Archaic Techniques


From Gwendolyn Taunton’s Tantric Traditions: Gods, Rituals, & Esoteric Teachings in the Kali Yuga (2018), in page 42,

Tantric Buddhism is a syncretism of Buddhism, Tantric technique and an indigenous form of shamanism known as Bon. Within Tantric Buddhism, there are also rituals which are clearly derived from shamanic sources.

Then, further in the same place, Taunton cites the following block of text from Mirceda Eliade’s Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy (2004), in page 436,

We cite some Tantric meditations whose object is the practitioner’s stripping his own body of flesh and contemplating his skeleton. The yogin is asked to imagine his body as a corpse and his mind as an angry goddess, with a face and two hands holding a knife and a skull. “Think that she severeth the head from the corpse …and cutteth the corpse into bits and flingeth them inside the skull as offerings to deities.” Another exercise consists in his seeing himself as “a radiant white skeleton of enormous size, whence isueth flames, so great that they fill the voidness of the Universe.” Finally, a third meditation sets the yogin the task of contemplating himself as transformed into the raging ḍākinī, stripping the skin from his own body …These few extracts suffice to show the transformation that a shamanic schema can undergo when it is incorporated into a complex philosophical system, such as Tantrism.

Stōïkos II

Notes:

I. Stoicism is characterized by a rejection of pleasure as the standard of human happiness and human felicity. Stoicism takes the position that the wise man —the good man, the philosopher— is a man who lives in accordance with nature. He fears only abdicating his moral responsibility. He is not afraid of pain; he is not afraid of death; he is not afraid of poverty’ he is not afraid of any of the vicissitudes of the human condition. He fears only that he should let himself down, and that he should be less than a complete human being.

II. Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius.

III. The stoic man is never any place but home. His polis is the kosmos.

IV. Marcus Aurelius is a standing reproach to our weakness, to our self-indulgence; to our willingness to give in to what we want; to our inclination to make excuses about things that are entirely up to us, and to try and act as if we are[sic] not responsible for our behavior.

V. We might wanna say that Marcus Aurelius is an important step in the construction of the Western conception of the self, or the ego.

VI. The key idea behind Marcus Aurelius is something like this: that it’s just the human condition for us to have troubles and worries and anxieties and problems. Don’t torture yourself by worrying about things that aren’t in your control —leave that in the hands of God, leave that in the hands of nature. Do your best to control the things that you do have control over: yourself, your behavior, your intentions, and your actions. If you do that, you will live a blessed and happy and virtuous and wise life. You will be a real human being. If you fail to do that, gradually, the inclination towards debauchery, evil, vice, sin —to put it in theological terms— will become greater and greater. And unless you can arrest this slide towards self-indulgence, you will harm yourself, and you will harm the people around you.

VII. The stoic man says that a virtue that is possible for one man is accessible to all of us. There is no excuse for us not being that good. If we provide such excuses for ourselves, we harm ourselves and we harm others, by preventing us from recognizing our true moral obligations.

VIII. Marcus Aurelius let’s us know that all people suffer, but not all people pity themselves. Marcus Aurelius let’s us know that all men die, but that not all men die whining.

View original post

Kvedulf Gunnar Larsson The Spheres


This is an unusual fiction book that assumes the guise of science fiction, while being altogether directed elsewhere. In a final evaluation, and like all original works of the mind, results difficult to encase into a single genre. The premise is that one day in our times (not twenty or one hundred years in the future), to be precise a few years back, bright spherical objects from outer space descended into Earth’s atmosphere and distributed themselves throughout land and water surfaces with no distinguishable pattern that humans could discern. The objects in questions, moreover, are impervious to any physical operations attempted on them by humans; and so they stand still, untouchable monuments to mortal futility in the face of immanence. No evidence of passengers or controllers is present, and the spherical travelers’ presentation of themselves is nothing else except monolithic.

Once the primary facts of the story have been revealed, none of the typical fascination with new types of organisms, languages and ‘stories’ are possible. What the author of the book cleverly achieves is a simply argued perspective on human behavior, for the story, then, consists of how humans around the globe react to ‘the arrival’. The direction in which the narrative lenses is directed is inwards, but in a light tone, casually, so that while the reader is aware of what is going on ‘behind the scenes’, the story makes one only gloss over what would otherwise become layman rants on human nature. What we see portrayed first is our species’ desire for the unknown and mysterious to be somehow made manifest. The relevant question is posed by Larsson in regards to our fascination with extraterrestrials: what is it that we really want or need from them?

