Typhonian Tradition and Thelema

[movebywillalone]

Hi, unlike some others on this forum I have not studied Grant and Crowley for many years. I am curious to here others views on thelema and do most of the people in this forum consider themselves thelemites? This might sound a bit ignorant but I began reading Crowley and then later came across the magical revival which really deepened my understanding of Crowley. I find Grants books captivating and mind blowing and still love AC but find myself obsessing over Grant's works and rereading them often. With Spare,Bertiaux,Lovecraft and others included to be very important in the typhonian tradition I just wondered how others feel about modern thelema?

[Marc]

Well, I can only speak for myself but I consider myself a Thelemite. I do not believe that in order to be a Thelemite, one must be a member of the O.T.O. or the A.'.A.'. or any other order for that matter. A Thelemite, to me, simply means one who accepts the Law and is intent on doing his or her Will. This is a very personal thing. If every individual "star" was doing and copying what every other "star" was doing, then this would not be very Thelemic. Crowley's material is amazing and was a breakthrough in his time. We must keep in mind, however, that everything is constantly evolving, as are we. This means that nothing can ever become dogmatic in the traditional conventional religious sense of the word. We must constantly explore, and be open to paradigm shifts and new breakthroughs in our work. That is at least how I feel. So, for instance, many so called Thelemites do not view Kenneth Grant's work with high regard, and then some others do. The point is that the Typhonian Current is an extension and evolution of the traditional Thelemic current as well as others, and I'm sure this current continues to evolve as well. Everything is always in motion and changing.

[Gregory Peters]

This reminds me of something Crowley wrote

“The main Ethics of the Book of the Law. Man is asked to act as if it were true that he is a spark of that great light of God. Those who insist on making that assumption, on basing all their lives on it, are the Thelemites.” (Churton quoting unpublished AC)

[movebywillalone]

Thank you both for your comments I find them very inspiring and enlightening!

[Gregory Peters]

Thelema goes far beyond Crowley. I tend to think of his work as laying the foundation. It was for Grant to take Thelema to the Next Step, and open it to dimensions undreamed of by the original systems of O.T.O. and A.'.A.'.

[movebywillalone]

Nov 26, 2013 5:15:20 GMT Gregory Peters said:

Thelema goes far beyond Crowley. I tend to think of his work as laying the foundation. It was for Grant to take Thelema to the Next Step, and open it to dimensions undreamed of by the original systems of O.T.O. and A.'.A.'.

[movebywillalone]

Thanks Gregory I recently read an interview with you discussing your time with Phyllis Seckler and modern day occultism it was very interesting cant wait for your book to come out!

[Gregory Peters]

hey thanks movebywillalone! the book will be out in july. Currently working on part 2 that will go much deeper into the tantra of the book of the law

I think Grant says in a few places that the A.'.A.'. is the operator and the O.T.O. is the machine (I am going from memory here)? That implies to me that the A.'.A.'. is beyond the physical organization(s) that exist on this earth, and in fact is a deeper stellar current that is driving the operations of the Ordo Typhonis.

[Gregory Peters]

As an aside, I have a serious problem with this message board... I want to read and participate in practically every thread!

[movebywillalone]

Nov 26, 2013 5:15:20 GMT Gregory Peters said:

Thelema goes far beyond Crowley. I tend to think of his work as laying the foundation. It was for Grant to take Thelema to the Next Step, and open it to dimensions undreamed of by the original systems of O.T.O. and A.'.A.'.

[movebywillalone]

Gregory why do you think so many thelemites or prominent caliphate members often write off KGs work as crazy or even consider the typhonian tradition a false representation of thelema? I've seen many derogatory comments on lashtal etc. of which I felt Mr.Staley often took the high road and didnt stoop to that level.

[Gregory Peters]

Dec 1, 2013 19:06:34 GMT movebywillalone said:

Gregory why do you think so many thelemites or prominent caliphate members often write off KGs work as crazy or even consider the typhonian tradition a false representation of thelema? I've seen many derogatory comments on lashtal etc. of which I felt Mr.Staley often took the high road and didnt stoop to that level.

movebywillalone, you are correct that for a large number of OTO members and Crowleyites, Grant and his work are ignored or derided.

While the newer material is backwards compatible with the original material, those that are stuck on the original transmission may not be wiling, able, or interested to see innovations or evolutions to the material that go beyond the teachings of Crowley. There tends to be a feeling that if Crowley did not say it or authorize it in some way, its not Thelema. Clearly I do not agree with that!

I think it is somewhat similar to the difference you might see between traditional Hinayana Buddhists and Vajrayana (tantrik) Buddhists. Tantra accepts the original teachings and sees the tantrik lineages as an extension or evolution of the original philosophy; Hinayana does not acknowledge the later teachings and teachers in the traditions, instead focusing exclusively on the work of Gautama only.

One of the things I respect most about Staley, Grant and the Ordo Typhonis is that they do not bother to engage so much in this nonsense. Instead, they are confident in who and what they are, and what their path is, and they live it.

