Could anyone could possibly explain why it is that Aiwass always seems to only want to communicate to the inhabitants of planet earth in the vernacular of turn of the 17th century English?I understand A.C.’s explanation, that he was so immersed in Bible study (King James version) throughout his life that his (un)conscious mind was infused by it – and can just about accept also Nema’s contention that her own reception of Liber Pennae Praenumbra had also been similarly coloured by her recent study and exposure to it – but everyone else being affected likewise?
It seems a bit soon to say the vernacular of these transmissions will always slope towards King James but time will tell. It may be that some of these are misattributed visions of Crowley's worldview.
In any case, a line in chapter 1, verse 6 of The Book of Codes indicates an awareness of the antiquated language used in the text. There is provided a reason in the dialogue and non-answers your questioning why.
...(Retain the “thee”s and the “ye”s as I have given them; there is meaning in the words and the phrases that thou understandest not.)&
It's interesting that you mention Liber Pennae Praenumbra. The publisher of The Book of Codes (under the title "The Book of Perfection") not only shares connections to the Typhonian Order and Kenneth Grant but also has connections to the O.T.O. and William Breeze through Linda MacFarlane. It's something to consider in determinations of the nature of The Book of Codes and Mr. Rocket's experience, perhaps.
In the case of Liber Legis, it's to make the text appear superficially similar to the Bible?
I'm not so sure that it is. For one thing, the Bible isn't the only 'Holy Book' which would be involved in terms of the "crapulous creeds" listed - so why would it have been especially singled out for special treatment and why wouldn't the language be constructed to superficially reflect and resemble e.g. the Koran also?
Crowley also thought its reception had been coloured by his own religious upbringing in the past and explicitly stated this somewhere - please don't ask me where it is because at the moment I'm not exactly sure - probably in the Hag somewhere. Maybe someone else reading can oblige with this? Don't ask me to go into explaining the mechanism which is involved either (it would take too long 🙂 )
Considering how unique Liber Legis is, meaning it represents an extraordinary demonstration of knowledge and power, the chances of Aiwass producing a follow-up text is unlikely as well as unnecessary.
I don't agree here: why on earth shouldn't he put in a further appearance at some point in the course of the next two thousand years, sooner rather than later. Humanity is going through such a critical phase during the birth-pangs of the Aeon of Horus it would be almost criminal if a super-entity such as Aiwass didn't try to pitch in to assist with some of the difficulties, especially if he is meant to be such a 'friend' of mankind.
Also many of the stipulations and injunctions contained within Liber Legis weren't carried out - wouldn't that fact make a difference in terms of how the Aeon is meant to pan out and necessitate further adjustments?
Efforts at creating similar texts are part of a pattern in which the readers of Aleister Crowley attempt to imitate his work, including efforts at extreme intellectualism, which is fine I suppose, if it were not for the fact Thelema needs carpenters and plumbers too
Yes, although not so cerebrally or romantically perhaps: carpenters and plumbers and toilet cleaners and all sorts will be needed too. Who shall serve (the common weal), accordingly.
I suspect efforts at imitating Liber Legis will diminish once its full meaning is understood; the first step toward that end will happen when Squaring The Circle is released. ... I’ve decided to release it on Halloween, for it truly is a skeptics’ nightmare.
I am looking forward to perusing Squaring The Circle, especially in terms of the Bogusly big claims for it put forward in advance. I hope it manages to live up to it! Is there any particular (Thelemic) reason Halloween was chosen (and not e.g.12th October or 1st December)?
In any case, a line in chapter 1, verse 6 of The Book of Codes indicates an awareness of the antiquated language used in the text. There is provided a reason in the dialogue and non-answers your questioning why.
…(Retain the “thee”s and the “ye”s as I have given them; there is meaning in the words and the phrases that thou understandest not.)
This provided reason just seems to amount to a not-so-subtle paraphrase of "Ye, even ye, know not this meaning all" (III:16). There is obviously a cabbalistic meaning hidden in some of the antiquated language, but I'm sure that a being of the supposed superintelligence of Aiwass would be able to present the information just as adroitly & adeptly in a modern-day context/ language if he'd really wanted to and had put his mind to it. And after all, who are we mere mortals to second-guess the motivations of such an almighty preter-human entity?!
This provided reason just seems to amount to a not-so-subtle paraphrase of “Ye, even ye, know not this meaning all” (III:16). There is obviously a cabbalistic meaning hidden in some of the antiquated language, but I’m sure that a being of the supposed superintelligence of Aiwass would be able to present the information just as adroitly & adeptly in a modern-day context/ language if he’d really wanted to and had put his mind to it. And after all, who are we mere mortals to second-guess the motivations of such an almighty preter-human entity?!