Narrated in the first person, the author soon introduces us to an underhanded comedy as he relates how first encounters, but especially how governments handle the appearance of the spheres. Foreseeably, political and cultural attitudes would be revealed in the way that each locality carried themselves in the presence of the extraterrestrial objects. Again, Larsson avoids the trap of an overt critique, or a taking sides in politics, letting human stupidity run the show, no matter what the avowed stance of each group is. For all its simplicity of style and even a manner of naivete in story-telling, The Spheres subtly hides layers of discourse, pleasantly safeguarding a personal and sincere tone that, in its own way, transcends ideologies political and secular, and lands us in the realm of a mysticism of the most unassuming nature.

The authorities did not know what to do, so they were throwing these “remarks” around. Nobody was responsible and suddenly nobody had any authority.

(…)

Once discovered, the police were called in. They drew their guns and aimed at the thing as they probably did not know what else todo.

Among the highlights of overly modern human behavior is the developed need for a certain kind of person to be recognized in any way. ‘Fakers’ appear around the world, people claiming to have had a special kind of contact with the spheres, usually translating to any of a variety of types of religious experiences. While at first they got what they wanted, these people were soon after exposed. This kind of behavior reaches its climax with a series of suicides purposedly committed in the vicinity of spheres, a trend apparently set by an attention-seeker in Brazil.

Exploitation, in all forms including tourism, becomes a discernible theme, as merchants and opportunists of all stripes see in the commotion and sensation that the spheres cause yet another way of reaping a profit. Poachers in Africa, North America and the ocean soon realize that animals are attracted by the spheres and carnage ensues. Artists and writers also rode on the sensation of the spheres, the first with their usual orgy of egos, the latter with the usual drivel of cheap narratives that infest popular literature.

Tourism and also crime were in their prime during the first three weeks or so, after that there was a decline in tourism but not in crime.

Suspicious events and behaviors, especially coming from the military establishments of powerful countries, surrounded the spheres, some of which did not correspond to any known constant in what was known about the spheres. This was also true of any group or organization that could mask themselves, and as the narrator is a simple character in the story, the shroud is not removed, permitting the reader to identify themselves within like situations.

The spheres’ presence was giving them a diversion so that their illegal activities could continue unnoticed by many.

The central theme may be the hardest to grasp but it is also the most clearly stated. It is clearer for those who have tasted something of what the author is portraying through the adventure on which the main character embarks. At the same time, it is obscured by the words used themselves, and by the fact that these only point but do not embody or even communicate what is hinted at: purpose, meaning, significance, objectifying words for what can only be lived.

“Inner experience cannot be recreated —no universal (communication, truth, values) — this is the essence of Nihilism. But one can allude to inner experience and induce others to follow a path for as long as they can and as muchas they are inspired. For those who are already thoughtful and perceptive, guideposts can be left, or breadcrumbs.” —Brett Stevens

 

Nietzsche The Antichrist [Trans. 1920 H.L. Mencken]


Achieving noteriety among the philosopher’s powerful arsenal of writings, The Antichrist remains, perhaps along with Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the strongest and most succint characterization of Nietzsche’s thought essence. Plainly stated, this work is at first glance ‘Nietzsche contra Christianity’; a more sensible and not necessarily spurious reading would find in it, in Nietzsche’s scourge of the characteristics and origins of Christianity, the exemplification of a sickness of the soul (weakness, and the resulting hatred for Life) in the civilization-deforming germ of that theological mode of thought. More clearly, while The Antichrist is, in effect, a direct criticism of Christianity in sixty-two parts, the thoughtful barrage is simply the vehicle that drives a more generalized message against all dogma and, moreover, against all idealism.

“This poisoning goes a great deal further than most people think: I find the arrogant habit of the theologian among all who regard themselves as “idealists”— among all who, by virtue of a higher point of departure, claim a right to rise above reality, and to look upon it with suspicion…” in No. 8

A far less popular, though unquestionably central, theme found in The Antichrist is one is that of anti-Judaism; not the “anti-semitism” of reductionists, misguided ‘racists’ and ‘anti-racists’, as well as Jewish propagandists, but strictly anti-Judaism. This starts by recognizing that the dissolving anti-realism of Christianity has its origin in the pernicious waters of Judaism. It is the mark of a real and lofty-thinking nihilist that Nietzsche could, in actuality and with an unflinching eye, with one hand uplift Jewish lore as excellent, grand and nuanced (q.v. Beyond Good and Evil), while with the other pointing out in their characteristic culture, thought and religion, a profound sickness (q.v. The Antichrist, The Will to Power).

