HGA, different types of approaches?
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
In these last days I’m studying material concerning the HGA. In my research I’ve come across (or at last I think so) a difference in the method used by Crowley, so I’m trying to understand if there’s really a difference or they are two different methods with the same results.
Abramelin, Liber VIII and Liber Samekh all have as the primary part of the ceremony a prayer or invocation. In John St. John, however, Crowley seems to use another method as the principal way to approach the experience. Mixed in with Asana, Pranayama, Mantras etc. (that form a similar pattern as found in Liber Astarte) the principal aspect of the ceremony is this:
…my eyes were turned back, in, up to the Third Eye; my tongue was rolled back in my mouth; and my thoughts, radiating from that Third Eye, I strove to shut in unto an ever narrowing sphere by concentrating my will upon the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel.
…I should like to explain the difficulty. It would be easy enough to form a magical Image of Adonai: and He would doubtless inform it. But it would only be an Image. This may be the meaning of the commandment "Thou shalt not make any graven image," etc., just as "Thou shalt not have any other Gods but me" implies single-minded devotion (Ekagrata) to Adonai. So any mental or magical Image must necessarily fall short of the Truth. Consequently one has to will that which is formless; and this is very difficult. To concentrate the mind upon a definite thing is hard enough; yet at least there is something to grasp, and some means of checking one's result. But in this case, the moment one's will takes a magical shape -- and the will simply revels in creating shapes -- at the moment one knows that one has gone off the track. {72} This is of course (nearly enough) another way of expressing the Hindu Meditation whose method is to kill all thoughts as they arise in the mind. The difference is that I am aiming at a target, while they are preventing arrows from striking one. In my aspiration to know Adonai, I resemble their Yogis who concentrate on their "personal Lord"; but at the same time it must be remembered that I am not going to be content with what would content them. In other words, I am going to "define" "the Knowledge and Conversation of my Holy Guardian Angel" as equal to Neroda-Samapatti, the trance of Nibbana.
For what I can understand from it Crowley used, as the principal method to approach the experience, a closing-off of all thoughts, with only the will directed towards Adonai. It seems to me that the method is a little different than a prayer or invocation, since in this latter there’s a flow of thoughts directed toward the “object” while in the former thoughts were not used at all, but only Will was (and this was naturally “build-up” from invocations etc., but the main aspect of the ceremony was different), with an “awaiting” instead of a “search”.
So my question is: do these two different methods bring the same result or not? Namely, it’s this the difference in the nature of the experience in John St. John in respect to, for example, the Abramelin operation he performed earlier, or it is just a different approach with no consequences therein?
I understand that “everyone approaches the Angel as s/he likes” and all that, but here there’s a “technical” difference on how the ceremony is approached? I wondered if there was really a technical reason or it was just preference.
From my experience it comes a point in an invocation when all the thoughts, properly directed towards the object of the meditation, seems to flow in that patter, so as to literally “shut-off” or give a “short-circuit” to them. However, again in my experience, the result is somewhat different that starting from a full “closing of all thoughts” with only Will directing versus the object. The former is, as I said before, more about "finding, searching", the latter more about "waiting, surrendering".
What are your thoughts/experiences on the matter?
Love is the law, love under will.
Lavir.
-
93
@Lavir said
"In my research I’ve come across (or at last I think so) a difference in the method used by Crowley, so I’m trying to understand if there’s really a difference or they are two different methods with the same results.
"I don't think there is a specific result that "guarantees" the K&C process. If I remember correctly, Liber Samekh was created for a very expicit occasion. I think everyone must find himself his own method of doing it.
During every practice I personally use a variation of the formula of the Invocation of the Highest Divine Force. Some orders actually claim that by being guided by this formula, practicing constantly various rituals can help in the attainment of the K&C.
As for Adonai, I think it's just another name/perspective of the HGA.
