Surely an unpopular thought about Crowley's "HGA"
-
Besides the fact that we are all here to talk about Thelema, Crowley probably wrote about the concept of the HGA the most and, so, for that reason alone, when people think of the HGA, they immediately think of Crowley as the authority of the topic. But, I had a thought last night which I've surprisingly never had before. Other notable and respected teachers have said that the HGA will never flatter, insult, judge oneself or others or force a person to do anything. The simple test seems to be that the HGA will not interfere with your egotistical "free will."
Just briefly recollecting the comments made by Crowley about the writing of Liber AL, one could easily check these off a list of how Aiwass behaved. He certainly flattered Crowley, if you consider being chosen as the prophet of the New Aeon flattery. I'm not sure if he insulted him off the top of my head, but I do recall the phrase, "your will is strong, but mine is stronger," which certainly could be seen as forcing and interfering with Crowley's "free will." As far as judging, there seems to be a lot of it in Liber AL, although I realize it is open to personal interpretation.
These ideas are wholly different from the usual speculation I've heard about whether or not Aiwass was a separate entity or just part of Crowley's repressed psyche. These ideas could support either theory, really, but the point is that they suggest this was not the HGA by either speculative definition of what an HGA is for the simple reason that the actions of Aiwass seem to contradict how it is that an HGA in fact behaves; how we can actually recognize the HGA as such.
Perhaps this is the reason some of Crowley's contemporaries did not believe Aiwass was his HGA and why they were wary of Liber AL?
-
Hi Redd,
I think that the your HGA and you are the same being, at different vibrations. The HGA then is part of your own psyche (soul) and will express itself as part of yourself. Therefore, Aiwass communicated with Crowley the way Crowley could "get" it.
Who is to say what your HGA will say and the manner s(he) says it? You are to distinguish what is true or not.
Some HGAs probably are very gentle and kind, some are neutral in expression, and some probably are humorous and a little cutting.
My HGA speaks in a quiet thought that gets right to the point. One such input was, "So what's stopping you?" Another was, " I am helping her."
Love and L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
@Chris Hanlon said
"Hi Redd,
I think that the your HGA and you are the same being, at different vibrations. The HGA then is part of your own psyche (soul) and will express itself as part of yourself. Therefore, Aiwass communicated with Crowley the way Crowley could "get" it.
Who is to say what your HGA will say and the manner s(he) says it? You are to distinguish what is true or not.
Some HGAs probably are very gentle and kind, some are neutral in expression, and some probably are humorous and a little cutting.
My HGA speaks in a quiet thought that gets right to the point. One such input was, "So what's stopping you?" Another was, " I am helping her."
Love and L.V.X.,
chrys333"I don't know and I have never heard my HGA speak to me. I am just going by what PFC and others have said. I wish I still had the original text of Abramelin The Mage to compare and see what he says of the HGA. Since this was the source of Crowley's work, it would seem to be a good comparison. If Abramelin describes it differently, then it would seem that it is not the HGA. Of course, then you could ask, "What makes Abramelin the expert?" and I wouldn't have an answer to that without a lot more research. I'm not even sure at this point that the HGA, daemon and augoeides are all the same thing. I've simply taken it on good faith from those whose books I read who've come before me and aggregated a bunch of information.
I suppose what put me on this train of thought was reading Crowley's comments about Buddhism in the introduction to Liber Aba. I realized he really wasn't an expert on all the ideas he studied, but that he came to some rather fast and firm conclusions about things. Often, later, he would change his mind. As the introduction goes right from his rejection of Bennett's Buddhism into the Book of the Law, I suppose it was a natural train of thought for me, but one I had never considered before.
But, if the HGA is never supposed to flatter, insult, cajole, force or judge, then does Aiwass fit this definition?
-
-
@Redd Fezz said
"It might also be possible that I am confusing Aiwass's actions with those who were speaking through the "channel" of Aiwass. I just remembered that the words in Liber Al are not all those of Aiwass, but of Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Kuit."
Your just adding confusion now. No offense, please. I just mean to say that the three chapters being written by "Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Kuit" is for instructional purposes more than anything. One is to identify oneself with hadit. In reading (and prefferably memorizing) chapter I, the effect is to catapult the aspirant into Binah. Likewise chapter II will initiate a Magus. Chapter III then seems to break from this scheme.