“The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world, for when they were confronted with the question, to be or not to be, they chose, with perfectly unearthly deliberation, to be at any price: this price involved a radical falsification of all nature, of all naturalness, of all reality, of the whole inner world, as well as of the outer. They put themselves against all those conditions under which, hitherto, a people had been able to live, or had even been permitted to live; out of themselves they evolved an idea which stood in direct opposition to natural conditions— one by one they distorted religion, civilization, morality, history and psychology until each became a contradiction of its natural significance.” —in No. 24

It is important to understand and distinguish that while Christianity really is merely ‘a religion’, the conscious ideological fabrication of dogma, and which understanding of religion as a thing of its own has become the standard understanding of all things spiritual in the West, Judaism is far more than ‘a religion’. It is intertwined deeply in the culture and modes of thoughts of the Jews, so that even the atheist or humanist essentially simply displays the views of Judaism from different angles and depths; either through the direct influence of Judaism as is the case with Socialism and more clearly with Communism as ideologies, or through Christianity in the ideology of Humanism.

“Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most fateful people in the history of the world: their influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that today the Christian can cherish anti-Semitism without realizing that it is no more than the final consequence of Judaism.” —in No. 24

“The whole of Judaism appears in Christianity as the art of concocting holy lies, and there, after many centuries of earnest Jewish training and hard practice of Jewish technic, the business comes to the stage of mastery. The Christian, that ultima ratio of lying, is the Jew all over again— he is threefold the Jew…” —In No. 44

Nietzsche is not moralizing when he talks thus of Christianity and Judaism, and the scathing words and descriptions offered throughout the work have to do with valuations based on his philosophy of the Will to Power, with perception of reality as consequential without falling into the trap of reductionism, and ultimately with nihilism but also and more esoterically with post-nihilism, the true essence of Nietzschean thought. As a consequence, Nietzsche also clearly distinguishes the former as the caricature of the latter. In Christianity he sees self-contradiction and wanton stupidity spiraling out of control in a cauldron of delusions, while in Judaism, an almost sinister spirit towards survival, a cameleon-like willingness to transformation to overcome all odds.

“Psychologically, the Jews are a people gifted with the very strongest vitality, so much so that when they found themselves facing impossible conditions of life they chose voluntarily, and with a profound talent for self-preservation, the side of all those instincts which make for decadencenot as if mastered by them, but as if detecting in them a power by which “the world” could be defied. The Jews are the very opposite of decadents: they have simply been forced into appearing in that guise, and with a degree of skill approaching the non plus ultra of histrionic genius they have managed to put themselves at the head of all decadent movements (— for example, the Christianity of Paul—), and so make of them something stronger than any party frankly saying Yes to life.” —in No. 24

The decadent and ultimately self-deprecating thread that links both is the idea of sin, fear of life, of the natural, of the courageous and of the real. The distinction that Nietzsche draws between Judaism and Christianity is that despite the shared seed of the ideology of sin, the foremer shows fangs and claws in its ‘eye for an eye’ policy, while the latter contrasts this with ‘turning the other cheek’, a recipe for destruction so sure that Christians, a.k.a. “little super-Jews ripe for some sort of madhouse”, have found it impossible to consistently follow Jesus’ mandate, lest they be destroyed by their own faith.

“It is not a “belief” that marks off the Christian; he is distinguished by a different mode of action; he acts differently. He offers no resistance, either by word or in his heart, to those who stand against him. He draws no distinction between strangers and countrymen, Jews and Gentiles (“neighbour,” of course, means fellow-believer, Jew). He is angry with no one, and he despises no one. He neither appeals to the courts of justice nor heeds their mandates (“Swear not at all”). He never under any circumstances divorces his wife, even when he has proofs of her infidelity.” —in No. 33

Interestingly, Nietzsche hammers down on the fact that this unique and powerful manifestation of decadence is linked inequivocably to the Jews as a race. It is understandable that these statements are met with confusion and apologies to no end by weak minds (the majority of minds), and as a consequence of post World War 2 culturized propaganda . The pertinent observations, however, are merely that, statements of facts, philosophy as a tool of dissection at its sharpest, and should not understood as the impulse to build a basis for ideologies, which the individualist mind-father of the concept of the Over-Man generally despised, though recognized as necessary to move the masses of feeble minds.