93/93
-
93,
@TOHPA said
"93
I don't think there is a specific result that "guarantees" the K&C process."I never implied the contrary. What I want to understand is if the two different methods used by Crowley have a different result in their applications (all in all he used two different ways to do it, and he both obtained different results therein; now it must be seen if the different result was caused by the different approach or other factors, and this is what I'm trying to ascertain).
In very little words: does using a more "yogic" method differs in results from using a more "magical" one? ("Yogic" method being the one used in John St. John, "magical" method being the one used in Samekh, Liber VIII, Abramelin etc.)
My question goes a little beyond the "everyone must find his/her own method". It is more a question of a technical nature (in this case referred to a same individual - Crowley - using two different ways and having different attainments therein).
93 93/93,
Lavir- -
You wrote in your follow-up post, "My question goes a little beyond the "everyone must find his/her own method". It is more a question of a technical nature (in this case referred to a same individual - Crowley - using two different ways and having different attainments therein)."
And yet, I do think you're missing the point you try to gloss over. The question you say is your main question is seeking to analyze the methods somebody else used at different points, as if you or I or anyone could understand their suitability. That does seem to try to bypass the basic principle, "It is impossible to lay down precise rules by which a man may attain to the knowledge and conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel; for that is the particular secret of each one of us; a secret not to be told or even divined by any other, whatever his grade. It is the Holy of Holies, whereof each man is his own High Priest, and none knoweth the Name of his brother’s God, or the Rite that invokes Him" (One Star in Sight).
Nonetheless - having said that - let's turn back to your question anyway.
@Lavir said
"I’ve come across... a difference in the method used by Crowley, so I’m trying to understand if there’s really a difference or they are two different methods with the same results."
First observation: You've missed that there were many other methods, depending on where he was in his development. We have records, for example, of his entering into the K&C by watching a sunrise, or in the middle of skrying the 16th Aethyr.
"Abramelin, Liber VIII and Liber Samekh all have as the primary part of the ceremony a prayer or invocation. In John St. John, however, Crowley seems to use another method as the principal way to approach the experience. Mixed in with Asana, Pranayama, Mantras etc. (that form a similar pattern as found in Liber Astarte) the principal aspect of the ceremony is this..."
What you quote is just a particular detail of his yoga - just what he did on a particular occasion. Over weeks or months of daily invoking the HGA, the procedure is commonly not the same from day to day. One goes with what is presented, receives subtle instruction as the connection with the Angel gets closer, etc. It's not just that every individual is different, but that each occasion is different.
I think you're placing too much emphasis on minor points. One might as well concern oneself that he circled deosil usually, but then in one performance went widdershins. Really, the difference you have cited is not really any bigger than that variation (which, admittedly, is not necessarily small).
You're also seeing Libri VIII and Samekh overly narrowly. For example, the "prayer" in Liber VIII could be a full performance of Liber Samekh! (Or many other things.) And to one trained in yoga, the sort of thing you quoted from JSt.J could pop in at any moment.
You also seem to be missing that JSt.J was Crowley's self-initiation into 6=5. It was his conclusion of 5=6, not his entry into it. It may help to know a bit about exactly what was going on. When AC became 5=6 in the G.D., he got the relatively small number of Second Order instructions at the time, which included the Z2 paper on how to adapt the Neophyte ritual (as a formula) into seven other types of ritual, the apex of which was the Shin of Shin operation which, essentially, was the invocation of the HGA. As he moved on with his work, completed his Samekh-based Abramelin operation in the middle of 1906 and started the A.'.A.'. with Cecil Jones, the two of them composed and finalized the A.'.A.'.'s version of the Neophyte ritual (Liber T'raa, 671) at the autumn equinox 1908. Immediately after, he left for Paris and - as they had learned to do in the G.D. - began to adapt the Neophyte ritual to the Shin of Shin operation, hoping that it would conclude his A.'.A.'. 5=6 stage and allow him to self-initiate into 6=5. That's what John St. John actually records.
