Erwin Hessle's "The Holy Guardian Angel" March 7, 2010
-
@Frater LR said
"
"In a single chapter, Crowley simultaneously claims that the Holy Guardian Angel isour Secret Self our Subconscious Ego', thatAiwaz is none other than [his] own Holy Guardian Angel', and that Aiwaz should apparently notbe taken to be no more than [his] subconscious self'. The fact that all three of these statements which appear in quick succession to each other cannot simultaneously be true should lead us very strongly to suspect that when Crowley labeled Aiwass as hisHoly Guardian Angel', we wasn't using that term in the same sense that he usually was, and was generating confusion by using the same label to refer to two very different things."This is a loop my own mind has been around a few times. At times, A.C. seems to refer to Aiwaz in ways that make him sound like a "third order contact." At other times, he seems to refer to him as his own Holy Guardian Angel - which he defines in other, seemingly exclusive terms. The actual argument he makes is much longer - demanding the entire context of the article. He cites earlier material to suggest that Crowley didn't "change his mind later," as is frequently argued regarding the subjectivity/objectivity of Aiwaz.
Just fishing for thoughts - and preferably those not of an "ad hominum" flavor. "
I addressed this in either chapter 8 or 9 of The Mystical & Magical System of the A.'.A.'.. (I'm away from home so can't look it up; but it was in one or the other of those chapters.)
The gist is that (1) Crowley was very careful never to give a definitive answer to that question and (2) he intentionally gave different answers to people at different grade levels; for example, sort what he wrote for a 5=6 from what he wrote for beginners. - But the chapters listed above say a great deal more that may be helpful on this question.
PS - Some of the seemingly diverse things you list are not, in fact, discrete.
-
@Alrah said
"
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"No ad hominums here.It's certainly interesting reading. The root of the review is the argument for the HGA being one's unfiltered, True Self, rather than an externally existing being.
The segue on Aiwass has the sole purpose of ejecting that can of worms from the discussion, not arriving at a fundamental truth about Aiwass. Which is interesting, because if you re-read the Aiwass section with the mind-set about the HGA he recommends afterward, it seems to undermine the logic which he uses to exclude "the Aiwass problem" from the discussion...
And that's the weak point. The article discusses the objective-subjective debate, and Crowley's nuanced and apparently contradictory statements about the HGA. But when it comes to Aiwass, Crowley must have been confused or using loose language when he spoke of Aiwass as his HGA. (if there's one criticism of Crowley I have NEVER heard, it would be imprecise use of terminology).
Also, if the HGA is merely one's "subconscious", independent of the conscious mind, then all we need is to learn self-hypnosis, and we'll have K&C of the HGA.
But that's just my opinion of the logic of his argument. I would be interested in knowing how someone with KCHGA views the central idea."
If we agree with Crowley and take the view that the HGA is comprised of subconscious functions, then we must ask how the HGA is any different from the usual functions of the subconscious mind? It's these parts of the subconscious mind that become energised in the experience of non duality/non self Ekaggata (highest dhyana). Afterwards, they remain functioning from a non dual perspective."
Yeah but what is "subconscious"? *Just *mental processes? Or mental processes *plus *what supports them - ultimately the whole Universe? Ultimately, elements of the Universe at *every *level are involved in making us what we are (our little fibrillating patterns ride on a deep ocean of ever-stabler patterns). I think Crowley did favour Jung's idea of a "collective unconscious", in which case the True Self is *ultimately *the Universe (or God, or the Absolute, or whatever you want to call yourself
). And I think Jung said that the deeper the archetypes, the more they represent something that shades from instincts into natural laws, and thence to "gods" and ultimately "God", by a perfectly sensible scientific route.Here and now, this ordinary consciousness - qualitatively (though not quantitatively) the same as yours and everyone else's - fundamentally "belongs" to the Whole; metaphysically, it is the Whole's consciousness of Itself. Every glance, every movement, every breath, experienced by you, me, him over there, is the Whole being conscious of Itself, of some of Its possibilities. (This is, I think, a correct interpretation of the old idea "the body is the temple of the indwelling God").
