencil drawing of a large headed individual. According to Grant, the subject of the drawing was an extraterrestrial entity called LAM, who contacted Crowley during the Amalantrah Working in 1918. LAM has since become a focus for the magical work of the TOTO. I’ve covered the available historical evidence for the origin of the LAM portrait in my article Chinese Whispers: the Origin of LAM to which I refer the reader, so let it just be said that the publication of Crowley’s ‘big secret’ has obviously resulted in a few book sales and a certain notoriety for Grant. Grant’s relationship with Spare Grant met the artist and sorcerer Austin Osman Spare in 1948, and much like his relationship with Crowley (see Remembering Aleister Crowley), Grant spent most of his time providing Spare with material goods until his death in 1956 (see ZOS Speaks!). Secret Grimoires Whereas Grant’s kow-towing to Crowley only resulted in the gift of a shitty drawing, his brown-nosing of Spare was a much better pay off: a number of never-before-released magical texts penned by Spare, all of which he published after Spare’s death (most notably The Logomachy, The Zoetic Grimoire: The Formulae of Zos Vel Thanatos and The Living Word, all reproduced in ZOS Speaks! Encounters with Austin Osman Spare). Again, Grant was revealed privy to a great magician’s secrets, which can now be yours for a measly £40. The Myth of Spare In his books, Grant promotes a number of stories related to Spare that have largely become occult folklore. For instance, Spare supposedly received his occult education from a witch called Paterson. The development of her myth can be tracked through Grant’s books: The Magical Revival (1972) states Paterson was descended from a line of Salem Witches, and could materialise thoughts; in Cults of the Shadow (1975), Paterson is the embodiment of ‘the sorceries of a cult so ancient that it was old in Egypt’s infancy’; with Outside the Circles of Time (1980), she becomes ‘Yelg Paterson’, ‘who had spiritual rapport with disembodied American Indian sorcerers, who in time long past had established a Gate for the Great Old Ones’; finally, in Outer Gateways (1994), ‘Yelg Paterson’ transforms into ‘Ye Elder Paterson’, confirming Spare’s initiation into a Lovecraftian Mythos lineage. Despite the fact Spare never mentions the witch Paterson in any of his books (in fact, Spare claims his method of sorcery as his own invention. See my article Austin Osman Spare and the Source of his Magic); there is one reference to Paterson outside of Grant’s work, by Spare’s friend Frank Letchford, who supposedly heard Spare mention the witch in vague terms. However, it is unclear how much of the information concerning the mention of a significant woman from Spare’s past is coloured by Letchford’s contact with Grant. As Letchford says, ‘[Paterson’s] portrait is said to appear in The Focus of Life’. Said by whom? Grant was also responsible for perpetuating stories of Spare’s incredible magical prowess, such as the time Spare conjured an elemental in the form of a ‘green mist’ that drove two occult tourists mental (Man, Myth and Magic). Grant was somewhat caught with his pants down after claiming in Nightside of Eden that a ritual involving a sigil of Spare’s resulted in a number of deaths, only for Doreen Valiente to give a very different account in The Rebirth of Witchcraft. It would however be unfair to simply point the finger at Grant as the sole arbiter of the Spare myth. Sadly, it seems Spare was just as much a magical fantasist as Grant, and ludicrous accounts of Spare shaving without the aid of a razor or growing his schlong so large no prostitute could accommodate him can be found in his correspondence in Zos Speaks! Encounters with Austin Osman Spare. That is of course if Spare actually wrote all of those letters… Zos Kia Cultus Not only is Grant the self confessed successor to Crowley’s OTO, but he is also the supposed co-founder and successor of Spare’s little magical group the Zos Kia Cultus, despite the fact Spare never mentions setting up such a group. Typhonian Magick In summary, we can see that Grant has constructed a self serving magical fantasy based on what he managed to ‘inherit’ from his time with both Crowley and Spare, namely a strange drawing and some grammatically confused manuscripts. Despite his numerous ‘mathematical proofs’, dubious accounts of magical rites and second rate channelled material, nowhere do we find a record of Grant’s engagement with the Great Work of Enlightenment. Has Grant obtained the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel? What about crossing the abyss? With no experience of the key elements of the Western Tradition, on what basis is Grant considered to offer an adequate opinion of magick? Has Grant ever understood magick? A quote from Outside the Circles of Time, a favourite amongst his supporters, is rather telling: One final point is here relevant, and I state it without apology. It is not my purpose to try to prove anything; my aim is to construct a magical mirror capable of reflecting some of the less elusive images seen as shadows of a future aeon. This I do by means of suggestion, evocation, and by those oblique and ‘inbetweenness concepts’ that Austin Spare defined as ‘Neither-Neither’. When this is understood, the reader’s mind becomes receptive to the influx of certain concepts that can, if