"For what I can understand from it Crowley used, as the principal method to approach the experience, a closing-off of all thoughts, with only the will directed towards Adonai. It seems to me that the method is a little different than a prayer or invocation"
Again, you're too attentive to the details of one man's method on one particular day. That's just one way to accomplish the underlying "prayer" idea.
"So my question is: do these two different methods bring the same result or not?"
Your question is incomplete. It should read, "Do these two different methods bring the same result to somebody other than Crowley?" Probably your question is really, "Would either of these methods indifferently bring the desired result TO ME?" And the answer is: I don't know. You're you. Try them and let us know sometime. (Also the real answer is: They aren't two methods. They're the same method.)
"Namely, it’s this the difference in the nature of the experience in John St. John in respect to, for example, the Abramelin operation he performed earlier, or it is just a different approach with no consequences therein?"
Since you keep asking the same question, let me try to give a different answer each time
: Someone who has attained to the grade of Dominus Liminis will understand what he or she individually needs to do. Outside of that context of a specific aspirant at a specific point in his or her progress, there is no answer to your question. It is exactly as valid a question as, "Which is the better way to make the earth spin backwards on its axis: backgammon or drinking wine?" (Example specifically selected because there is no reason not to drink wine while playing backgammon.)"I understand that “everyone approaches the Angel as s/he likes” and all that"
Oh nononononononono. It doesn't have anything at all to do with what you like. It has to do with whatever is going to work for you individually.
"but here there’s a “technical” difference on how the ceremony is approached? I wondered if there was really a technical reason or it was just preference. "
There is no technical difference here. Really. None. Or, rather, the difference is about the same as the difference between doing a pentagram ritual with a wand or your index finger.
-
Thank you for the reply Jim.
However I didn't put to much emphasis in a method in confront to another, it was just a curiosity arising from the fact that J. St. J. had a different achievement than prior operations, so I wanted to understand if that was tied in part to the primary "method" used or not (ED: isn't this sentence a contradiction? OMG). Which you duly summarized in:
**"There is no technical difference here. Really. None. Or, rather, the difference is about the same as the difference between doing a pentagram ritual with a wand or your index finger." **
(Which, anyway, was the same answer I "received" in the night while pondering about this, and I then thought that I was an idiot - the same that was implied in your post
; **teaching: **I should wait a bit - long perhaps - before posting, really, and not trouble myself too much with particulars, also because I find in this period that whatever I try to explain in words, it's never quite the full thing or never accurate - and for this the repeating of the same question over and over - it's really a pain for myself that I have always been so tied to words).Thank you again for clarifing it for me.
-
This topic has been brewing in my mind for the last few days. I have read the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage translated by S.L Mathers several times, now on my third. I did an internet search and found another version of the Abramelin translation called Abraham of Worms translated from a purported older german manuscript. Dehn claims this is the more complete work and that Mathers was working from, basically a shitty French translation. I'm ok with that, but the stuff that bugs the hell out of me is this.
Mathers was pretty smart and clearly knew French enough to translate the manuscript into English as faithfully as he could. But how does he get the Abramelin operation is 6 months or 6 moon whereas the Abraham of moons translation is 18 months. I mean, it is pretty clear in all languages the difference between 6 and 18. This bugs me because I want to do the Abramelin operation exactly to the letter.
I haven't read the Dehn, new translation of Abramelin but will be buying a copy this week to review and based on what I have read, it is the better copy so I will be revising my thinking to accomodate this information. Further the Dehn translation claims that it has the complete list of magical squares and claims Mathers were incomplete and missing pieces??? That bugs me too.
Lastly, and I am curious what others think, the Abramelin operation on the one hand implores the fear of God as a basis for the work. On the other, any religion can attain to the operation which would include Pagan and Thelema, obviously. How does one reconcile the need for religious prostration and fear of God with the law of thelema which abhors fear as being failure and the forerunner of failure.
Curious what others think...
Comments?
