Notifications
Clear all

Grant & Bertiaux.  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/07/2012 3:32 pm  

For some time ago when I begun to reread VGW i pondered about how different I experienced it in comparision with Grant´s books. For me when reading the text behind the surface I experience the gnosis permeating it. For me I experience this gnosis like something concrete, tangible, beccoming able more or less put your finger on it so to speak. In contrast I experience Grant´s work (or at leat those that I´ve read so far) as persistently, in different ways, trying to point towards the Great Nothingness.

So in my experience even though both writers to some extent use a similar language I experience that the language points in different esoteric directions so to speak. (This can of course be explained by that they come from different initiatorical backgrounds, though I have seldom seen anyone discussing the differences between them though persistenly seeing people instead pointing towards the similarites)

Of those of you who can enjoy both writers how do you experience them behind the surface of language?     


Quote
pad631
(@pad631)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 51
10/07/2012 6:11 pm  

Great Nothingness  and Meon.
The same thing, essentially.

93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/07/2012 12:27 am  

"Great Nothingness  and Meon.
The same thing, essentially."

I know. Though I experience Bertiaux many times is pointing towards something "positive" when discussing his gnosis. By ´positive´ something which is not the inner void but an existent current which is existing in itself in contradistinction to something which ultimately is nothing.

Perhaps he himself would argue that the "positiveness" of this gnosis is existing as the experience of Thelema is positive in a sense yet it´s origin in Grant´s understanding is the Great Nothingness. Though I don´t know.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
12/07/2012 6:59 am  

"Of those of you who can enjoy both writers how do you experience them behind the surface of language?"

Although it was the work of Kenneth Grant which led me to seek out the work of Rev. M. Bertiaux, I have personally found the latter to open insights into the former. This might seem a bit ironic as Grant incorporates MB far more than MB incorporates Grant. But this is not an issue of being at odds. Both KG and MB have held a tremendous fondness for each other and, to this day, the OTOA-LCN and Typhonian Order hold each other in mutual regard as agents of the Great Work.

I find that MB tends to use a type of language which directly speaks to the reader as an individual. There are colloquialisms in his writing that Grant would never employ. However, there is also a type of “encoding” in the writings of Bertiaux which forms a link into the “Gnostic Spaces” informing his words. In my own study of his work, I have developed my own technique for entering into these “Spaces” by means of the writing. Once this was achieved, I found the technique could be applied to other writings as well, including Mr. Grant’s.

You are correct that there is a very different “flavor” to Grant’s text (even when he is referring to or quoting MB) and this has to do with the explorative angle that dominated his life’s work. We might turn to the literary output of Crowley to see yet another angle taken into the Grand Mystery.

Ultimately, the differences in style (and content) may be integrated within what Bertiaux calls the “Ontic Sphere” (or Imaginal Realm) of the Magician. Work along these lines will show just how Grant forged potent links to Crowley, Bertiaux and many others during his life.

Grant has often been criticized for his “wild Gematria” but his radicalism here is based in the traditionalism of the Golden Dawn. Bertiaux freely imports more “radical” systems ("Angelic Gematria" etc) and yet I find these all forming linkage points to traditional perspectives, inviting us more deeply into them.

On my own Path, I have been very much impacted by the teachings that 0=2. We can speak of “Non-duality” and get sucked into some idea that our dualistic experience must be subsumed into the “virtuousness” of a Non-dualistic state of Being (or Non-Being-or however you want to word it). Kind of like: “Material world of suffering = bad and Nirvana = good-so get thee from A to B, you Good Little Theravadan!”). The 0=2 approach means that 2 also = 0. Malkuth is in Kether etc. The problem is not M or K but how to get that “=” sign squeezed in there, which is going to be a very specific and particular thing according to where we are at.

Grant and Bertiaux are both about this, albeit with different style and emphasis from place to place.

A word that comes up frequently in Grant’s work is “Zone.” We hear of the “Mauve Zone” and Beyond. When I read Grant, I feel very much that he is addressing Zones and Cells, “Gnostic Spaces.” These Spaces may lead to the Meon back of them or to the MANIFESTATION into which the Meonic (Non) Entity is translated. 

So how do we determine which way we ought go?

“Do What Thou Wilt.”

And at the same time, that Will is a component in the Cosmic Body read in Bertiaux through the Ontology of Vudu. This jives quite nicely with Thelema and yet it will NOT be restrained for a moment by Thelema as a doctrine. Well, Grant had this insight in his classic Against The Light where Thelema is declared to be the greatest blind of them all-! This written by a man who devoted his life to the 93 Current! There is an “=” sign between these two realities, as well!