received undistortedly, fertilize the unknown dimensions of his consciousness… …One cannot over-emphasize or over-estimate the importance of this subtle form of alchemy, for it is in the nuances and not necessarily in the rational meanings of the words and numbers employed that the magick resides. So let me get this straight: the function of the non-dual (Neither-Neither), which Grant appears to believe can be found in his ideas (the reason Spare called it the Neither-Neither appears to have escaped him), is to give the reader a glimpse of a possible future, and in order to practice magick, we need only read Grant’s books? Wow - and there’s me thinking magick is a ritual practice that results in the direct personal experience of non-duality. Explains a lot about the popularity of his books though. Further Reading Austin Osman Spare and the Source of his Magic Chinese Whispers: The Origin of LAM Kaos 14, edited by Joel Biroco The Voudon Gnostic Workbook by Michael Bertiaux Starfire Vol. 2 No. 2, edited by Michael Staley The Rebirth of Witchraft by Doreen Valiente ZOS Speaks! Encounters with Austin Osman Spare by Kenneth and Steffi Grant Remembering Aleister Crowley by Kenneth Grant Nightside of Eden by Kenneth Grant Outer Gateways by Kenneth Grant Outside the Circles of Time by Kenneth Grant Man, Myth and Magic, edited by Kenneth Grant The Magical Revival by Kenneth Grant Cults of the Shadow by Kenneth Grant Against the Light: A Nightside Narrative by Kenneth Grant |
|
| Last Updated ( Thursday, 05 June 2008 ) |
Show (14) - Add comments:
You must javascript enabled to use this form
Ah, kenny-boy, the red-headed stepchild of the occult. I actually have a limited-run Spare print with Kenneth and Steffi Grant's actual signatures.
And hey, turning earth into an alien landing-strip doesn't sound like a terrible plan, save the way it eerily echoes some of the darker jokes (e.g., Michael Aquino) of the US intelligence community.
'[Y]ou cannot be content with the simplicity of reality and fact; you have to go off into a pipe-dream.'
To get Crowley, who was visited by 'praeterhuman intelligences' to say that must take a lot. Grant's over-active imagination is the stuff of thing occult freak-outs are made from. The reason so few chaos-types freak out after going over his work is probably because they don't actually do anything he says (kind of like Bertiaux's work). Poor guy, no one is listening to him at all, not even his readers.
What, has Aquino proposed the same thing?!
There is an amusing quasi-academic article about Grant and Amado Crowley here:http://www.cesnur.org/2008/london_evans.doc
BTW loved the article.
Damn - I missed the Grimoire of the Grant Clan!
What, has Aquino proposed the same thing?!
Not entirely. But the ToS believes that 'Set' is an actual being like you or me, Aquino is in the US mil-intel establishment, and Set was one of the entities comprising 'the Nine' that Alan Dulles and some other US mil-intel and industrial dilettante types were contacting via seances etc.
survey says: pseudo-initiate. most 'occultists' are obsessed with manifesting supernatural powers, or at least, convincing other people that they have. and the plain truth is that all of those powers are either a side branch of the 4 jhanna or higher, or the spontaneously-manifested siddha of the awakened one. the buddha gave some of his disciple shit for levitating their begging bowls in public, so that probably gives you a good barometer for how real adepts treat this stuff when it's real. an accomplished psychotic or schizophrenic can manifest supernatural powers. heck even emotionally disturbed children can rattle the house with poltergeist activity, and that's a lot more than any 'typhonian' wank-master probably ever pulled off.
if they can't clearly explain their manner of insight practice, and demonstrate some evidence of realisation in those terms, they are, at best, a raving fantasist, and at worst, a dangerous aberration of concentration practice.
Would everyone who hasn't done so already please make their way to Daniel Ingram's podcast on 'Buddhist magic'... If you really want to levitate your begging bowl, Dan tells you how. I don't know about anyone else, but I find the instructions given in the Buddhist texts (Vimuttimagga, Vishuddhimagga) pretty useless. But Dan presents a chaos-magical-esque stripped down technique for bending reality in a proper Buddhist stylee. Some might say he's the Grant Morrison of Buddhism, but we all know him better than that, don't we? ;-)
Re. Kenneth Grant: sounds to me like Alan's saying even the 4th jhana was way beyond our Ken. There weren't even any siddhis - just some made-up stories.
Actually in the revised copy of Ingram's text he provides bare-bones instructions in magick. I think the section on magick in the Vishuddimagga and Vimuttimagga is actually more readable than most of those tomes, but not very forward: it's about forty different permautations of the 'rise to the fourth jhana' story.
Why occultists want to manifest paranormal phenomena is beyond me. You either get it or you don't... As has been said by myself and others, it's not really to your advantage to have spontaneous fires or flying furniture etc. I'd add that siddhi/paranormal crap manifests as a result of some ritual endeavors, like goetia or liber samekh, which are actually high-energy events despite appearances.