One other thing to consider when a discussion of the HGA comes up is Crowley's own words regarding the HGA in general:
@Uncle Al - Chapter III of Liber ABA said
"
He who became the Master Therion was once confronted by this very difficulty. Being determined to instruct
mankind, He sought a simple statement of his object. His will was sufficiently informed by common sense to
decide him to teach man “The Next Step”, the thing which was immediately above him. He might have
called this “God”, or “The Higher Self”, or “The Augoeides”, or “Adi-Buddha”, or 61 other things — but
He had discovered that these were all one, yet that each one represented some theory of the Universe which
would ultimately be shattered by criticism — for He had already passed through the realm of Reason, and
knew that every statement contained an absurdity. He therefore said: “Let me declare this Work under this
title: ‘The obtaining of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel’”, because the theory
implied in these words is so patently absurd that only simpletons would waste much time in analysing it. It
would be accepted as a convention, and no one would incur the grave danger of building a philosophical
system upon it.
With this understanding, we may rehabilitate the Hebrew system of invocations. The mind is the great
enemy; so, by invoking enthusiastically a person whom we know not to exist, we are rebuking that mind." -
@Almighty Creator said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"It might also be possible that I am confusing Aiwass's actions with those who were speaking through the "channel" of Aiwass. I just remembered that the words in Liber Al are not all those of Aiwass, but of Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Kuit."Your just adding confusion now. No offense, please. I just mean to say that the three chapters being written by "Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Kuit" is for instructional purposes more than anything. One is to identify oneself with hadit. In reading (and prefferably memorizing) chapter I, the effect is to catapult the aspirant into Binah. Likewise chapter II will initiate a Magus. Chapter III then seems to break from this scheme.
One other thing to consider when a discussion of the HGA comes up is Crowley's own words regarding the HGA in general:
@Uncle Al - Chapter III of Liber ABA said
"
He who became the Master Therion was once confronted by this very difficulty. Being determined to instruct
mankind, He sought a simple statement of his object. His will was sufficiently informed by common sense to
decide him to teach man “The Next Step”, the thing which was immediately above him. He might have
called this “God”, or “The Higher Self”, or “The Augoeides”, or “Adi-Buddha”, or 61 other things — but
He had discovered that these were all one, yet that each one represented some theory of the Universe which
would ultimately be shattered by criticism — for He had already passed through the realm of Reason, and
knew that every statement contained an absurdity. He therefore said: “Let me declare this Work under this
title: ‘The obtaining of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel’”, because the theory
implied in these words is so patently absurd that only simpletons would waste much time in analysing it. It
would be accepted as a convention, and no one would incur the grave danger of building a philosophical
system upon it.
With this understanding, we may rehabilitate the Hebrew system of invocations. The mind is the great
enemy; so, by invoking enthusiastically a person whom we know not to exist, we are rebuking that mind."
"Thanks for your input. I've read that before and part of it (about being "absurd") was also in the intro to Liber Aba I'd just read prior to having this thought, which was part of the reason, probably, I began to think that maybe what Crowley experienced wasn't the HGA after all, but that he just happened to interpret it as such.
-
I thought to just add something...
Although, Crowley is spoken of the prophet - the book also says that all men are prophets.
The "your will is strong, but mine is stronger": If Aiwass was his HGA, then his Will would be stronger as it would be the True Will of Crowley.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"I thought to just add something...
Although, Crowley is spoken of the prophet - the book also says that all men are prophets.
The "your will is strong, but mine is stronger": If Aiwass was his HGA, then his Will would be stronger as it would be the True Will of Crowley."
True, but this would not jibe with what I've read about the HGA from other sources. If the HGA isn't supposed to force you to do anything and here you are simply trying to drop your pen, but are being forced to write... well, that doesn't match up. I'm not saying it has to, of course. I'm sure plenty of people don't really care what other people say about the HGA.
But, if you take for granted that Aiwass is his HGA and so his True Will was to write that, I wonder, how then would you test the HGA for "truthiness". Typically, the idea that the HGA will not force you, flatter you, cajole you or make judgments is what separates the HGA from other spirits/archetypes/whatever. Without those signposts, I guess it would just boil down to a gut feeling or something?
-
source: iao131.livejournal.com/13104.html
<b>- Individuation and the true Will -</b>
In the previous chapter it was seen how the mind inhibits the full expression of the Will. The “factor infinite & unknown” is the “Subconscious Will,” and therefore if we can clear away the thought-complexes that prevent this Will from manifesting we will come to know our Will. This process by which we come to know and do our Will is called in some places “the Great Work.” Crowley explains this Great Work of coming to know one’s True Will concisely when he writes,
<i>
“We are not to regard ourselves as base beings, without whose sphere is Light or 'God.' Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a 'Dark Star,' and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds makes it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes. Everything in itself is perfect, but when things are muddled, they become 'evil.'”[1]
</i>
This process of the Great Work that “consists principally in the solution of complexes” is also coterminous with a phrase Crowley often used: Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. He asserts this identity as clearly as possible when he writes, “this Great Work is the Attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of thine Holy Guardian Angel.”[2] The process by which we come to know and do our Will is the solution of complexes inhibiting the free and natural flow of the Will. The Great Work is simply a clearing away of the inhibitions of the conscious self to allow the true Self, which contains both conscious and subconscious elements, free reign to do as it Wills. The theory is that if we are only able to “cleanse the doors of perception,” we will be allowed to manifest our pure Wills effectively. Crowley writes, “Our own Silent Self, helpless and witless, hidden within us, will spring forth, if we have craft to loose him to the Light, spring lustily forward with his cry of Battle, the Word of our True Wills. This is the Task of the Adept, to have the Knowledge and Conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel, to become aware of his nature and his purpose, fulfilling them.”[3] Here Crowley not only makes Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel analogous to becoming aware of and fulfilling one’s nature and purpose, but admits that all we need is the “craft to loose” this “Silent Self” and then naturally the “Word of our True Wills” will “spring lustily forward."The various forms of Horus found in Liber AL vel Legis (Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-paar-kraat, Heru-pa-kraath, Heru-ra-ha, etc.)[4] represent a symbolic expression of the “Silent” or “True Self” and so also a symbol of the Holy Guardian Angel. Horus is therefore an archetypal expression of the Self to which all aspire to unite or identify with in “the Great Work.” This is spoken of in Liber AL when Horus, the speaker of the third chapter, says, "To Me do ye reverence! to me come ye through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss."[5] Crowley explains, “We have seen that Ra-Hoor-Khuit is in one sense the Silent Self in a man, a Name of his Khabs, not so impersonal as Hadit, but the first and least untrue formulation of the Ego. We are to revere this self in us, then, not to suppress it and subordinate it. Nor are we to evade it, but to come to it. This is done ‘through tribulation of ordeal.’ This tribulation is that experienced in the process called Psychoanalysis, now that official science has adopted -- so far as its inferior intelligence permits -- the methods of the magus. But the 'ordeal' is 'bliss'; the solution of each complex by 'tribulation' …is the spasm of joy which is the physiological and psychological accompaniment of any relief from strain and congestion.”[6] Crowley identifies Horus as a symbolic expression of the Self whose Will must not be suppressed, subordinated, or evaded. The more surprising of the statements by Crowley is that he claims the “tribulation of ordeal” of the Great Work is coterminous with Psychoanalysis, a direct connection again between psychology and Thelema. With this we can see that the process of psychoanalysis is analogous to “the Great Work” and “Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel;” it is a realization of the true Self.
Carl Jung deemed this same process “individuation.” He defines individuation as “becoming an ‘in-dividual,’ and in so far as ‘individuality’ embraces our innermost, last, and incomparable uniqueness, it also implies becoming one’s own self. We could therefore translate individuation as ‘coming to selfhood’ or ‘self-realization…’ Egotists are called ‘selfish,’ but this, naturally, has nothing to do with the concept of ‘self’ as I am using it here… Individuation, therefore, can only mean a process of psychological development that fulfils the individual qualities given; in other words, it is a process by which a man becomes the definite, unique being he in fact is. In so doing he does not become ‘selfish’ in the ordinary sense of the word, but is merely fulfilling the peculiarity of his nature, and this… is vastly different from egotism or individualism.”[7] Jung here asserts that individuation is a “self-realization,” but makes sure to qualify this statement by saying this does not mean a strengthening of the ego-self. This Self that is realized is beyond the normal egocentric notion of “self;” it instead contains both the conscious (where the ego resides) and the unconscious factors. Jung explains that, “conscious and unconscious are not necessarily in opposition to one another, but complement on another to form a totality, which is the self.”[8] This is the self that one comes to “through tribulation of ordeal.” Horus is a symbol of that Self in Liber AL vel Legis, and in other places the Holy Guardian Angel is mentioned as that symbol. Crowley writes, “the Angel * the True Self of his subconscious self, the hidden Life of his physical life” and “his Angel is the Unity which expresses the sum of the Elements of that Self,”[9] an almost exact parallel of Jung’s definition of the “self.”[10]
As asserted before by Crowley, this process of individuation or “The Great Work… consists principally in the solution of complexes,” and is simply the becoming aware of and fulfilling of one’s nature. Through this Great Work of individuation, one comes to identify with this Self; In Thelema, one does such under the figure of Horus.[11] One comes to know that “he [or she] is Harpocrates, the Child Horus, walking (as saith David, the Badawi that became King, in his Psalms) upon the Lion and the Dragon; that is, he is in Unity with his own Secret Nature.”[12]
One might even assert that the Great Work is a natural process of the human psyche. Carl Jung says, “the driving force [of the unconscious], so far as it is possible for us to grasp it, seems to be in essence only an urge towards self-realization.”[13] In this sense, all humans are participating in the drama of the “Great Work,” each striving, consciously or unconsciously, toward that union of subconscious and conscious natures into the Self so that they may more fully accomplish their Wills.
<i>
- References -
[1] Crowley, Aleister. The Law is for All, I:8
[2] Crowley, Aleister. Liber Aleph, “De Gradibus ad Magnum Opus”
[3] Crowley, Aleister. The Law is for All, I:7
[4] It is interesting to note that Crowley says in his commentary to Liber AL, “The Fool is also the Great Fool, Bacchus Diphues, Harpocrates, the Dwarf-Self, the Holy Guardian Angel, and so forth,” essentially equating all the symbols. Further, he writes in his comment to Liber AL II:8, “Harpocrates is… the Dwarf-Soul, the Secret Self of every man, the Serpent with the Lion's Head.” If this is true, and if according to AL I:8 “Hoor-paar-kraat” (a name for Harpocrates) is taken to be the source of Liber AL vel Legis as the book itself proclaims, then Liber AL was indeed a manifestation of Crowley’s unconscious. The fact is that the unconscious contains “both knowledge and power” greater than the conscious mind, and therefore it is quite possible that Liber AL vel Legis is a manifestation thereof.
[5] Crowley, Aleister. Liber AL vel Legis, III:62
[6] Crowley, Aleister. The Law is for All, III:62
[7] Ibid, par.266-267
[8] Jung, Carl. “The Function of the Unconscious” from The Collected Works of C.G. Jung vol.7, par.274
[9] Crowley, Aleister. “Liber Samekh,” Point II, Section G
[10] From these considerations it will be seen that the Holy Guardian Angel is most certainly not an external being as some in the Thelemic community maintain. This is due most likely to one statement made by Crowley in Magick Without Tears, a treatise intended for complete beginners. One must understand that the subconscious can and does appear as autonomous to the conscious mind. Therefore, one can speak of the Angel as “outside” of oneself insofar as it seems to function autonomously from the conscious ego, but ultimately one comes to see that the Angel is in fact the summation of both the subconscious and conscious natures that make up the self.
[11] In an endnote to chapter 90 of Confessions of Aleister Crowley, Symonds writes about a statement Crowley made to a disciple Frank Bennett, “’I want to explain to you fully, and in a few words, what initiation means, and what is meant when we talk of the Real Self, and what the Real Self is.’ And there and then Crowley told him that it was all a matter of getting the subconscious mind to work; and when this subconscious mind was allowed full sway, without interference from the conscious mind, then illumination could be said to have begin; for the subconscious mind was our Holy Guardian Angel. Crowley illustrated the point thus: everything is experienced in the subconscious mind, and it (the subconscious) is constantly urging its will on consciousness, and when the inner desires are restricted or suppressed, evil of all kinds is the result.” Although this directly supports our conclusions we include it only in a footnote because it is a third-hand account.
[12] Crowley, Aleister. Liber Aleph, “De Gramine Sanctissimo Arabico”
[13] Ibid, par.291</i> -
@redd fezz said
"
True, but this would not jibe with what I've read about the HGA from other sources. If the HGA isn't supposed to force you to do anything and here you are simply trying to drop your pen, but are being forced to write... well, that doesn't match up. I'm not saying it has to, of course. I'm sure plenty of people don't really care what other people say about the HGA
"Was Crowley trying to drop the pen and stop writing? I have never read his commentary or confessions so I do not really have an answer to that.
Though, I would see it as important to question the "why" you would want to put the pen down (to use that particular example). There are times where you 'have' to do things that you might not want to do. Realizing what is keeping you back is the 'fear' of what might come out as a result.
@redd fezz said
"
But, if you take for granted that Aiwass is his HGA and so his True Will was to write that, I wonder, how then would you test the HGA for "truthiness". Typically, the idea that the HGA will not force you, flatter you, cajole you or make judgments is what separates the HGA from other spirits/archetypes/whatever. Without those signposts, I guess it would just boil down to a gut feeling or something?
"I cannot say I am in contact with my HGA at all times, but...
There have been instances where for some reason I would feel a desperate urge or need to do something. Whether turn down a certain street, pick up a book... look in a particular direction. Then, further down the road it suddenly hits me : "When I did THAT, I was doing THIS", or "THAT lead to THIS"
Basically, as far as my knowledge goes it boils down to a "gut feeling." Not everyone communicates with their 'angel' is the same way. What comes to mind is Socrates and his damieon(sp?). Which, according to him never told him what to do but rather what NOT to do.