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

Anyone who has ever evoke a Goetic being does not seem to have this dilemma. they all agree that they are independant entities. Else why would a spirit evoked by both you and me at different times be able to say it knew you when I evoked it and vice-versa?
This intellectual masturbation is what keeps us from becoming true magicians. It is what the hindu's call maya, illusion that entraps one like a spider web and fascinates us away from what we should be doing-like I'm typing this when I could be watching old Python reruns...I mean Meditating!
So realize that all this means nothing. Go into a quiet place and explore the mind. Leave the bullshit for the bullshitters.
My humble opinion
Pratyahara

Well accept for DuQuette, he has evoked several, andstill states they are aspets of the subconscious. Go figure.

However, aspects of one's subconscious don't usually throw things around, aren't usually witnessed physically by more then one person in the room, and don't tend to make offerings dissapear at an oddly quick rate.... <g>

[quote name='Athena' date='Feb 13 2006, 11:55 PM' post='12227']
Well accept for DuQuette, he has evoked several, and still states they are aspects of the subconscious. Go figure.

DuQuette?? DuQuette???? I trust him about as far as I would trust Crowley with my wife and a goat!!! I'm sorry but that guy does not have his head screwed on strait. The fact is; If we all had all of those demons and spirits floating around in our subconscious, we would all be discussing this together in the nut ward! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/haha.gif)

P.S. Sorry for the Thelema Abby inference. But people really need to remember where their info is coming from. Some sources are more than unworthy, i.e. Crowley.