-
@Non_Sequitur said
"This topic has been brewing in my mind for the last few days. I have read the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage translated by S.L Mathers several times, now on my third. I did an internet search and found another version of the Abramelin translation called Abraham of Worms translated from a purported older german manuscript. Dehn claims this is the more complete work and that Mathers was working from, basically a shitty French translation. I'm ok with that, but the stuff that bugs the hell out of me is this."
I got the more recently released translation, and I'm glad the work was done, but I'm not overly concerned about it. I've had students (usually in a great frenzy) ask me about the fact that the time periods differ (among other things) - all quite concerned and worried. I point out, first, that my own operation was neither 6 nor 18 months, but rather 93 days, and it was successful.
Most importantly, I'm not concerned about the differences in the translations for practical reasons because they were both superceded in 1909. Crowley received from Aiwass, on the evening of December 8, 1909, a quintessentialized version of the entire operation. This became A.'.A.'. ritual VIII.
Of course, the earlier works are valuable for background reading and historic depth of understanding (and for whatever else the aspirant can get from them). But IMHO one need not worry about discrepancies between them and Thelemic philosophy; one simply has to understand that RItual VIII supercedes them.
BTW, you can find it in three of my books, and also here: ordoaa.org/liber8.htm
"Lastly, and I am curious what others think, the Abramelin operation on the one hand implores the fear of God as a basis for the work. On the other, any religion can attain to the operation which would include Pagan and Thelema, obviously. How does one reconcile the need for religious prostration and fear of God with the law of thelema which abhors fear as being failure and the forerunner of failure. "
A few things to remark upon.
First, the description of fear as "failure, and the forerunner of failure," is not from Thelemic sources but from the Golden Dawn rituals. Nonetheless, similar messages are in the Thelemic scriptures (and, in the GD, were delivered by an officer embodying the god Horus).
Second, I've mostly answered this above with regard to Ritual VIII.
Third, "religious prostration" isn't anti-Thelemic per se, and, in practice, is the abasement of the ego. The ego needs some abasement, particularly in this operation (in the general case). Nonetheless, how one prays and invokes will vary with each aspirant.
I've skipped past such technicalities as the real meaning of "fear" in the Biblical passaes to which you allude.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Non_Sequitur said
"This topic has been brewing in my mind for the last few days. I have read the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage translated by S.L Mathers several times, now on my third. I did an internet search and found another version of the Abramelin translation called Abraham of Worms translated from a purported older german manuscript. Dehn claims this is the more complete work and that Mathers was working from, basically a shitty French translation. I'm ok with that, but the stuff that bugs the hell out of me is this."I got the more recently released translation, and I'm glad the work was done, but I'm not overly concerned about it. I've had students (usually in a great frenzy) ask me about the fact that the time periods differ (among other things) - all quite concerned and worried. I point out, first, that my own operation was neither 6 nor 18 months, but rather 93 days, and it was successful.
Most importantly, I'm not concerned about the differences in the translations for practical reasons because they were both superceded in 1909. Crowley received from Aiwass, on the evening of December 8, 1909, a quintessentialized version of the entire operation. This became A.'.A.'. ritual VIII.
Of course, the earlier works are valuable for background reading and historic depth of understanding (and for whatever else the aspirant can get from them). But IMHO one need not worry about discrepancies between them and Thelemic philosophy; one simply has to understand that RItual VIII supercedes them.
BTW, you can find it in three of my books, and also here: ordoaa.org/liber8.htm
"Lastly, and I am curious what others think, the Abramelin operation on the one hand implores the fear of God as a basis for the work. On the other, any religion can attain to the operation which would include Pagan and Thelema, obviously. How does one reconcile the need for religious prostration and fear of God with the law of thelema which abhors fear as being failure and the forerunner of failure. "
A few things to remark upon.