“Here we are among Jews: this is the first thing to be borne in mind if we are not to lose the thread of the matter. This positive genius for conjuring up a delusion of personal “holiness” unmatched anywhere else, either in books or by men; this elevation of fraud in word and attitude to the level of an art— all this is not an accident due to the chance talents of an individual, or to any violation of nature. The thing responsible is race.” —in No. 44

Even more interesting, beyond the tacit condemnation of Judaism, which almost any substantial attack on Christianity entails, is the appraisal of the Code of Manu as a substantial law based on reason, on reality. Furthermore, in it there is something nobler, more functional lie towards the edification of a people.

“I have a contrary feeling when I read the Code of Manu, an incomparably more intellectual and superior work, which it would be a sin against the intelligence to so much as name in the same breath with the Bible. It is easy to see why: there is a genuine philosophy behind it, in it, not merely an evil-smelling mess of Jewish rabbinism and superstition,— it gives even the most fastidious psychologist something to sink his teeth into.” —in No. 56

To the individual era raised in the politically-correct and heavily indoctrinated post-modernity of the West, such lines as the are illuminating, where the decidedly patriarchical laws and valuations of the Aryan Code of Manu fly in the face of all black-and-white claims about the oppresion of women in contrast to the liberty of man (in truth, Tradition proper merely upholds order, and function, no matter who you are). It is thus shown that the averse feeling that modernity has against Traidition and anything remotely identified as “patriarcal” or merely orderly, is based on ignorance and a general lack of intellectual balance.

“I know of no book in which so many delicate and kindly things are said of women as in the Code of Manu; these old greybeards and saints have a way of being gallant to women that it would be impossible, perhaps, to surpass.” —in No. 56

Ultimately, however, Nietzsche condemns all such dogmas in religions as lies and so averse to excellence and life to those who fall victim to them, because not truthful. Again, the best of Nietzsche arises from his often amusing, though no less on point, rants and digressions shines through, always keeping the reader on their toes, refusing to settle for a complete judgement that does not enter in full contact with realism, with honesty beyond morals and dogma of any kind (‘secular’ or ‘religious’, two sides of the same coin).

“The “holy lie”— common alike to Confucius, to the Code of Manu, to Mohammed and to the Christian church— is not even wanting in Plato. “Truth is here”: this means, no matter where it is heard, the priest lies….” —in No. 55

“A book of laws such as the Code of Manu has the same origin as every other good law-book: it epitomizes the experience, the sagacity and the ethical experimentation of long centuries; it brings things to a conclusion; it no longer creates.” —in No. 57

We should take the opportunity at this point to once again make a distinction that the philosopher himself made in regards to truth and lies: falsehood is in the end detrimental to those who fall under their spell, as they become slaves to something else, either to the abstraction itself, or to the intelligence wielding them. While it has become costumary to see Right-hand politics to be ‘close-minded’, and so wanting, by an increasingly blind impulse towards liberation, the Left-hand of politics has been especially blind itself .

“In point of fact, the end for which one lies makes a great difference: whether one preserves thereby or destroys. There is a perfect likeness between Christian and anarchist: their object, their instinct, points only toward destruction. One need only turn to history for a proof of this: there it appears with appalling distinctness.” —in No. 58

Bakunin would turn in his grave.

Regarding the genius of Nietzsche, one will meet few in life which can come to such nuanced yet at the same time penetrating distinctions on ideology and race, and only a limited group around those who can manage to properly digest such ideas without suffering from a mental breakdown as their programming crashes against the proper use of reason. Ironically, perhaps the problem that put on a limit on Nietzsche was that the only possible path of resolution to his post-nihilism would have been esotericism proper (the origin of, but beyond modern ‘occultism’), a mode of thought his own life and arrogance never gave him the chance of exploring.

“Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (— I do not say by what sort of feet— ) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin— because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!… The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust— a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very “senile.”” —in No. 60

Thus, interesting and enchanting seeds and riddles rise in between the lines of The Antichrist. Even fewer still, will understand what they conjure up, what they imply, and why the true philosopher would join such lines; only the brave and agile of mind can grasp them.