Thus far, consciousness - but the structure of the "subconscious" or "Unconscious" *also *partakes in the universalism too. If you think of all that machinery that supports the mentally subconscious "instinctual" processes, going all the way down through habits, through organic and cellular "habits", through the molecular and chemical "habits", ending up ultimately in the unitary "will" of the basic laws of physics, it's as close as damn it to what peeps into consciousness - in visionary experience - as "God" (and of course "God" also represents whatever *inexorability *may be represented in conscious experience).
But in reality, although we may be aware of the above in the abstract, we can't help thinking of ourselves as *. What's represented above is metaphysical (I think) truth, but for that very reason, if it is true, it's always and ever true, true even when one is in the depths of delusion; and meanwhile simply knowing about it doesn't pay the rent.
To discover the True Self, to enact the True Will, is to journey through the layers of what we *think *we are, and find out what we *really, really, really *are "at the bottom of the bottle", and not just find it out, but actually *live *it, more wholeheartedly and consciously. γνῶθι σεαυτόν
-
I should perhaps add that - at the time Liber Samekh and its Scholion were written, at the bridge of his noticing Jung and some of the differences between Freud and Jung including terminology - Crowley was using the term "subconscious" where he might better have used the broader "unconscious," i.e., encompassing both subconsciousness and superconsciousness.
Take this definition into Liber Samekh's Scholion and it will read differently than if you take "subconsciousness" at face value.
-
I read Hessle's essay, and found it both intensely enlightening and intensely confusing. I understood everything in isolation, but the whole picture is difficult to grasp.
Would it be correct to surmise that the HGA is the "only self" (Hadit?), the only observer, and that an individual's True Will is this Self's natural and most fluid interaction with, and illumination of, that individual? i.e. the Self is the same, but in different contexts/individuals, a different True Will is discovered? Alternate phrasing: Is it reasonable to think of the HGA/True Self (as Hessle uses the latter term) as being a combination of the Self with an incarnation, which has its own set of circumstances such as place and time of birth, family, genes, etc.? Ignore this phrasing if you don't equate the HGA with True Self.
In the set (I'm using this rather informally) of all possible linear algebraic equations involving X as the only variable, each X is the same: an X, although "the answer" to each equation is different because the operation being performed on X is different in each case. In this way, the X can be seen as the True Self, present yet identical in many different circumstances/incarnations, and the operations being performed on X can be seen as the circumstances/incarnations. Is this an appropriate way of thinking of it? [edit: this example is probably mathematically wrong, but I think the metaphor is decent enough to not edit out.]
Just trying to understand this in light of my own thought processes and tendencies.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts
-
From The Mystical & Magical System of the A.'.A.'., Ch. 9:
"What is this Holy Guardian Angel, whose knowledge and conversation the Adept seeks? Is it a separate being, a great Agent of God, celestial lover and companion, sent forth to guide, lead, and protect the Adept? Or is it best categorized as an exalted aspect of the Adept’s higher consciousness? Or does this question even matter?
From his earliest commitment to teach humanity, Crowley pointedly elected not to attempt to resolve the raging conflict between the numerous phrases historically employed to describe the goals of magical, mystical, or religious attainment. The Great Work is utterly individual, utterly personal, particular, specific, and unique to each who undertakes it. Whether the object of aspiration is personified as the True Self, the Augoeides, the Genius, Ishvara, the Logos, the Christos, Atman, Adonai, the Holy Guardian Angel, or any of 56 other possibilities; whether the goal is called adeptship, attainment, initiation, mastership, cosmic consciousness, samadhi, union with God, spiritual development, mahatmaship, moksha, liberation, or whatever; it is nonetheless true that, 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. By choosing the title of “the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel” which had been employed by Abra-Melin, Crowley admittedly elected a term that he felt had the least metaphysical baggage, and yet was so simple that even a child could relate to it.
