Can the HGA be a god?
-
@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 And, even then, I find such images to be superseded over time while still remaining relevant to the evolving whole.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.
-
"Imaginary" is an interesting word, especially given that the quote says that real existence is immaterial to the pursuit.
I could see using that word as part of a more complex model under a materialist take on the HGA.
But the experience and function is real. And that leads to another possible perspective on the original question. May the function and experience of one's HGA possibly be the same as the function and experience of a particular historical god?
I'd give a qualified "yes" to that question, depending on how people were interacting with the "god."
-
But the experience and function is real. And that leads to another possible perspective on the original question. May the function and experience of one's HGA possibly be the same as the function and experience of a particular historical god?
I'd give a qualified "yes" to that question, depending on how people were interacting with the "god."
Yes yes... this is the nail i may be hitting.... -
@Barrackubus said
"May the function and experience of one's HGA possibly be the same as the function and experience of a particular historical god?"
Of course. (That's the easy question.) Totally. Routinely.