 

A Discussion of ‘Azoth’, ‘Atazoth’ and ‘Azathoth’

[Written originally as a casual response in conversation with V.K. Jehannum, then organically turned into a closer look at Typhonian Trilogies references to Azoth.]

In reference to this: https://vkjehannum.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/atazoth-at-taghut/

And to a lesser degree, to this: https://vkjehannum.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/regarding-the-scandalous-origins-of-satanism/, wherein said conversation with V.K. Jehannum is found.

WS was on point, whatever else she was saying, that there is no conclusive linkage, other than speculation, between ‘Atazoth’ and ‘Azathoth’. Also, O9A (in Anton Long’s hand) never claims a link to Lovecraft’s ‘Azathoth’, and distinctly names and defines ‘Atazoth’ as something different.  I will explain why a step at a time. Your essay basically jumps to the conclusion:

All of the ONA’s descriptions of Atazoth find their origin in the Typhonian Trilogies by Kenneth Grant.

Then you proceed to jump between mentions of ‘Atazoth’ and ‘Azathoth’, but nowhere in any of the documents are these two actually linked, and that claim supported by concrete analysis. The only mention that jumps out is Peter Carroll’s of Azathoth as increase in ‘Azoth’, but this is published in 1992, claimed only at a point where he could have been said to be taking influence from the O9A (Naos, Hostia, etc. predate it by many years and at least an article or two by him make a curious and illogical addition in a relatively early issue of Fenrir zine).

It is worthy to mention that Opus Vrilis, not a central O9A document, or an official order document as far as I understand, contains mentions of both Atazoth and Azathoth, but as entirely different entities and meanings1.

I checked out the relevant literature (said book by Grant, The Magical Revival, from 1972), and while Grant’s juxtaposition of the Lovecraftian mythos with Crowlean derivations is interesting in its own way, there does not seem to be anything concrete linking ‘Azathoth’ to ‘Azoth’ itself, except the insignificant claim, and there is certainly no mention of ‘Atazoth’ in Grant’s work.

There also seems to be a discrepancy in the nuance of understanding of the full meaning of ‘Azoth’ between the Golden Dawn line and the Traditional Alchemy line, which might further enhance the discrepancies between O9A’s and Typhonian ideas, reinforcing the lack of borrowing by the former from the latter.

In MS ‘Azoth’, O9A states: “Unsurprisingly, therefore, and for quite some time – since at least the days of A.E. Waite, Crowley, et al – ‘azoth’ has been (mis)understood as Mercurius, and connected to the Qabalah.
However, esoterically – and anciently, in alchemy – azoth was the term used to describe not ‘mercurius’ but rather the stable amalgam of the three basic alchemical elements: mercury, sulphur, and salt; a combination which many alchemists sought to find by various alchemical processes.”

While Crowley writes in 777: “Binah is connected with the Azoth, not only because the Azoth is the lower Moon, but because the Azoth partakes also of the Saturnian character, being the metal lead in one of the Alchemical systems.

You might want to read, in detail, Julius Evola’s Introduction to Magic (1971)2.  He makes mention of that “Philosophical Lead or Philosophical Azoth” but with a more complex understanding the nuance of which makes it differ from the distortions (intended or not) of the Golden Dawn: “We find this metal in the mine of Saturn. Root of the perfect metals, just as of the imperfect ones, it is endowed with a certain saturnine spirit and is manifested as the mine of Mercury. It is called Philosophical Lead or Philosophical Azoth, from which we are used to distil the Virgin’s Milk, and it has a venereal property.” Thus showing us how that misunderstanding of ‘Azoth’ equating ‘Mercury’ or ‘Lead’ might have come about, and how the original understanding was pointing at properties and origins more complex.

Curiously enough, between 1972 and 1977, Kenneth Grant does alter his concept of ‘Azoth’ from the previous interpretation which had led him to link Crowley’s ‘Thoth’ with ‘Azoth’ and so with Lovecraft’s ‘Azathoth’, to one that slightly conforms ‘Azoth’ to O9A’s reading of Alchemical texts. Despite the critical alteration to the original error3, which was responsible for linking Azathoth with Azoth in the first place, is never properly corrected although the concepts are discretely separated and no longer associated4.