I do get what you are saying and I think an honest understanding of our particular spiritual needs is the “window” through which we will read either one of these wonderful authors.

If there is any “insight” I can offer, it will be quoting E.J. Gold, who wrote in his American Book of the Dead:

“…if you’re wondering about the source of this book, it comes directly from the source of all books. In the labyrinth, you’ll notice-if you notice anything at all-that all books are the same book, and they all say the same thing. Don’t look around for someone else to hang it on…You are the source.”

But of course I’m happy to discuss either author endlessly! After all, we all EMANATE WITH EMPHASIS!

93,

Kyle
 


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/07/2012 2:07 pm  

Hey Kyle.

Thanks for your reply. I know from earlier readings that you are well aquianted [sic?] with both Grant´s and Bertiaux´s books and I enjoyed your post.

"I find that MB tends to use a type of language which directly speaks to the reader as an individual."

That´s interesting ´casue I experienced the same thing when I returned several years later to VGW. Though for me it was not directly in language itself but rather that the content is animated by the writers spirit (or soul).

"and this has to do with the explorative angle that dominated his life’s work."

Yes of course. Perhaps aswell his personality. I have an intuitive feeling that it might aswell be something/somethings else aswell. Though I don´t succeed in typing it into words. 

"Ultimately, the differences in style (and content) may be integrated within what Bertiaux calls the “Ontic Sphere” (or Imaginal Realm) of the Magician. Work along these lines will show just how Grant forged potent links to Crowley, Bertiaux and many others during his life."

Yes I see that. Both B and G has/had for me from a philosophical point of view on the approaches a very (esoteric) idealistic position.
I get the impression that Bertiaux got this from German philosophy while Grant mainly from Spare. 

"Grant has often been criticized for his “wild Gematria” but his radicalism here is based in the traditionalism of the Golden Dawn."

I´m not sure if I agree with you here. Do you consider Grant´s chapter on Creative Gematria in Outer Gateways to have the same underlying presuppositions that GD had?

"The problem is not M or K but how to get that “=” sign squeezed in there, which is going to be a very specific and particular thing according to where we are at."

From where I´m now I don´t consider that phrase to mean that M and K equals each other. But at the moment for it´s not something important for me since I consider that these things reveals itself during the Great Work. (and if not there is no good reason for me to ponder on them). Yet initiation into K might reveal that what you say is true.

But here we have something which I´m aswell very interested in. Despite talking about the Non Dualism here both Grant and Bertiaux mentions the sanskrit term Kaivalya. (B I believe in inner teachings of his orders and G in for example Cults of the Shadow if I don´t misremember) Yet if we look toward David Beth´s writings which I in this case believe is very influenced by Bertiaux kaivalya is understood as a partial separation from the Cosmos (and as the same time having a unity with it). This idea of separation I believe is totally missing in Grant´w writings.

(Interesting enough I think both understandings of this word can be justified from Indian sources since sanskrit words means several different things)

"This jives quite nicely with Thelema and yet it will NOT be restrained for a moment by Thelema as a doctrine."

Ultimately I believe Thelema is pointing to the True Will and not to a doctrine. So I concur.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
14/07/2012 4:27 am  

2109-

Re: Gematria-What I was driving at was that Grant employs the traditional METHOD of GD-style Gematria. His undertsanding of the NATURE of Gematria is stated wonderfully in Outer Gateways but despite his insights (which acknowledge-albeit in an indirect way-that ANY system is workable) he holds to the main "rules" of Hebrew Gematria. This allows Grant to communicate his unique vision to a readership based on a mutually shared occult "language." Edred Thorsson (Stephen Flowers) talks about this importance of a communicable tradition in his first Radio Runa talk (which, last I checked, was offered free on his website).

Edred, of course, is well known within the Temple of Set and the Rune Gild. I found it very intriguing that the former group identifies itself as Left Hand Path but does so for reasons quite different than those whereby the Typhonian Current might be regarded as LHP. In fact, despite the "terrifying tenor" of Grant's writings, I suspect he would be viewed by the T of S as ultimately RHP. I believe there are words to this effect in Flowers' writings on AOS.