Most of the energy in the occult world, though, seems to come from negative emotions, retarded chi exercises or high-energy delusion states. There's a reason they all burn out.
I wouldn't say they need to 'clearly' explain an insight practice (how 'clear' is the qabbalah? or enochian?), but they need to demonstrate they have one. And even a raving fabulist can be a problem if someone with a will and a way starts to follow their directions and use their model, like working down Grant's & Bertiaux's Tree of Death/Tunnels of Set
:Why occultists want to manifest paranormal phenomena is beyond me. You either get it or you don't...
A useful definition of paranormal is 'acausal'. Synchronicity is the paradigmatic acausal event - and also possibly the most common result of magical activity (including 'Magick Proper', 'High Magick', if you want to call it that). So I'd suggest that we at least invite the manifestation of paranormal phenomena every time we do any kind of magic, in the form of synchronicity...
I admit to being fascinated by the paranormal. If it wasn't for the paranormal I wouldn't have taken up magic. And if it wasn't for magic I wouldn't be doing vipassana, kundalini, HGA work, or any of the rest of it. (The relationship between magic and the paranormal is my current theoretical obsession!)
'I admit to being fascinated by the paranormal.'
Didn't you say that the Goetia set your girlfriend's hair on fire? I remember once just hanging out at the Old Circle & Triangle Bar & Grille and suddenly water was running over my papers and books from nowhere. That's what I mean by 'paranormal'; maybe 'energy leak' is a better term. But people get in a tizzy over the side-effect. The important part never manifests grossly. Like Daniel Ingram's 'Arising & Passsing Away' event, it might be a dramatic lightshow or whatever, but the content is less important than the effect of the process.
Agreed! I'm just quibbling over what 'paranormal' means. Certainly there would be no point intentionally setting someone's hair on fire, but when I first made HGA contact, there was paranormal stuff going on there too: e.g. my girlfriend ended up dreaming the dream that I had asked for. (By which means the HGA demonstrated it could manifest transpersonally.)
Yes, it's the effect that counts. A lot of paranormal effects are trivial and lead nowhere - hair-fires and grimoire-dampenings being cases in point - but there's also nothing quite like the paranormal for making you stop and appreciate that this stuff really works...
If you're going to quote the Alan Moore article why don't you add the bit's about him liking and respecting KG? -
'...if Grant?s opus can be neatly summed up as merely incoherent ravings, why do most occultists that I know, myself included, have more or less everything that Grant has ever published resting on our shelves? Also, how shall we square a view of Grant as foaming lunatic with the same Kenneth Grant who has contributed so much of worth to the contemporary occult worldview?'
Or
'...it might be argued that no true, authentic magic insight is achievable without considerable risk. Kenneth Grant?s books, despite or possibly because of their forays into dementia, have more genuine occult power than works produced by more conventionally coherent authors, and are certainly a more engrossing read. The lack of any safety-rail about Grant?s prose is one of its most captivating features.'
And
'...It is hard to name another single living individual who has done more to shape contemporary western thinking with regard to Magic. If we should dismiss him and his work, on what grounds should we do so? That he?s dark? That he?s as mad as tits on a piranha? That he?s weird? As if the world of the occult was the last place one should expect to find darkness, insanity or weirdness. Rather, we should recognise Grant as a pioneer, if only by the arrows in his back; a fabulous arcane adventurer of an old school that?s long since disappeared, if indeed it was ever ?really? there; more a successor to John Silence, Simon Iff, Carnacki and the gang than a mere Crowley acolyte.'
I've commented in the past that Alan Moore doesn't seem to recognise a difference between magick and fiction. Arguing that Grant is valuable because he ranks alongside a load of fictional characters seems to be further evidence for this.
I didn't quote Alan Moore as some kind of authority; I simply felt I couldn't describe Grant's writing style any better than he does. The link is there for readers interested in the rest of what Moore has to say.
While I am in agreement with Moore that many magicians have Grant?s books (me included) and that Grant is an entertaining read (do I not actually mention Grant?s ?creative? virtues immediately after the Moore quote?), statements such as:
'Kenneth Grant...has contributed so much of worth to the contemporary occult worldview'
And
'It is hard to name another single living individual who has done more to shape contemporary western thinking with regard to Magic.'
?to be frankly ridiculous. But then Moore doesn?t rate Chaos magic, so he dismisses the contribution of people like Peter Carroll off hand. Grant has contributed a lot, but as my article shows, most of it is down right bullshit (which is something very different from taking ownership of your magick and being creative) and next to useless when it comes to the Great Work.
To claim ?we should recognise Grant as a pioneer, if only by the arrows in his back? is to believe he has actually done some magick ? do you really believe Grant has actually visited the Tunnels of Set and summoned the Great Old Ones?
Based on his anecdotes and his ideas about magick, I conclude he has very little practical experience indeed.
(But who knows, I might be wrong ? maybe we really should be preparing the earth for our space brothers?)