With thy hands thou shalt touch, and with thy eyes thou shalt see Azoth! The Universal! Which alone, with the internal and external fire in harmonious sympathy with the Olympic Fire, is sufficient for thee: by inevitable necessity, physicochemically united for the consummation of the Philosopher’s Stone” —Khunrath, Amph. Sap. Etern., Isag. in fig. Cap. 8., quoted in M.A. Atwood’s A Suggestive Inquiry Into the Hermetic Mystery (1850).

WS’s mention of the alchemical tractates is relevant insofar as the concept of ‘Azoth’ differs from Crowley’s, and so from the way in which O9A would conjure up a deity named ‘At-Azoth’ (‘an increase of azoth’), with a completely different meaning than that interpreted by Kenneth Grant from Lovecraft’s ‘ Aza-thoth’5 at which point he jumps from using Crowley’s ideas regarding ‘Azoth’ towards a new interpretation based on the partition and the reading of ‘Thoth’ in it. Word games and clever-sounding claims often based on numerology, but nothing more. These poetical conjectures are all right as creative writing, which is what I do for a free-style meaning-finding and creation, but they do not constitute concrete proof of anything.

Furthermore, the O9A’s own definition of At-Azoth as ‘increasing of Azoth’ is free of any link to Lovecraft, even if it is made up by appending the prefix ‘At-‘ to signal ‘an increase of’. And nothing at all links this to Grant’s work, but to the traditional term in the far older tradition of Alchemy, itself based on Greek notions.

Then again, Kenneth Grant never links ‘Atazoth’ to ‘Azathoth’, and the definitions of each in the respective camps appear to mean wildly different things: increase of universal alchemical magnetic unification, versus evil-demon-mother chaos-at-the-centre-of-the-universe Egyptian-magic-god/Hebrew-occult-descended-knowledge-Daath.

I appeal to your reason.


Notes:

1 Handling ‘Atazoth’ within the ‘Nythra Kthunae Atazoth’ context as the traditional O9A’s ‘increasing of Azoth’; while elsewhere, in a local Typhonian-Lovecraftian-mythos ritual, ‘Azathoth’ is mentioned as “center of the cosmos” and “acausal force of Chaos”.

2 In p. 240, for a far more involved discussion of Azoth in Alchemy than that presented by Kenneth Grant (who does more Crowlean numerology and derives his concepts from that line of thinking). Also, in the same work in pages 278 and 279, Evola mentions and discusses Azoth in connection with Basilius Valentinus, who is directly mentioned in O9A’s MS ‘Azoth’, wherein O9A focus on said author’s linking of Azoth with the Graeco-Roman tradition, predating Qabalistic adoptions of it.

3 In The Magical Revival (1972): “Azoth, the alchemical solvent; Thoth, Mercury; Chaos is Hadit at the centre of Infinity (Nuit)”. In contrast, in Nightside of Eden (1977), p. 259: “Azoth: An alchemical term for the fluid. The combined essences of the fully polarized power zones in the human male and female organs“. However, in p. 182 of the latter book, Grant describes ‘Azoth’ as a dissolving secretion of “infinitely corroding light“, and then simply claims that “Lovecraft has conceptualized this notion in terms of his own scientific materialism as Azathoth, the blind and idiot chaos as the centre of Infinity”. Nothing actually maintains this link between ‘Azoth’ and ‘Azathoth’ except Grant’s ignoring the corrected definition of ‘Azoth’ that he includes, while forgetting said link was based on an older concept he gradually leaves behind. In time, only the concept of the link remains, while the link itself is eroded.

4 Kenneth Grant’s Outside the Circles of Time (1980) reads, in its single mention of ‘Azoth’:”The number 401 is that of ATh, ‘essence’, a precise definition of Orissor and a synonym for Azoth, ‘the sum and essence of all, conceived as one’.“I.e., Azoth is no longer linked to ‘Thoth’ and ‘Chaos’. In this book, no mention of ‘Azathoth’ is made. Then, in Hecate’s Fountain (1992) Grant revives Azathoth as “An entity given prominence in the Necronomicon Mythos because it typifies the supreme reflex of Daath in the form of Aza.” In this last book, no mention of ‘Azoth’ appears any longer.

5 In Keneth Grant’s Nightside of Eden (1977), p.182: “The name Azathoth is composed of two distinct concepts, Aza and Thoth“. Wherein ‘Aza’ is defined as “The evil mother of all demons.” and ‘Thoth’ explained as “The Egyptian god of magic whose vehicle is the kaf-ape. In an occult sense Thoth is synonymous with Daath.”