Within T of S, we have one of the core ideas being that of isolate consciousness. Within the Typhonian work, we have the sweeping current of Advaita which regards isolate consciousness as apparent and not real. I think Grant DOES address the "separate self" in his work-but he often does so as an obstacle to Gnosis of the selfless consciousness which perpetually reifies through fluid and transient masks. I think this point of emphasis in Grant might be akin to Blake's emphasis on Imagination with a damning gaze thrown at "Reason." Blake was depicting Eternal Truth but also poetically addressing the problems of his age. Blake's "Urizen" (Your Reason) is one of the Eternal Zoas of whom Los (Imagination) is Brother. However, in the Mythos, Urizen is, in essence, the evil and repressive Jehovah. 

Now reason and logic are certainly elements in MB's work (which we might regard as "mathesophical"). The transcendent presence is never cut off from this but logic remains very important. Bertiaux will often amplify the magical potential of philosophical investigations esp. those of an abstract or mathematical nature.

Along with reason, we also have the "problem" of the "Self" or "Ego." Where Grant is more inclined to dissemble this, Bertiaux makes wonderful use of it. This is a generalization but it is one of the reasons why MB is, perhaps, the most important occult writer for me.

In conjunction with my personal Vudu-Gnostic studies, I was guided to explore the works of Sir John Woodroffe which lift one into realms that are highly paradoxical, profound and devotional. Woodroffe, in his Garland of Letters, explains the sacred word VAK as manifesting Mahayoni who is, simultaneously, the womb and its issue (hence I referred to 0=2 and 2=0 above). The non differentiated becomes differentiated without losing its non differentiation-thereby making differentiated manifestation equal to itself. This, I feel, is a critical key to unlocking what we sometimes glibly refer to as the "Eternal Now." We all can acknowledge that past and future don't exist and there is only "now." But this does not mean that we are entering into the Gnosis of NOW. By bringing the two elements together, we can evoke the third power which is the key to NOW, the Hadit-point which operates both within and without Time.  Or we might regard it as Horus aflame between Hadit and Nuit.

The value of this philosophy, in my experience, is the transference of Gnosis through Idea. This Gnosis not only cuts through the myopic vision of one’s known universe being the only universe, it illumines our known universe, showing it to be more than we thought we KNEW. The Magus is a Master of Maya or Illusion. Hence, the Sorcerer isn’t just the guy who gets further into Casteneda’s Nagual…he is a deft operator in the Tonal (I’m thinking of that great and funny scene in the CC books where Don Juan shows up in a suit and tie, much to the shock and surprise of his student).

I think some of your observed differences between these two Greats might be found in their own words. Grant stated that the purpose of his books was to prepare the reader for encounters beyond the readiness of terrestrial consciousness to assimilate, encounters which are increasingly impinging on the race. Bertiaux, In Vudu Cartography, sees us all precisely where we need to be on the Path (or, in his words, “not too far from it”). One person’s “next step” may be addressing a particular Trans-Yuggothian influx. Another person’s “next step” is overcoming an indecisive nature at work or caring for their pet. Again, it’s quite Thelemic in that the demands of our universe are continually shifting. We get to firing our arrow true by coming into the purity of the NOW with increasing awareness of what it holds. 

Cheers,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/07/2012 7:49 pm  

"Re: Gematria-What I was driving at was that Grant employs the traditional METHOD of GD-style Gematria. His undertsanding of the NATURE of Gematria is stated wonderfully in Outer Gateways but despite his insights (which acknowledge-albeit in an indirect way-that ANY system is workable) he holds to the main "rules" of Hebrew Gematria. This allows Grant to communicate his unique vision to a readership based on a mutually shared occult "language." Edred Thorsson (Stephen Flowers) talks about this importance of a communicable tradition in his first Radio Runa talk (which, last I checked, was offered free on his website)."

Though isn´t there a major difference between Grant and more traditional cabalistic gematria that the latter that there actually several things which does not correspond to each other? If I remember Grant´s chapter in OG right he writes that anything can correspond with anything, and gematria "only" is a way for the adept to show certain points to other people. I experience that this is a more  idealistic point of view then that I find among jewish cabalists and (perhaps) GD aswell.  (Not to say that one is right and one is wrong, more comparing our views of things)

”Edred, of course, is well known within the Temple of Set and the Rune Gild. I found it very intriguing that the former group identifies itself as Left Hand Path but does so for reasons quite different than those whereby the Typhonian Current might be regarded as LHP. In fact, despite the "terrifying tenor" of Grant's writings, I suspect he would be viewed by the T of S as ultimately RHP. I believe there are words to this effect in Flowers' writings on AOS.”