[movebywillalone]

Well spoken thanks

[jcurwen]

Ha Lashtal can be difficult especially when people dont make it clear when they are using Crowleys definitions for concepts, or someone elses, or their own. Ive allowed myself to get involved in the argument game briefly; im over it. Philosophical discussions do not work very well when people are using words differently. That's why philosophical schools develop their own lexicon, so that debates can take place internally in a way that makes sense. While i will defend any opinion I have if necessary, seeking out unnecessary / unproductive debate is a waste of time and energy. As im sure Gregory Peters is aware, the Tantric schools are unanimous in that they are concerned with practice, sadhana, kriya - "action," not endless philosophical speculation and intellectual word - warfare games. What I saw on Lashtal seemed to be a few people who were critical of Grant, but i think the majority of people posting seemed to respect his work. I like that Grant, Chumbley and Spare have their own sections on that forum. Overall, I think many people lack a sense of perspective..."orthodox" Thelemic criticisms of Grant echo the Golden Dawn / RHP criticisms of Crowley. The Sword of Horus classic rant is a good example of the typical hypocrisy; Calling Grant and Bertiaux insane while the standard of sanity is to go through the desert letting Victor Neuburg sodomise one while doing Enochian rituals and invoking Choronzon. Sane = evoking Goetia spirits, taking drugs, The Amalantrah working, etc; insane = Qliphotic explorations, atavistic resurgences, etc.

[N0T 2]

In Grant's view from his Trilogies it seems clear that Thelema (and many other cults) is/was a feature of the Typhonian Tradition, rather than the other way around. This Tradition provides a context for Thelema, because it is far greater and far more ancient than Thelema (if you see the latter as emanating from Crowley's work alone).

It's not "there's Typhonian Thelema and there's the non-Typhonian type" - in a very basic way, it's ALL Typhonian if it's even remotely from Crowley or Theosophy or, yes, even the Golden Dawn (whatever the respective memberships of those groups, or the Caliphate OTO might think about Grant saying so). This is clear from the dust-jacket of the Magical Revival right through the rest, that this is how Grant saw the Tradition, as flowing through these various vessels, recognised or otherwise, one of which was himself, and on it goes, forever.

This is an important point to make, because Grant was a pupil of Crowley, so it is automatic for some to assume that his Work flows on from Crowley's and is thus a heresy, extension or development of it, a later or more mature stage of work Crowley had done (or a heresy, take your pick).

However, perhaps the greater part of Grant's Work was to head upstream of Crowley in some senses (in terms of historical perspective, in both chronological directions). This makes his work not merely built on Crowley's (and therefore part of the ongoing spiritual legacy of Thelema), but also a regression (in the atavistic sense, but also in terms of its historical perspective). So: Typhonian Thelema did not begin with Grant, it began with Crowley, because All Thelema Is Typhonian, and before Crowley ever used the word Thelema there was a tradition which informed the Golden Dawn, Blavatsky, etc. etc. regardless of the fact they didn't self-designate using precisely the term "Typhonian".

The Typhonian Tradition is simply Grant's name for the current informing all these various things, and it is a term he got from Massey. Whether Crowley (or Massey!) would agree with his application of the term is a matter of speculation for those thus inclined. His purpose in doing so was not to provide opportunity for further division, but in recognising the greater current of which each of these things forms a part and, thus oriented, better armed to perform his Duty as a component thereof.

Grant saw his work as placing Thelema within, in his uniquely qualified view, its proper context in human spiritual experience in much the same way Crowley placed his alma mater the Golden Dawn's legacy in a broader context with his own work (cf. all the expansions such as 777 and Equinox series, transgressive disclosure of secrets, the moebius strip and Heh-Tzaddi counterchange, etc.). Both men treated their spiritual inheritance in their way, transfiguring it in its transmission.

Understood from Grant's books, the Typhonian Tradition forms the context or current informing these other things, such as Thelema, Theosophy, the Golden Dawn, Surrealism, some types of Witchcraft, Lovecraft's visions, ancient cults, certain types of scientific work, etc.. and all the things Kenneth talks of.

[Gregory Peters]

Thanks NOT 2, that is an interesting perspective. I think thats very true that the greater tradition is much older and deeper than what was eventually to be called Thelema. it really comes down to labels I guess, which we humans love!

[N0T 2]

Jan 21, 2014 15:20:28 GMT Gregory Peters said:

(...) it really comes down to labels I guess, which we humans love!

Speak for yourself!

[Gregory Peters]

LOL Well fair enough, perhaps this does not apply to our local Lam icon

[Raj Don Yasser]

Nov 26, 2013 2:11:23 GMT Gregory Peters said:

This reminds me of something Crowley wrote

“The main Ethics of the Book of the Law. Man is asked to act as if it were true that he is a spark of that great light of God. Those who insist on making that assumption, on basing all their lives on it, are the Thelemites.” (Churton quoting unpublished AC)

Thanks for posting, I've never read that quote before. 

Regarding the original post's question, I would assume that most folks on this forum identify as Thelemites. For many years I've avoided labels other than purely practical one's (e.g. husband, man, job-titles, etc) and the only "religious/political" label I currently accept/proclaim is Thelema. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, lover under will. This utterly expresses my personal philosophy.