Can the HGA be a god?
-
As I was saying, logical structures existed in the external world long before humanity evolved.
Logical absolutes existed. They interacted with one another according to their logic. Thus, logic existed and functioned before the human mind existed.
However, this is just the groundwork for the concept of an autonomously self-organizing structure of mind, formulated in the unconscious mind of individuals, organizing all of the functions of their mind together as a whole, yet standing in contrast to their smaller, more partial, everyday conception of themselves.
While this could be said to exist in individual human consciousnesses alone, there do seem to be some phenomenological indications (experience) that suggest that it may be possible for individual human minds to be connected through this universal, autonomously occurring organization of mind.
So, given that, you want to call it "God" or what? That's up to you, but I'm getting bored with the flat out denial of even the possibility that such a thing exists.
-
Inherent within the nature of the universe, there is a cause of order.
Being also in the nature of matter, this cause of order affects the varied relationships of matter to itself and, therefore, also affects everything affected by matter, including mind.
I mean, how have I got to say it so that you see it doesn't matter if you start with matter or with mind? It exists. It orders itself regardless of your permission or confession.
And in my experienced opinion, one of these expressions of the ordering of mind is that of the relationship of the conscious, particular self to the rest of the whole Self. Further, in my experienced opinion, this organization may manifest itself in an experience of one's "Holy Guardian Angel," with varying expressions from person to person. Finally, in my experienced opinion, it allows you to value it as you wish.
-
"*Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεός ἦν ὁ Λόγος
*" -
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
" -
Could we please get back to addressing the OP? Or are we done with that? Here it is as a reminder.
@Barrackubus said
"It was just recently that i began to consider as to who my HGA, with out much impact upon me or no desire at all to follow up until recently this consideration.
I had always been aware from my studies that Aiwass and Lucifer is the same divine being at least from perception of some?
I had taken the components of the angel and of that which drives or possibly motivates him to action.
Lightening had also always been apparent as well...for it is always impacted me and has always been apart of how i would describe that feeling of first encounters...
Then i looked at one deity in specific and might quite possibly be convinced that this is also my HGA.
Is this also something that is commonly shared amoung our fraternity, are others also to make such connections and assumptions also about their own HGA?
Am I seeing this correctly?"
-
General rule of thumb: If you can discuss whether a thing exists or not - it exists.
It becomes more a matter of determining its "level" of existence.Take for example : Do Unicorns exist?
Of course! As when I say "Unicorn" an image pops into your mind of a white horse with a singular horn.
Now, you might say : Do Unicorns manifest on the physical plane?
Of course!
Keeping in mind the Image, that one forms within the mind is an ideal, and does not necessarily manifest that way materially.And now a word on nutrition:
Pizza in the morning!
Pizza in the evening!
Pizza at supper time! -
@Uni_Verse said
"
Take for example : Do Unicorns exist?
Of course! As when I say "Unicorn" an image pops into your mind of a white horse with a singular horn.
Now, you might say : Do Unicorns manifest on the physical plane?
Of course!
Keeping in mind the Image, that one forms within the mind is an ideal, and does not necessarily manifest that way materially.
"A thought or mental image of a unicorn is not the same thing as a painting or drawing of one, for example, or a story about one (a manifestation on the physical plane). But unicorns themselves, real physical entities in the physical world, don't exist (and I don't think you're making that claim, although it's not clear to me what you're saying or implying). As a symbol, they're undoubtedly important.
@Uni_Verse said
"
General rule of thumb: If you can discuss whether a thing exists or not - it exists.
It becomes more a matter of determining its "level" of existence.
"Does this suggest more than the rather self-evident meaning that if one can think of something, then it exists as a thought in one or more peoples' minds?
-
@soz said
" But unicorns themselves, real physical entities in the physical world, don't exist (and I don't think you're making that claim, although it's not clear to me what you're saying or implying)."