A private letter written by Crowley, and reproduced on pp. 159-60 of THE EQUINOX No. 1, itemized his thinking on this point:
"Lytton calls him Adonai in ‘Zanoni,’ and I often use this name in the note-books.
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 symbols 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."
As the foregoing, hopefully, has made clear, even this basic elected term of the A.'.A.'. – the Holy Guardian Angel – must not be taken by the aspirant to imply any specific dogmatic or sectarian theory. As the Probationer was advised at the beginning of this quest, in Liber Causæ:
"Therefore by the order of D.D.S. did P. prepare all things by his arcane science and wisdom, choosing only those symbols which were common to all systems, and rigorously rejecting all names and words which might be supposed to imply any religious or metaphysical theory. To do this utterly was found impossible, since all language has a history, and the use (for example) of the word “spirit” implies the Scholastic Philosophy and the Hindu and Taoist theories concerning the breath of man. So was it difficult to avoid implications of some undesirable bias by using the words “order,” “circle,” “chapter,” “society,” “brotherhood,” or any other to designate the body of initiates.
Deliberately, therefore, did he take refuge in vagueness. Not to veil the truth to the Neophyte, but to warn him against valuing non-essentials. Should therefore the candidate hear the name of any God, let him not rashly assume that it refers to any known God, save only the God known to himself. Or should the ritual speak in terms (however vague) which seem to imply Egyptian, Taoist, Buddhist, Indian, Persian, Greek, Judaic, Christian, or Moslem philosophy, let him reflect that this is a defect of language; the literary limitation and not the spiritual prejudice of the man P.
Especially let him guard against the finding of definite sectarian symbols in the teaching of his master, and the reasoning from the known to the unknown which assuredly will tempt him.
We labor earnestly, dear brother, that you may never be led away to perish upon this point; for thereon have many holy and just men been wrecked. By this have all the visible systems lost the essence of wisdom."
This question of the exact nature of the Holy Guardian Angel, although only resolvable by the experience of each Adept, is, nonetheless, a reasonable and expected question from any aspirant to this attainment. We will limit ourselves, here, to Crowley’s answers. Crowley provided different answers at different times, depending on what it seemed necessary for the particular student to hear. For example, in Magick Without Tears, a book aimed especially at beginners, he made the following statements: Liber Samekh, and a few quotes from the New Commentary.]
It is certainly possible that, by providing this range of commentary, we have done nothing more than confuse the sincere aspirant. Admittedly – given our view that the experience of what we call the Holy Guardian Angel is “utterly individual, utterly personal, particular, specific, and unique to each” – the only wholly consistent approach would be to say nothing about it at all. We have elected to balance this consideration against our responsibility to teach, by pointedly inviting every student to ignore any of the interpretations we have offered here unless they “strike home” as personally relevant.
Furthermore, this discussion is primarily aimed at those who are on the earlier stages of the Path. The Adeptus Minor surely already will have drawn (conscious or unconscious) conclusions about what it is that is sought, conclusions so inherent to her own nature that they may be entirely unconscious.
The real substance of this present chapter is that the Adeptus Minor has one task, the one task at which she has been aiming from her first entry onto the Path; and that now, prepared, she is pledged to undertake it..."
-
Since I have not contacted my HGA there's no way for me to know for sure. But I will say that I think things like this is where "Enough of Because!" should be put into effect. Rather than debate with our limited egos about what the true nature of something is, we should instead focus to initiate contact with the HGA so we can find what it really is rather than spend time theorizing something that cannot be known outside of experiencing it.
That's just my opinion.
-
@gmugmble said
"
@he man P. said
"The Augoeides invocation is the whole thing."Do you suppose the invocation referred to is Liber Samekh, or Liber VIII, or just any Augoeides invocation in general?"
At that point in time, Ritual VIII hadn't been received and Liber Samekh hadn't been written.
However, he meant what was later formalized as Liber Samekh, i.e., the original Bornless Ritual. (Possibly that sentence meant something wider ... simply the idea that the invocation of Augoeides is "the whole thing," and not referring to a particular method. But to AC at that point in time, the particular he would have had in mind would have been Bornless.)