First, the description of fear as "failure, and the forerunner of failure," is not from Thelemic sources but from the Golden Dawn rituals. Nonetheless, similar messages are in the Thelemic scriptures (and, in the GD, were delivered by an officer embodying the god Horus).
Second, I've mostly answered this above with regard to Ritual VIII.
Third, "religious prostration" isn't anti-Thelemic per se, and, in practice, is the abasement of the ego. The ego needs some abasement, particularly in this operation (in the general case). Nonetheless, how one prays and invokes will vary with each aspirant.
I've skipped past such technicalities as the real meaning of "fear" in the Biblical passaes to which you allude."
Thank you, I appeciate your comments greatly.
-
@Meletiros said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"the real meaning of "fear" in the Biblical passaes to which you allude."As there are several different words in the Bible translated as "fear", which meaning is implied in the Book of Abramelin?
Thanks"I'm presuming it's that brought forward in the phrase, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom" (Ps. 111:10).
-
I learned this, regarding fear, from a Jewish Kabbalist that is a friend of mine:
"to someone who reads English, fear means a physical fear ,as if you are afraid of some harm but the words used in Torah is yara (biblical Hebrew)or yirah It is a feeling you get when in the presence of a great sight or person, like meeting the president or someone famous, or seeing your new born for the first time,It more accurately means your feelings or emotions flow out like the flowing of water (which is where the root yara comes from) or what is called bowing down in awe of one in authority as in the Mitzvah(what you call commandments we call a connection) yara or fear of Hashem"
-
Attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation with the HGA has been around for thousands of years, long before Crowley made it a science.
There are countless approaches.
Yoga is not the means to an end, not causing the result, but understanding the Art of Breathing and Posture is critical when it comes time pass through the fire, or the veil set to obscure the communion and discourse.
And the faculties of mind needed to retain memory of the event, to harbor it over time making the experience useful, takes practice and that is why instruction in yoga is generally considered prerequisite.
Some people need none of that, by their own genius, or depth of their love, or through fasting, or fever, or drugs, or by being close within a group of others in active communion, thereby the achievement occurs.
Sometimes Near Death Experience will launch a person into contact with their Angel.
Sometimes it depends on how bad the person desires contact, what they are willing to go through to make it happen. It's not for everyone. If you mention your attainment to a psychology major, they'll tell you that you're psychotic. That fact alone is what discourages most people.
-
@Meletiros said
"As there are several different words in the Bible translated as "fear", which meaning is implied in the Book of Abramelin?
Thanks"Fear is the denial of the word of God. If it be true you are beloved of God then you have nothing to fear. His power is on your side because your life is important to him.
That is summed up in the saying, "fear the Lord your God" because love is what conquers fear and losing God is the same as losing Love, without which you have no quality of magic power.
-
@Priory Soul said
"
Yoga is not the means to an end, not causing the result, but understanding the Art of Breathing and Posture is critical when it comes time pass through the fire, or the veil set to obscure the communion and discourse.
"If it is for this, there is NO method by which one obtains It just by doing it and that's it. No Yoga, not Samekh, not Abramelin, not anything else. All these things are simple means to arise love, a love that is gentle and sustained. (Yoga is in fact a full process, not just the single practice of meditation).
There's the love of the ape's kitten and there's the love of the cat's kitten.
The kitten of the ape grabs the mother by the back with all his/her force. This kitten brings himself near to the mother with the power of force.
The kitten of the cat, however, doesn't have enough force to grab the mother. He cries and cries in desperation, knowing no other way around. The mother, hearing the cry, will not leave the kitten alone for long.The first can be summarized by an aspirant that does Yoga, or whatever other discipline to "grab" the thing by the power of practice. The second is just an yearning, an hidden cry born from the agony of separatedness. Both are one and the same, and both are born of love. If the child of the ape instead of being absorbed on grabbing the mother will wander away she will not find him no more.
Mechanically doing any discipline serves nothing, IMO. They serves only as a mean to arise that love and to understand what type of love it is better for your nature, among other things.