HGA, Higher Self, Genius ???
-
I'm sure this has been raised elsewhere, but I am becoming increasingly confused about the nature of the HGA. No one seems to agree on this point. Some people claim the HGA is the Higher Self. Others say otherwise.
From a recent entry in Jerry Cornelius's blog:
The HGA is an actual objective entity; do not confuse it with your Higher Self, or Genius. Too many magicians do this and then claim glorious achievements which become legends in their mind. I think, if you want to throw around terms like K&C etc & etc, we need to be on the same page as to what we mean; otherwise this is where confusion arises.
I am definitely NOT on the same page. In fact I have become so confused on this issue that the terms HGA, Higher Self, and Genius have become little more than empty tokens which I don't even know the value of. I can't differentiate between any of them because I have no clear conception of what any of them means. Consulting works of referrence is a complete waste of time because none of them seem to agree.
Any help pinning down these terms and how they differ from each other would be much appreciated.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I do my best not to answer this question definitively.
Crowley gave multiple answers in his writings. The answers were keyed for the specific level of the user. You may wish to compare his remarks in Magick Without Tears (written for absolute beginners primarily) to his remarks in the scholia of Liber Samekh (written for one of his best students who, at the time, was a 5=6 in A.'.A.'.).
A further compounding point: By the time it actually matters, the question doesn't matter! I mean specifically that the Knowledge & Conversation of the HGA takes place in Briah; and, in Briah, the idea of "separate," as we usually think of it, doesn't quite exist anymore.
I will agree that you and your HGA are separate, distinct beings in exactly the same sense that you and I are separate, distinct beings.
I'll argue that, to the extent a non-Adept regards the Angel as an aspect of oneself, one is wrong because the Angel is not at all any part of what one normally conceives of as oneself. OTOH I'll argue that if you regard the Angel as a separate being, not part of yourself, you've missed the point.
I also suggest that, regardless of the "right" or "wrong" ultimate answer to this, the method of the K&C of the HGA centers around an intimate communion of two things, not one. It is coitus, not onanism.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'll argue that, to the extent a non-Adept regards the Angel as an aspect of oneself, one is wrong because the Angel is not at all any part of what one normally conceives of as oneself. OTOH I'll argue that if you regard the Angel as a separate being, not part of yourself, you've missed the point."
Ok........ so how does this paradox work out in practice? Where exactly does the the completely clueless non-adept (me
) direct their aspiration?
From the above quote it seems to me like a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" situation. If you externalise the angel and focus outwards, you're wrong. If you internalise it you are still wrong.
Do you have to do both at the same time?
-
@Her said
"Ok........ so how does this paradox work out in practice? Where exactly does the the completely clueless non-adept (me
) direct their aspiration?"This is a tough ethical cookie. It is a firm principle that "none knoweth the name of another's God nor the formula by which It is invoked." I also firmly believe that - for this one specific question - finding your own answers is inseparable from the Work itself.
My usual recommendation - for those formally working the A.'.A.'. system - is to simply do the task of the present grade and, by the time you are Dominus Liminis, you'll have the answers you need to this one.
Taking my first paragraph above fully into consideration, I'll venture an opinion which, however, may not be true for you. (It has been true for every full Adept, in the A.'.A.'. sense, with whom I've ever discussed the matter.) The opinion concerns method, not an attempt to determine what the objective truth of the matter is. The opinion is that it is essential to consider the Angel as a separate, outside being with whom you can unite, overcoming the same direct perception of separateness that you perceive between yourself and other people. If there is not the sense of "intimacy with something that is not me," then there is no get outside the bounds of your small ego.
"From the above quote it seems to me like a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" situation."
More like: Damned if you get stuck in the question. It's an intellectual question. The answer probably won't lead you anywhere, and probably will misdirect you. (However, see paragraph 1.)
"If you externalise the angel and focus outwards, you're wrong. If you internalise it you are still wrong.
""Wrong" here is meant in the intellectual sense. Your egoic intellect is trying to control the process. That may get you on the right road (or not!), but it won't take you very far down that road.
"Do you have to do both at the same time?"
Or neither?
PS - What would happen if you turned your aspiration in the direction of the unknown... and keep it as the unknown, rather than seeking to turn it into the known?