Even though that reason for the language in Codes is not original, nor the context and general wording of it unique, it does suggest that maybe the text would be different if Jimmi Rocket was taking more than dictation. That's not to say the line couldn't still be considered part of a deceit.
If you care to look into making a comparison there is a pamphlet called The Riddle of Sebra which is attributable to Jimmi Rocket, iirc. Part of it is posted in a link in wrwb's II:76 cipher thread by @threefold31. The thread, weirdly, was bumped recently and brought this memory to mind. Anyhow, he published under the pseudonym Prince Ariel not Fra. Seb-Ra, as currently showing in threefold31's link on page 29. The full pamphlet has something around a ten page commentary validating the poetic solution. I'll have to rummage to find my copy(yes, typical) but I believe it has the same publisher as The Book of Perfection to back this up. If it is Mr. Beck's work it's something to compare with Codes.
Likely many pages could be written on the problems and reality of preternatural communication and human endeavors. Even if limited to syncretic liberties taken from wisdom arising from the understandings of science. For example "minister of Hoor Paar Kraat" could mean many things in that context. American Gods, indeed. Unacceptable! Of course, that's my problem and likely doesn't apply here.
I'm looking forward to @herupakraath's Squaring the Circle. It would be remarkable if it can disprove or prove these apocryphal preternatural communications. Trick or Treat?!
This is a follow up to my previous post above about comparing the Book of Codes with The Riddle of Sebra.
Although the Riddle of Sebra pertains to II:76 and the selected images from Sebra posted below have meta-topical connections outside this thread the subject of James Beck is being discussed here so this is being posted here.
A few passages are quoted from The Book of Codes in some of the Sebra images. The last page has a publishing contact called Royal Star Publishing listed to a P.O. Box in Astoria, OR.. This is different than the current Amazon.com listings for The Book of Perfection which have the publisher listed as The Phoenix of the Royal Star. Sebra is also not up to the same publishing quality as Perfection. It seems safe to say the publisher isn't the same and that Sebra appears to be self-published. The writing on the outside back cover of Sebra suggests it was originally written the same year the Book of Perfection was published. It was pointed out to me there is no apparent copyright notice on the Sebra document. The full document has 32 numbered pages.
The Riddle of Sebra:
Jamie J Barter:
"... why on earth shouldn’t he [Aiwass] put in a further appearance at some point in the course of the next two thousand years, sooner rather than later. Humanity is going through such a critical phase during the birth-pangs of the Aeon of Horus it would be almost criminal if a super-entity such as Aiwass didn’t try to pitch in to assist with some of the difficulties, especially if he is meant to be such a ‘friend’ of mankind.
Also many of the stipulations and injunctions contained within Liber Legis weren’t carried out – wouldn’t that fact make a difference in terms of how the Aeon is meant to pan out and necessitate further adjustments?"
If it is correct that the Aiwass in the Book of the Law written by Crowley, is the one that James Charles Beck, a.k.a. Jimmi Rocket (1954-2004), took dictation from in January 1976, when The Book of Codes, Liber 718, was received, the following complementary information about the island mentioned in the said Book of the Law, was dictated by the said Aiwass, in said The Book of Codes:
"Know also that my island is my temple: most especially a particular House. Het. This is most needful, that my war-engine is of the magical kind, that the Blood of the Moon is its fuel and the priest’s Osiris is its motor. Thou mayest find thee an actual island if thou desirest, it doth not matter, but it behooves you to find out this Engine of War, perform my rituals with strength and beauty, and never to neglect the other type of battle as well. We shall be victorious; my stélé shall be placed within thy secret temple; the original writing of the Book of the Law shall be rediscovered after years of loss; the Temple of the East shall verily become the Great Western Catholic Church. (That land in the East shall give thee trouble, yet only to establish my glory in the end.)" Source: The Book of Codes, Chapter 1, verse 15.
If it is correct [...] the following complementary information about the island mentioned in the said Book of the Law, was dictated by the said Aiwass, in said The Book of Codes: “Know also that my island is my temple: [...] "
You certainly seem to have a thing about this island business, well: perhaps you could go into precisely what it is that it means to you - should it be taken (in any way at all) literally or figuratively (i.e., to be an actual physical island), or is it more a metaphorical description, describing what if so? What would be the nature of the thing which sets (one/an) island off against another, or the whole? What (addition or subtraction) would make an island distinct from a peninsula, say?
Aside from this, my earlier observations still stand, i.e., that the use of 17th century/ ("King James Bible") vernacular is certainly effective and apparently ominpresently ubiquitous throughout the presentation of all these 'transmissions'. It cannot be denied that, apart from anything else, the reality of this of this fact lends a certain extra Authority to the proceedings, does it not?! Take that away, and substitute modern English instead (rather like the New Revised Version of The Bible, as a parallel) and you take away some of its invested power also. The factor of this tendency should not be forgotten in consideration of the overall scenario presented by all of these transmissions, either.
