Goetic controversy, Aspect of unconscious or indpndnt being? Options

Ok folks, this one's gonna be doozer.

Over and over again in my studies and on this forum, I keep encountering this intruiging controversy/argument that I can’t help but feel drawn into. It comes into play when usually having to do with Goetic spirits, but I think its relevant for other spirits/gods as well.
It’s basically this: on one side, we have the psychological philosophy that these beings are really aspects of our own collective unconscious, and by contacting, controlling, and/or dominating them, you are in effect doing the same thing to areas and zones within your own deeper self.
On the other hand, we have those who mostly consider this idea laughable, and feel that these beings possess an independent and autonomous self, and that by contacting, controlling, and/or dominating them, you are in effect doing the same to those beings and the energy/powers they possess, and not to anything else (although these beings do have a role and sphere of influence in the universe at large).
Now the question I put to this forum is this: has anyone ever considered the possibility that it is really both, simultaneously.
(Ok, so I have to make a confession before I continue. A part of me feels shameful and unworthy to argue about such things because for the last ten years, I have been what you call an “armchair” magickian. But I am now sick and tired of this, and have recently mustered up the faith and discipline to begin practical training. However, I still have my own personal paradigms which I like to share and discuss, so I will go on.)
In Buddist philosophy, nothing is independent, as all phenomena are more interrelated than we can imagine and has its source in a chain of cause and effect reaching back infinitely, and triggering a chain of cause and effect reaching forward infinitely. Likewise, nothing exists from its own side (do not confuse this with the nihilist belief that nothing exists), as the experience of all phenomena, being beyond the definitions and limitations of the mind, relies on the illusion of the perciever and the percieved, the subjective and the objective; this being a symptom of the ignorant, deluded, “samsaric” mind.
Still with me?
Now the Buddhist concept of the Mind is vastly alien to the Western idea. Westerners, having inherited the Judeo-Christian tradition of spirit vs. flesh, hold on to the idea that the mind, or consciousness, is this little “isolated core” truly separate from all else in an infinite field of space/time, holding in its fabric a bunch of jumbled objects all relating to eachother in infinite ways. The mind, therefore, is this curious little self-reflective mechanism whose source lies solely in the chemical processes of the brain (However, if you’ve seen “What the bleep do we know?”, you’ll know that this old paradigm is being seriously questioned). The brain, (considered a miracle of an object, as its creation was surley either evolutionary chance or the intention of a higher being) and its consciousness is a mystery, but a mystery left to the study of psychology. Things like black holes and ecosystems have nothing to do with the personal conscious and unconscious.
The Buddhist concept of the mind, however, is quite different. Imagine, if you will, the entire universe as a single unified mind, whose nature is like the sky – clear, radiant, without form or substance. Basically, the Ain-Soph, or Shunyata. Awareness that simply is. (“I am that I am”). This is the “nondual mind”.
Now, imagine our mind as being like the cadeuceus-head looking back at itself, staring into the infinite depths of its own radiant intelligence, without knowing itself, beleiving firmly in the reality of its own egohood, and its seperateness from all other things. Whatever lies in its mind, no matter how deep it lies, has its source in its mind. That, I believe, is the suffering spoken of by the Buddha. And that is my argument on the matter of spirits, Goetic or not. It is your own consciousness, your own Buddhic-consciousness.
I hope I’ve given you all something to think about, and I am up to discussing this further.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/blablabla.gif)
Flyingmojo

"As Above, So Below" as the Emerald Tablet says. I think that the Goetic spirits, or any other group of spiritual entities for that matter, can be understood, communicated with and perceived both in many different aspects and on many different levels. Aspects being different forms, manifestations and personalities existing on the same 'horizontal' level of conciousness, and the Level of that consciousness existing anywhere from the densest piece of carbon to the great AYN. I think both a person's own expectations and understanding of a spirit as well as the context of the summoning and the spirit's own agendas will factor into the experience of a summoning.

An analogy that comes to mind is the phenomenon of local aspects of deity in the ancient world. Zeus and YHWH are two classic examples - every member of the confederation would respect and understand the universality of the god - its power, experience and traditions - within that cultural world. At the same time, local tribes and shrines would cling fiercely to their unique aspects of that god, and the holy places and local traditions associated with it. YHWH Tzavaot and YHWH Yireh, for example, would share much but still be understood and manifest differently to their respective worshippers. They probably even had some contradictions in each other's accounts - before monotheistic unification, it was common in the ancient world for different regions to have very different, even opposing understandings of deities, cosmologies, magic, ethics, anthroposophy, etc.

The classic case - Astaroth versus Astarte. I think on the highest levels, the being embodies all good and bad aspects of itself. They can be gods, angels, spirits, demons, or anything else they may need, want, or be requested to be.