Yes there is a huge discrepancy between how different western groups understand the term LHP. IMO such discussions must always have an understanding of how Indian vama chara tantrics has described their methods, practises and goals. Not that western LHP expressions must be identical with these though it becomes paradoxical and illogical if someone claims that LHP is this or that, and such an understanding implies that vama chara tantra is not LHP.

For me TOS is a strange bird in the world of esoteric groups. Their idea of isolated consiousness seems for me to be an idealization of the human condition of one human, one ego, one consiousness. I think all other high magical currents and/or groups I have studied views this condition as something to be overcome by the adept. Often that the adept´s consiousness expands and/or becomes filled with gnosis.

I haven´t found any vama chara/vama marga tradition that share the idea of isolated consiousness that TOS has. 

If putting Grant in comparision with Indian LHP traditions I think he would definitly be placed within this category from a broader perspective. My only critizism towards him in this sense is that he seems to think that all Indian LHP traditions strives to the same thing as Advaita Vedanta, which is not true. 

”I think Grant DOES address the "separate self" in his work-but he often does so as an obstacle to Gnosis of the selfless consciousness which perpetually reifies through fluid and transient masks.”

Yes of course. But this experience of ”separate self” is as you say for Grant only an obstacle which have to be overcomed by the adept. Never as a goal for the adept, which I was pointing towards in my post.

”Now reason and logic are certainly elements in MB's work (which we might regard as "mathesophical"). The transcendent presence is never cut off from this but logic remains very important. Bertiaux will often amplify the magical potential of philosophical investigations esp. those of an abstract or mathematical nature.”

I have the papers of M7R and VGW though have only read small parts of each work. Do you have any special recomendations in each work in regard to this?

”Along with reason, we also have the "problem" of the "Self" or "Ego." Where Grant is more inclined to dissemble this, Bertiaux makes wonderful use of it. This is a generalization but it is one of the reasons why MB is, perhaps, the most important occult writer for me.”

Yes, what I have seen so far by Bertiaux regarding ego, self, id and transcendental ego and transcendental id seems to me as an innovative yet very interesting distinction. I have an idea that some mystical traditions, including perhaps Advaita Vedanta, only focuses on the transcendental ego and not the transcendental id. Probably both Hindu and Buddhist tantra include both the former and the later.

”In conjunction with my personal Vudu-Gnostic studies, I was guided to explore the works of Sir John Woodroffe which lift one into realms that are highly paradoxical, profound and devotional. Woodroffe, in his Garland of Letters, explains the sacred word VAK as manifesting Mahayoni who is, simultaneously, the womb and its issue (hence I referred to 0=2 and 2=0 above). The non differentiated becomes differentiated without losing its non differentiation-thereby making differentiated manifestation equal to itself. This, I feel, is a critical key to unlocking what we sometimes glibly refer to as the "Eternal Now." We all can acknowledge that past and future don't exist and there is only "now." But this does not mean that we are entering into the Gnosis of NOW. By bringing the two elements together, we can evoke the third power which is the key to NOW, the Hadit-point which operates both within and without Time. Or we might regard it as Horus aflame between Hadit and Nuit.”

Do you discuss this about Garland of Letters in regard to separation? That something can be separated yet not be separated at the same time? 

”We all can acknowledge that past and future don't exist and there is only "now." ”

I´m not sure that I agree with you. Yet it might be semantics spooking in the background. What I mean is that the word ”is” is connected to space and not time. Now is what is going on/happening. Yet we can experience the effects of the past. Most people are trapped in their experience of what has happened and projecting this on their ”now”. 

”I think some of your observed differences between these two Greats might be found in their own words. Grant stated that the purpose of his books was to prepare the reader for encounters beyond the readiness of terrestrial consciousness to assimilate, encounters which are increasingly impinging on the race. Bertiaux, In Vudu Cartography, sees us all precisely where we need to be on the Path (or, in his words, “not too far from it”). One person’s “next step” may be addressing a particular Trans-Yuggothian influx. Another person’s “next step” is overcoming an indecisive nature at work or caring for their pet. Again, it’s quite Thelemic in that the demands of our universe are continually shifting. We get to firing our arrow true by coming into the purity of the NOW with increasing awareness of what it holds.”

Yes, though can we not reduce all of this to what it is all about is first the struggle to reach the Angel and by that knowledge about Will and then to act upon this will? 

Regards,


ReplyQuote
Share: