Notifications
Clear all

The Correct Way to Pronounce "Aiwass"


WildWitch
(@wildwitch)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 74
Topic starter  

What is the correct way to pronounce "Aiwass"? Does anyone know?


Quote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5802
 
"WildWitch" wrote:
What is the correct way to pronounce "Aiwass"? Does anyone know?

"I was" walking down the street.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 

Crowley's original spelling "Aiwass", with the double /ss/ sound, as well as his original Hebrew transliteration איואס[/font:rgcjc99g], indicates that the final consonant had the hissing /s/ sound, and not /z/.

I believe the /ai/ part is a diphthong and therefore pronounced the same as "eye" or the first person pronoun "I".

In 1918, he learned a new way to spell it, from Samuel Aiwaz Jacobs, as עיוז[/font:rgcjc99g], "Aiwaz", which ends in the /z/ sound.

Note that in 1923 Crowley also discovered a way to spell Aiwass (not Aiwaz) in Greek, with the digamma (ϝ = 6) as "ΑΙϜΑΣΣ", which equals 418, which explains the subtitle of Liber AL vel Legis in Equinox of the Gods and the 1938 and subsequent editions of the book as "as delivered by XCIII = 418"; i.e. עיוז[/font:rgcjc99g] = ΑΙϜΑΣΣ (see Confessions p. 835).


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5802
 

"I wass" wawking down d' street.

"I wuz" walkin' down the street.

Even AC seems to have had his variations.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1091
 

[flash=560,315:3aaezvzk] https://www.youtube.com/v/pXlPCHWb-38[/flash:3aaezvzk]


ReplyQuote
WildWitch
(@wildwitch)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 74
Topic starter  

I recall reading something on the net which stated that the "discarnate entity" which had dictated Liber Al to Crowley was not actually named "Aiwass". According to what I read, the "discarnate entity" had another name. I can't recall the name, but the name was Arabic. Does anyone know how I can find this name?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5802
 
"WildWitch" wrote:
I recall reading something on the net ...

Be advised to add one dram of salt to anything read on the "net." Aiwass clearly identifies himself as Aiwass in the text under consideration. Some Christian sites may refer to him as Satan, or some similar appelation, but in this case, make it two drams.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 541
 

I've met someone with Aiwass as a given name, & he pronounced it like 'Ee-Woz', with the ending in between an 'ss' & a 'zz'. I had him spell it out in English for me & I was (!) quite taken aback when he did. I never had the opportunity to enqire as to his origins, but he struck me as perhaps Nepalese or, at least, from around that general region. That being said, there is always a margin for error translating phonetics from one language to another (sometimes a wide "margin" indeed) but the above example is worthy of consideration, all the same.


ReplyQuote
Jeffrey D. Evans
(@jeffrey-d-evans)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 10
 

Belmurru, I have a question. I can't get Google Translate to type a digamma. How did you do it in your comment (ϝ = 6) as "ΑΙϜΑΣΣ


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
"Jeffrey D. Evans" wrote:
Belmurru, I have a question. I can't get Google Translate to type a digamma. How did you do it in your comment (ϝ = 6) as "ΑΙϜΑΣΣ

To type characters like this, I use the Lexilogos Ancient Greek Keyboard -
http://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/greek_ancient.htm

- it must be ASCII based, since it shows up fine in Word, emails of any kind, and forums like this.

The last four characters of the set, after the Omega, are Digamma, Stigma/Stau (also important for Crowleyan gematrias), Qoppa, and Sampi.


ReplyQuote
Jeffrey D. Evans
(@jeffrey-d-evans)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 10
 

Thank you, belmurro for answering my question. It was actually me, Ruth Keenan-Evans, making the request. I only registered on Lashtal yesterday, so I used Jeff's Login. I found your answer very helpful.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
"Jeffrey D. Evans" wrote:
Thank you, belmurro for answering my question. It was actually me, Ruth Keenan-Evans, making the request. I only registered on Lashtal yesterday, so I used Jeff's Login. I found your answer very helpful.

I'm glad you found it helpful, Ruth.

Of the character sets I've needed, Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Syriac and Tibetan display here. Only Coptic does not come through (same for Unicode Egyptian hieroglyphs and Cuneiform).

Perhaps there is a simple way for the webmaster to allow it?

Another trick for displaying characters nicely is to change the size and font in the edit window here (go to "Preview" for all the options) - for instance the standard Hebrew Adonai is אדני; changing that to 14 point Times New Roman makes it אדני[/font:6j90x5b3].


ReplyQuote
Obitus
(@obitus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 44
 

"Shiva" wrote:
"Some Christian sites may refer to him as Satan, or some similar appelation . . ."

MAYBE because that's exactly what Crowley referred to Aiwass as. And anyone who says he didn't is either simply ignorant of the fact, or is being purposefully dishonest.

“When I was Levi, I drew myself as Ayin or Baphomet, 'The Devil' with Beast's Head. This is the Beast throned, crowned, exalted; the leaper, the erect, the butter-in. Her womb is my city, Babel. This Ayin is then my phallic will, my Holy Guardian Angel, Aiwaz, who was afterwards called Satan.”

“Come, Come, Come, Aiwaz! Come, thou Devil Our Lord!”

“And Her Concoction shall be sweet in our mixed mouths, the Sacrament that giveth thanks to Aiwaz, our Lord God the Devil, that He hath fused His Beast's soul with His Scarlet Whore's, to be One Soul completed, that It may set His image in the Temple of Man, and thrust His Will's rod over them and rule them. And that imperléd sea, dark with that oozy shore-mud which it washed, shall wash us, body and mind, of all that is not He, moisten our throats and loosen our loud Song of praise, Thanksgiving unto Him.”

“I sing for God, our Devil, our Lord, Aiwaz.”

“. . . and know that all my joy, perfect, transcending sense, is given of Aiwaz, whom we call the Devil, whose name is Will, loud-uttered by cocaine, is Love.”

"THE BEAST 666 has preferred to let names stand as they are, and to proclaim simply that AIWAZ, the solar-phallic-hermetic ‘Lucifer,’ is His own Holy Guardian Angel, and ‘The Devil’ SATAN or HADIT, the Supreme Soul behind RA-HOOR-KHUIT the Sun, the Lord of our particular unit of the Starry Universe."

^ All Crowley. Nobody has to LIKE that he said it, but he certainly said it, and there's no getting around it.


ReplyQuote
Sonofthoth
(@sonofthoth)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 45
 

I-vhas


ReplyQuote
elitemachinery
(@elitemachinery)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 582
 

@WildWitch said:

What is the correct way to pronounce “Aiwass”? Does anyone know?

@Shiva replied:

“I was” walking down the street.

I am, I was. I am Aiwass. It's a riddle.

@shiva said:

from: lashtal.com/forums/topic/aiwass/page/6/#post-103955

I prefer the concept that Aiwass was/is Crowley at Kether, and that he (Aiwass) dropped down to Tiphereth in order to introduce himself and dictate Liber AL to the demon Crowley, who got confused about it for awhile, and then started identifying him (Aiwass) with all sorts of things, people, and archetypes.

I suspect this is correct. As living humans our perspective is limited by our current ego and set of circumstances. The bigger "I" or "Kether" or "Master Computer" contains far too much information for one ego/hard-drive to contain. But this "Master Computer" can be experienced in short spurts while in meditative or altered states and give us knowledge that far exceeds our current point of view or experiences. This is what all great artists, poets, writers, musicians tap into in various ways and to varying degrees.


ReplyQuote
Obitus
(@obitus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 44
 

Crowley was probably "confused about it for a while" . . . but one thing people tend to gloss over or ignore is that when the confusion cleared, Crowley's final stance on the matter was that Aiwass was absolutely not merely himself. Not only did he never backtrack and reject his eventual identification of Aiwass with the Devil (some bizarrely act like his identification of Aiwass as his HGA was somehow a rejection of Aiwass as Satan, but this is nonsensical because the identification of Aiwass as Satan and his HGA was made at the exact same time), but Crowley eventually came to this conclusion:

“The Holy Guardian Angel is not the 'Higher Self' but an Objective Individual. . . . He is not, let me say with emphasis, a mere abstraction from yourself; and that is why I have insisted rather heavily that the term ‘Higher Self’ implies ‘a damnable heresy and a dangerous delusion.’ . . . He is not to be found by any exploration of oneself. It is true that the process of analysis leads finally to the realization of oneself as no more than a point of view indistinguishable in itself from any other point of view; but the Holy Guardian Angel is in precisely the same position. However close may be the identities in millions of ways, no complete identification is ever obtainable. But do remember this, above all else; they are objective, not subjective, or I should not waste good Magick on them.”

^That right there is probably the most ignored thing Crowley ever said about the nature of the HGA (and by extension, his own HGA, Aiwass.) Taken from "Magick Without Tears," Crowley’s final work, this statement represents Crowley’s final position on the matter. While I’m aware most love early, “seeker” Crowley, it’s more than worthwhile to see where all that seeking eventually took him. And where it took him was a rejection of mere symbolism, and a rejection of the concept, beloved by so many, that it’s ultimately “all in your head.”


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1091
 

@Obitus

thanks for looking up those quotes. If possible, could you provide an exact citation (work, edition, page #)? This will come in handy for the future.

cheers,
William


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5802
 

Ob: Crowley was probably “confused about it for a while” . . . but one thing people tend to gloss over or ignore is that when the confusion cleared, Crowley’s final stance on the matter was that Aiwass was absolutely not merely himself.

How can you possibly know what AC's "final stance" was. He jumped all over the place, citing Aiwass as a man, an ipsissimus, his HGA, a Sumerian demon-god, etc. You can search the literature and cite his most recent guess, but his "final stance" was his opinion just before he departed Terra Firma.

If we turn to that "other stream" of the Invisible Order as portrayed by Alice Bailey (taking dictation from the Tibetan Master Djwhal Khul, who turned out to be not a Tibetan Master, but some Sikh that was cleverly mis-named and held up as a Master of the Wisdom [9=2]), we find her stating that the HGA (she calls it "Solar Angel") is a devic (angelic) entity who comes in from somewhere (some devic dimension) and stands guard over the Soul throughout its many cycles. When it has protected (kept intact) the Soul for many cycles and has led the initiate to the Crucifixion (her term for the Abyss), then its work is done and it departs back unto whence it originally came.

Thus, both AC and Bailey signify the "fact" that the Angel is an independent entity. Well, who knows if either of them are right? It is our duty to ourselves to determine what WE think is the correct definition. I will say this, the Angel certainly APPEARS to be an independent entity. That is, when I have dialoged with it, it gives off the distinct impression that it is "other" and not part of me.

Even U.G. Krishnamurti, who goes beyond both Bailey and Crowley in his expositions, states that the ultimate state of a human is "no entity" or "nobody is at home here," but he states that this non-being state is "peaceful with a sense of a guiding intelligence."

All these quotes and concepts lead us to believe [?] that they have found that there is something even higher than our limited perceptions. I have a few examples of experience where this DOES seem to be the case. But as long as we're in mortal awareness, of course there will be "something higher." The bottom line is that we don't really know, and nobody else really knew, what the ultimate "reality" is, and nobody will ever KNOW because that's ca function of mind, and (as we know) there are states/levels of consciousness that transcend the mind ... and the pen, and the sword, and any other form.

Crowley did say (Book 4, Part 3) that is is "more convenient" to assume these demons, devils, and angels are external entities.

Anyway, I don't think anyone knows his "final stance" because nobody chatted with him about it exactly five seconds before he died.

Ob: That right there is probably the most ignored thing Crowley ever said about the nature of the HGA

Not really. Taking me as an example, I have read AC say all manner of things. Just because he said one thing in one particular quote doesn't mean he didn't say the opposite, or something at a tengent, in some other quote. It doesn't matter what he wrote or said or thought. He clearly stated, "Don't believe me. Find out for yourself,." Now THAT is some really sound advice.

Ctrl A + C


ReplyQuote
Obitus
(@obitus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 44
 

@ William Thirteen

Here's the quotes again with their sources attributed. The following are all from Crowley's diary entries from 1920. They can be found in The Magical Record of the Beast 666, first published in 1972 and edited by Kenneth Grant and John Symonds. The page references here are from the 1993 Duckworth edition:

“When I was Levi, I drew myself as Ayin or Baphomet, ‘The Devil’ with Beast’s Head. This is the Beast throned, crowned, exalted; the leaper, the erect, the butter-in. Her womb is my city, Babel. This Ayin is then my phallic will, my Holy Guardian Angel, Aiwaz, who was afterwards called Satan.”
[p. 198]

“Come, Come, Come, Aiwaz! Come, thou Devil Our Lord!”
[p. 239]

“And Her Concoction shall be sweet in our mixed mouths, the Sacrament that giveth thanks to Aiwaz, our Lord God the Devil, that He hath fused His Beast’s soul with His Scarlet Whore’s, to be One Soul completed, that It may set His image in the Temple of Man, and thrust His Will’s rod over them and rule them. And that imperléd sea, dark with that oozy shore-mud which it washed, shall wash us, body and mind, of all that is not He, moisten our throats and loosen our loud Song of praise, Thanksgiving unto Him.”
[p.230]

“I sing for God, our Devil, our Lord, Aiwaz.”
[p. 238]

“. . . and know that all my joy, perfect, transcending sense, is given of Aiwaz, whom we call the Devil, whose name is Will, loud-uttered by cocaine, is Love.”
[p. 241]

There are plenty more quotes about Our Lord the Devil (and who is obviously the same as Aiwaz) in relation to Thelema in that volume, if you'd care to look for yourself, but those are the ones where the word "Aiwaz" is directly in the passage. So those are the only ones I included in this thread.

As to the last quote (presented here in a fuller version than before): “’The Devil’ is, historically, the God of any people that one personally dislikes. This has led to so much confusion of thought that THE BEAST 666 has preferred to let names stand as they are, and to proclaim simply that AIWAZ, the solar-phallic-hermetic ‘Lucifer,’ is His own Holy Guardian Angel, and ‘The Devil’ SATAN or HADIT, the Supreme Soul behind RA-HOOR-KHUIT the Sun, the Lord of our particular unit of the Starry Universe. This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade ‘Know Thyself!’ and taught Initiation. He is ‘the Devil’ of the Book of Thoth, and His emblem is BAPHOMET, the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of arcane perfection."

This is of course from Magick in Theory and Practice. It can be found on p. 296 of the 1973 Samuel Weiser edition of MAGICK and on pg. 277 of the 2006 edition.

The last quote is (as someone will surely feel the need to point out) the footnote to the far more popular passage "The Devil does not exist." But footnotes are, as a general rule, something that clarifies the passage it's a note to . . . not the other way around. Of course, nobody has a problem with this logic when it comes to another famous passage later in the same book, where in the main text Crowley claims that a male child of perfect innocence is a proper sacrifice, and then in a footnote makes it obvious that he couldn't really mean it literally. Footnotes are very important in THAT instance. But oddly, it's rather popular to act like in the former instance about the Devil, the main passage unnaturally "clarifies" the footnote. Rubbish. The main passage states that the Christian concept of the Devil as something purely evil and negative "does not exist," as such a thing would have no Unity, and if it had Unity, it would be a God. The footnote clarifies that since "the Devil" is "historically, the God of any people that one personally dislikes," Crowley is more than fine with letting names "stand as they are" at this point and bluntly letting people know that Aiwaz is the metaphysical being whom has popularly become known as "the Devil," "Satan," but that He isn't quite as bad as Christians think, and is actually the benefactor of man. Obviously, He does have "Unity," and is a "God."

@ Shiva:
Ok, "Crowley's final RECORDED stance on the matter, recorded near the very end of his life." Does that make it better? And of course when taken as a WHOLE (since his writings cover his whole life), Crowley went through many changes in views on different topics. But it should probably also be kept in mind that Crowley saw his life (and the Mystic path) as one of PROGRESSION and LEARNING. People are certainly free to treat 30 year old Crowley's views on things as equally informed and wise as 60 year old Crowley if they wish. Nobody is stopping them.

And everyone is certainly free to believe whatever they want, and free to bend over backwards to use Thelema as a way to dress up full-blown materialist atheism all they want where rituals ultimately become merely a way to add a layer of self-admitted esoteric window-dressing to their sexual practices. But I'm also every bit as free to call such things a "dangerous delusion" or even a "damnable heresy" like grouchy old fart Crowley preferred to. Do what thou wilt.


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 242
 

Crowley was educated in the English public school system. He spoke with the accent associated with victorian upper middle class English. He probably pronounced it "Eyewaz", old boy

Regards

Johnny


ReplyQuote
Share: