Atman
-
Does the Atman correspond to the HGA?
And Purusha to Hadit?
-
@Jackdaw said
"Does the Atman correspond to the HGA?"
I would say so - more or less.
Crowley wrote the following on pp. 159-60 of THE EQUINOX No. 1:
"Lytton calls him Adonai in ‘Zanoni,’ and I often use this name in the notebooks.
Abramelin calls him Holy Guardian Angel. I adopt this:
-
Because Abramelin’s system is so simple and effective
-
Because since all theories of the universe are absurd it is better to talk in the language of one which is patently absurd, so as to mortify the metaphysical man.
-
Because a child can understand it.
Theosophists call him the Higher Self, Silent Watcher, or Great Master.
The Golden Dawn calls him the Genius.
Gnostics say the Logos.
Egyptians say Asar Un-nefer.
Zoroaster talks about uniting all these sym-bols into the form of a Lion – see Chaldean Oracles.
Anna Kingsford calls him Adonai (Clothed with the Sun). Buddhists call him Adi-Buddha – (says H.P.B.)
The Bhagavad-Gita calls him Vishnu (chapter xi.).
The Yi King calls him “The Great Person.”
The Qabalah calls him Jechidah.
We also get metaphysical analyses of His nature, deeper and deeper according to the subtlety of the writer; for this vision – it is all one same phenomenon, variously coloured by our varying Ruachs – is, I believe, the first and the last of all Spiritual Experience. For though He is attributed to Malkuth, and the Door of the Path of His overshadowing, He is also in Kether (Kether is in Malkuth and Malkuth in Kether – “as above, so beneath”), and the End of the “Path of the Wise” is identity with Him.
So that while he is the Holy Guardian Angel, He is also Hua and the Tao.
For since Intra Nobis Regnum deI all things are in Ourself, and all Spiritual Experience is a more or less complete Revelation of Him.
Yet it is only in the Middle Pillar that His manifestation is in any way perfect.
The Augoeides invocation is the whole thing. Only it is so difficult; one goes along through all the fifty gates of Binah at once, more or less illuminated, more or less deluded. But the First and the Last is this Augoeides Invocation."
-
-
Aside from the Atman and Brahman; Purusha & Prakriti = Hadit & Nuit?
-
@Jackdaw said
"Aside from the Atman and Brahman; Purusha & Prakriti = Hadit & Nuit?"
Only in the most sublime and complete sense of Purusha and prakriti.
-
@Jackdaw said
"Does the Atman correspond to the HGA?
And Purusha to Hadit?"
.This is a mistake that is often made. These are two different systems of Hindu philosophy.
Atman is used in many of the Upanishads whereas Purusha is used by Samkhya yogis like Patanjali. They actually refer to the same exact thing (Purusha is called Atman in the sense of the yogi doctrine that one must de-identify with all facets of the world/prakriti and come to reside in your original formless state/purusha).
Atman means 'self' whereas Purusha means 'man' and refers to that cosmic man (like Adam Kadmon) that existed before all things, said "That am I" and split himself into the infinitely multifarious facets of the universe.
Purusha and Prakriti do not correspond to Nuit and Hadit as closely as one would like. Prakriti is often seen as Maya itself. Further, you can attribute Nuit & Hadit to both Purusha and Prakriti. One of the main points of Nuit & Hadit are that they are non-dualistic, and things above the Abyss contain their opposites/complements in themselves. The Three-in-Naught.
I cannot make out what Jim is even saying. The most sublime conception of Purusha and Prakriti? Its not like there are grades of conception - they are laid out quite clearly in Yogasutras and other places...
Jim: Did you notice how he made HGA coterminous not only with Yechidah (Kether) but with Tao? How do you reconcile that?
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"I cannot make out what Jim is even saying. The most sublime conception of Purusha and Prakriti? Its not like there are grades of conception - they are laid out quite clearly in Yogasutras and other places..."
In most contexts, prakriti is used to mean a much lower level than the Nuit concept. I think that's a mistake, and its usually made by those who haven't actually studied Kapila (as you appear to have done). In context, it's usually used to mean "outer stuff" - "the seen," "Nature," etc. - whereas, in Samkhya, it has a much more subtle idea, including dozens of layers of being that most people would consider part of themselves rather than part of the not-self.
So I was just saying that if you take the most sublime and complete idea of prakriti, the idea is pretty close.
Not perfectly, though - because prakriti specifically doesn't include Purusha, whereas Hadit is specifically a part of Nuit.
"Jim: Did you notice how he made HGA coterminous not only with Yechidah (Kether) but with Tao? How do you reconcile that?"
What inherent conflict do you see in the dual expression he made?
In general, though, Crowley was doing his best not to pin the idea down. He was essentially saying that what he means by the HGA is the same thing many different systems mean by whatever they call they highest idea. In making hte same point in The Mystical & Magical system of the A.'.A.'., I wrote,
@M&MAA said
"deep within each seeker is the Key to THAT which is sought, and which, though perhaps ultimately identical for each that has attained, is also utterly unique for each that aspires. Each name, each label, implies a rational or metaphysical theory that, being rational, cannot be true."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"So I was just saying that if you take the most sublime and complete idea of prakriti, the idea is pretty close."
Oh I get it, thanks for explaining.
"Not perfectly, though - because prakriti specifically doesn't include Purusha, whereas Hadit is specifically a part of Nuit. "
Or is Nuit made up of Hadit?
"What inherent conflict do you see in the dual expression he made?"
None at all, it is my own view. It seems like something you would disagree with though but apparently not!
"In general, though, Crowley was doing his best not to pin the idea down. He was essentially saying that what he means by the HGA is the same thing many different systems mean by whatever they call they highest idea. In making hte same point in The Mystical & Magical system of the A.'.A.'., I wrote,
@M&MAA said
"deep within each seeker is the Key to THAT which is sought, and which, though perhaps ultimately identical for each that has attained, is also utterly unique for each that aspires. Each name, each label, implies a rational or metaphysical theory that, being rational, cannot be true."
"I enjoy the Brahman reference (Tat). I also enjoy the quotation.
What do you say to people who insist HGA is an external entity? Simply that it may be convenient for some to think of it this way?
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"quote]Not perfectly, though - because prakriti specifically doesn't include Purusha, whereas Hadit is specifically a part of Nuit. "
Or is Nuit made up of Hadit?
"Yes. Is space made up of points, or do points make up space?
"What do you say to people who insist HGA is an external entity? Simply that it may be convenient for some to think of it this way?"
It depends on who the people are and what they need at th moment. Saying the HGA is an external entity is exactly as accurate and exactly as inaccurate as to say that it isn't.
The main point here, though, IMHO is that most people wrestling with that question aren't in any place to know the actuality one way or another. An Adeptus Minor (WIthin) who has settled into the grade either has his or her answer or at least has changed the question.
So, try this angle: The question remains theoretical to one who hasn't awakened Briatic consciousness (the natural fruit of fulfilling the Task of the A.'.A.'. Dominus Liminis grade, the T.'.O.'.T.'. Child of N.O.X. degree, or other equivalent). In Briah, though there are still distinct and seemingly separate things, distinct things are characterized by their union, not by their separation. Separation is a characteristic of Yetzirah. I think it is reasonable to defer the question until one is at the stage where one can experience the actuality and, by the time one reaches that stage, the question is moot.