Archetypes of Thelema
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Ophion280 said
"Here's a quick question. Aiwass, would he be considered as an archetype?"No, he's considered a being - more or less a person."
By you, perhaps, by everyone else including Aleister Crowley he is considered as the Holy Guardian Angel which is the Secret Self of the individual and therefore an archetype of the Self (if using Jungian terminology).
'Archetype' is a very loose term, so Aiwass could easily fulfill various archetypes. As the HGA he is Self as mentioned above, as the Messenger of Hoor-paar-kraat he is the Logos, or the connection between God and Man as Gabriel was for Muhammad.
93 93/93
-
@Aum418 said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Ophion280 said
"Here's a quick question. Aiwass, would he be considered as an archetype?"No, he's considered a being - more or less a person."
By you, perhaps, by everyone else including Aleister Crowley he is considered as the Holy Guardian Angel which is the Secret Self of the individual and therefore an archetype of the Self (if using Jungian terminology)."
Or is a separate, distinct being, if using other terminology (including Crowley's).
-
I'm sure Crowley formed the opinion later in his life that Aiwass was a distinct entity, and I'm paraphrasing: "one that was possibly once a human like ourselves in the distant past".
Originally this led me to some skepticism about Crowley in that if others are calling it the "higher self", didn't he produce a type of "psychological schism" by his magickal practices? And this ties in with my question in the Magick forum about psychology, Goetia and binding vs "bargain-making" - ie: integration vs purification, if I could use those terms loosely.
-
@modernPrimitive said
"I'm sure Crowley formed the opinion later in his life that Aiwass was a distinct entity, and I'm paraphrasing: "one that was possibly once a human like ourselves in the distant past".
Originally this led me to some skepticism about Crowley in that if others are calling it the "higher self", didn't he produce a type of "psychological schism" by his magical practices? And this ties in with my question in the Magick forum about psychology, Goetia and binding vs "bargain-making" - ie: integration vs purification, if I could use those terms loosely."
Explicitly all over his texts he says the HGA is the Secret Self. Liber Samekh is written entirely around this idea. People place 'aiwass' at the Tiphareth center in the Qabalistic Cross - is that to invoke some external entity? And Liber LXV is about a sexual meeting between two physical people? And to find your will you need to find this guy and have a grand old chat with him about your purpose or something? Really? You seriously think all that?
-
@Aum418 said
"
Explicitly all over his texts he says the HGA is the Secret Self. Liber Samekh is written entirely around this idea. People place 'aiwass' at the Tiphareth center in the Qabalistic Cross - is that to invoke some external entity? And Liber LXV is about a sexual meeting between two physical people? And to find your will you need to find this guy and have a grand old chat with him about your purpose or something? Really? You seriously think all that?"I think you missed my point Aum418. Read again more carefully. I was suggesting that if Crowley had believed Aiwass was an independent entity later in life then I wondered if certain practices hadn't produced a "schism" in his consciousness. Hence I was suggesting a psychological view in the first place. (and I have read that was his opinion later in life, I'm just not sure where)
However, having said that I recognize that I lack the mystical expertise to suggest that it is that cut and dry.
-
@Aum418 said
"Explicitly all over his texts he says the HGA is the Secret Self. Liber Samekh is written entirely around this idea."
Yes, Liber Samekh is the excellent example of that. But no, all of his writings don't concur. He said various things at various points in his life. The longer he lived, the more he inclined to the view that the HGA is a distinctive separate person.
BTW, for clarity: I'm only continuing the discussion you started of what Crowley thought in the matter. I'm not arguing my own point of view (other than my p.o.v. on what Crowley's p.o.v. was).
-
I would think it's just that although the HGA is an archetype of the Self, Aiwass is not the HGA, but Crowley's HGA, and therefore as individual as Crowley. Also if you want to be Jungian about it, the archetype can only enter consciousness as the subject and not as the object. Anything that is perceived as an external entity that can be labeled, named or conversed with is not the archetype but the mask you've put on it.
-
My understanding is that Crowley felt, and wrote, in the Equinox of the Gods that Aiwass was indeed, definitively at that point in his life, a being seperate from himself. I understand the attraction of the psychological model, that demons, angels etc. are merely the archetypal actions of the subconscious self. It is easier to grasp in our attempts to break free from what we feel is superstitious beliefs. I used to be a firm advocate of the psychological model for spiritual beings but as I've gotten older and work through the layers that I find that this is not necessarily true. The psychological model works only on one level and I still use it to give an idea of what Magick is about, the old chaoist in me I guess. But I do not live by that example anymore.
V.V.V.V.V. was Crowley's perfected self, not Aiwass.
-
As I see it the HGA being in Tiphereth is divided from the ego self in Yseod, thus from the normal meaning of the self, the HGA is indeed a separate being, it is an extra-ego being. The Ego or normally conscious self is divided from the deeper aspects of the mind by the veil of paroketh. When one is fully operating in the second order adeptus grades the sense of self shifts from the Ego to the Tiphereth level, where the lower ego now seems to be separate from the self, rather to me it seems like its not one single "SELF" but many different masks that one can mix and match and hide behind that creates the ego that others see. I see the HGA as constant and singular like the eternal sun, but the ego like the moon changes phases and appearances. In any effect, it is as if the HGA and the EGO are separate from each other, but in so much as they are both activity in the same brain, they are not actually separate in the same sense than you and I have separate minds.
It could very well be that once one sets one's perspective above the abyss or even just above Tiphereth, that the HGA is no longer the focus of self and thus appears separate again from a higher sense than transcends a self with any sense of central focus.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"He said various things at various points in his life. The longer he lived, the more he inclined to the view that the HGA is a distinctive separate person."
Jims right on this, toward the end of AC's life he started to rethink the HGA Tiphareth attribution and it shows in Magick Without Tears pgs 281-282 where AC clearly points out that the HGA is a separate being and NOT the 'Higher Self'. He also states somewhere in this book (where exactly I forget) the the Higher Self is attained in Tiphareth and the HGA in Binah.
The HGA=Higher Self idea was a flawed old AEonic idea and AC being essentially an old aeonic soul had bouts with this throughout his career. But we all make mistakes, we are only human.
-
@Ophion280 said
"He also states somewhere in this book (where exactly I forget) the the Higher Self is attained in Tiphareth and the HGA in Binah"
To say Tiphareth = attainment of Higher Self and Binah = attainment of HGA is a pretty big assertion. I cannot find anything that resembles your claim in Magick Without Tears. Perhaps you're thinking of Crowley's comment that the physical equivalent of the Higher Self is onanism whereas the HGA is sexual intercourse..