If you are expecting a Unicorn to manifest in the physical world as a horse with a horn, then that might not happen. Though as I said, that is the image, the symbol in the mind. If a Unicorn is seen as an image, symbol of the Magician with a single pointed Will then they are real physical entities in the physical world.
@soz said
"Does this suggest more than the rather self-evident meaning that if one can think of something, then it exists as a thought in one or more peoples' minds?"
For a thing to be discussed with language it must exist in some way, even if only as a concept.
-
I wouldn't identify the HGA as a god, more like an intermediary that prepares you to cross the Gulf to reach
Ones "hadit". At the core we are all Gods, infinite in number and making up the body of Nuit. It's really quite amazing when you think about it! -
...(myself made perfect), whom no man hath ever seen.
-
Well, "HGA" is a variable left open for personal experience to define.
As for "god," it's clear in the original post that he was talking about particular historical gods.
Remember what Crowley said he'd become convinced of concerning Aiwass? - A man, who had later been worshipped as a god, now the Head of the A.'.A.'.
Naming the particulars can serve to confuse the interconnection of Identity that the higher planes assume. Nevertheless, Crowley did attempt to relate the particulars of personal identity as he apparently experienced them.
-
@Barrackubus said
"It was just recently that i began to consider as to who my HGA, with out much impact upon me or no desire at all to follow up until recently this consideration.
I had always been aware from my studies that Aiwass and Lucifer is the same divine being at least from perception of some?
I had taken the components of the angel and of that which drives or possibly motivates him to action.
Lightening had also always been apparent as well...for it is always impacted me and has always been apart of how i would describe that feeling of first encounters...
Then i looked at one deity in specific and might quite possibly be convinced that this is also my HGA.
Is this also something that is commonly shared amoung our fraternity, are others also to make such connections and assumptions also about their own HGA?
Am I seeing this correctly?"
@Crowley said
"Equinox of the Gods VII:5
I now incline to believe that Aiwass is not only the God or Demon or Devil once held holy in Sumer, and mine own Guradian Angel, but also a man as I am, insofar as He uses a human body to make His magical link with Mankind, whom He loves, and that He is thus and Ipsissimus, the Head of the A∴A∴ Even I can do, in a much feebler way, this Work of being a God and a Beast, &c., &c., all at the same time, with equal fullness of life."Without attempts to manipulate the question or its answer to suit my own beliefs, it must be said that there is a precedent.
However, when it is asked, ". . .are others also to make such connections and assumptions. . . ," which implies some sort of expected manner of proceeding, I can only say that I have no knowledge of the experiences that convinced Crowley of the above. Personally, I find such "connections" useful in understanding the nature of my HGA as it is revealed over time. However, I'm not sure I would just go around making "assumptions" simply because I liked them. There would have to be something... more to it than that... more like a moment of deep insight and/or revelation. And, even then, I find such images to be superseded over time while still remaining relevant to the evolving whole.
"*Liber LXV *I:7-10
Be not contented with the image.
I who am the Image of an Image say this.
Debate not of the image, saying Beyond! Beyond!
One mounteth unto the Crown by the moon and by the Sun, and by the arrow, and by the Foundation, and by the dark home of the stars from the black earth.
Not otherwise may ye reach unto the Smooth Point." -
One of the greatest benefits, n the Great Work, of a god is that it cannot be understood rationally. It provides something that overwhelms any definition of self, any bounds and limits of reason. Leaves them totally wasted and pathetic and flailing by the roadside.
There just isn't enough room for Reality within the narrow bounds of comprehensibility. Understanding is the booby-prize.
-
@Barrackubus said
"It was just recently that i began to consider as to who my HGA, with out much impact upon me or no desire at all to follow up until recently this consideration.
I had always been aware from my studies that Aiwass and Lucifer is the same divine being at least from perception of some?
I had taken the components of the angel and of that which drives or possibly motivates him to action.
Lightening had also always been apparent as well...for it is always impacted me and has always been apart of how i would describe that feeling of first encounters...
Then i looked at one deity in specific and might quite possibly be convinced that this is also my HGA.
Is this also something that is commonly shared amoung our fraternity, are others also to make such connections and assumptions also about their own HGA?
Am I seeing this correctly?"
I don't know if you are seeing this correctly? Knowing one's HGA is always seeing correctly, if that makes any sense. The perspective is always in right relation to what is being viewed.
So, in that case, yes: a "god" can be the personal expression of the HGA in a given moment. It can take the form of the divine force on this plane, which is what a god is. That's why maybe it seems confusing - a god can be an embodiment of anything perfect and the HGA is the Perfected Man.
Interesting to think of the HGA as something separate from the True Self? Or separate at all?
So yes, your HGA can be a god, it can be a perspective that embodies the qualities of a god, it can participate in all forces, all forms - which could be a god itself. The HGA is Spirit unadulterated ready to unite at will, which is the True Self, and this Unity can be expressed in the form of a god, which can be a man, at any given time, according to the True Will.
The terms aren't mutually exclusive in the slightest and I think that's where the confusion lies...they are all in a soup together that we like to call aspects of non-rational, non-linear modes of understanding.
But, even these words are just words BY OTHERS. Enjoy life and love everything to the fullest. Only you have all the answers that you seek! The real doctor just tells you to laugh and fuck often...
-
@Equinox of the Gods, Ch. 7 said
"I now incline to believe that Aiwass is not only the God or Demon or Devil once held holy in Sumer, and mine own Guradian Angel, but also a man as I am, insofar as He uses a human body to make His magical link with Mankind, whom He loves, and that He is thus and Ipsissimus, the Head of the A∴A∴"
Crowley was no longer a Student (in the Liber O sense of the word) when he wrote the above.
I (as a Student in the Liber O sense of the word) do not attribute objective reality or philosophic validity to what he writes. As I said in my post, "Crowley believed Aiwass to be identical with the Sumerian god." I merely record this as one man's experience of his HGA.
As a God.
[N.B. for future readers: A good deal of this thread was excised due to bickering from certain voices that are fundamentally opposed to the ideas being discussed. My contrary tone above was directed at one of their posts which is no more. I want to leave the post as written but, if the wording and tone sound off, that's why.]
-
I used to thing it was about being prideful, but it can take a lot of humility to let go of the rational mind and accept something as big and irrational as God inside us.
But that's what we have to do, even if we have a rational belief system, or feel sure we are correct, even if we would be correct to say that it is a purely psychological process accepted by current scientific understanding.
Even still, the practice of letting go and being overwhelmed and humble, helps get us somewhere closer to our real selves.
-
Hmmm. A revision for comparison:
@(No one) said
"
In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which do not exist.It is very important whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them."
-
He shouldn't require me to believe in the miracle of the mass for it to be his miracle. Nor do I require him to believe whatever I choose to believe (see there what I did? I placed belief under will - it's more than a sleight of hand trick). It would be a sin (of restriction) if I told him he was not allowed to believe in the miracle of the mass because I don't believe in it. Also, as it may be that one or the other of us is more alleviated than the other in spiritual matters, and possibly one of us has encountered an ordeal that lead us from one belief to the other, it would be a sin (of interference) to force early upon someone certain conclusions that the intellect (Rauch) might grasp nicely, but the Neshamah would be robbed of actually experiencing and going through the changes if it were merely "accepted" (Knowledge) instead of encountered via Understanding (Gnosis).
-
And I do believe in the miracle of the Mass (just not with a historical acceptance of the existence of the legendary Jesus, nor that it is actually "body and blood of" but a metaphysical "enhancing" device).
Edit: It's called "Communion." There's a lot to be said about that word.
-
Instructors that wish students to come to their own conclusions often seem to speak out of both sides of their mouth.