@mal, would you consider it to be a fair assessment if I was to say I thought I might be in the minority in finding the content of The Riddle of Sebra a bit of a riddle - i.e., rather mystifying?
It may perhaps be of some additional interest that in the course of my very first OP in the "Introduction" as a new member to Lashtal nearly four years ago I made the following comments with relation to recent points:
Now that I’ve formally introduced myself & got the preliminaries out of the way, could I cut to the crux of the biscuit and enquire whether anyone would happen to know if there is any sort of data possibly even tucked away somewhere in the bowels of this very site, or know about any other information re. any reported transmissions from Aiwass post-1904? I know that when A.C. was asked in his nether years about it (I don’t have the precise reference this minute to hand) he was reputed to have shrugged as if to say “Dunno”, but was wondering whether anyone had come across anything more tangible or if this is to be regarded as prima facie evidence of a 43 year period when the minister must literally have emulated his beloved HPK. (It’s a “pity” he didn’t introduce himself, for example, at least to later amanuenses such as Fratres Achad & Belarion & Soror Nema, to name three.) And if Aiwass-Shaitan was AC’s own HGA, as he himself often stated, does this mean he would have then been out of contact with his HGA for the whole of that same period? I don’t know about anyone else, but I for one am getting a little “exhausted” of waiting for him to get in touch again, unless AL was meant to be a strictly one-off for the next what – 2,000 years?! – but if not to deliver a fourth or even fifth or sixth chapters, then at least to give an update on things since the transmission of AL – a sort of “things didn’t go quite according to plan with my last scribe and prophet” sort of thing. Or: “Ah, and by the wayest, all the lines about a child/one to come after and suchlike, etc., were a put-on. Deem not too eagerly to catch the promises, and all that guff…”
As far as I can tell, none of these points (whch I have now [since] highlighted in bold type) have ever been addressed since then (or to my limited knowledge, even before), apart from a useful reply to the effect that Aiwass was meant to have communicated, in a more limited fashion, with Elaine Simpson (Soror Fidelis) acting as 'seer' in 1906.
Somehow too late to edit, I meant to say in the following sentence from above:
[... that] I might be in the majority in finding the content of The Riddle of Sebra a bit of a riddle – i.e., rather mystifying?
would you consider it to be a fair assessment if I was to say I thought I might be in the minority in finding the content of The Riddle of Sebra a bit of a riddle – i.e., rather mystifying?
I think I prefer the question phrased this way but to answer this query in a major general way: As the document is "For The Practicus" according to its title page it's possibly written with the attainment model of the A.:A.: in mind. It could then perhaps be viewed from the perspective of the Superior according to that model and thus enlighten. Admittance? Dismissed!
As the document is “For The Practicus” according to its title page it’s possibly written with the attainment model of the A.:A.: in mind.
Ah! of course, that must be what it is --- I can't have evolved or advanced to the level of Practicus yet while the Majority of Lashtal have! You obviously don't have any difficulty with it yourself?
I don't know if it would make a difference at all, but the A.'. A.'. didn't yet exist at the Equinox of the Gods (i.e., in 1904) so perhaps it was just the Golden Dawn?
Ah! of course, that must be what it is — I can’t have evolved or advanced to the level of Practicus yet while the Majority of Lashtal have! You obviously don’t have any difficulty with it yourself?
I don’t know if it would make a difference at all, but the A.’. A.’. didn’t yet exist at the Equinox of the Gods (i.e., in 1904) so perhaps it was just the Golden Dawn?
Personal attainments aside, as Sebra is inscribed "For the Practicus" it's reasonable to suggest an attempt at understanding the narrative of Sebra from the perspective of the Superior, in a system of attainment that would use the term Practicus, might help clarify the text for the reader. The answer was given to help inform personal opinions on Sebra not give those opinions and seemed a fair answer to your question as asked.
Sebra appears to be originally written in 1977.
The answer was given to help inform personal opinions on Sebra not give those opinions and seemed a fair answer to your question as asked.
Yes, thank you for that, mal; as you say, a fair answer. I thought I would give someone else a bit of space to feed back on this thread as well - but it hasn't happened (sob... Apathy United 10, Lashtalk Wanderers, 0.) So, to continue:.
It’s reasonable to suggest an attempt at understanding the narrative of Sebra from the perspective of the Superior, in a system of attainment that would use the term Practicus, might help clarify the text for the reader.
It's just a "minor" point but surely this 'Superior' would then, in effect, be a Philosophus 7=4, would it not - not even on the level of an Adeptus Minor (Within or Without) let alone anyone higher up the Tree (cf. Aiwass = Ipsissimus)?
Earlier I'd asked regarding Frater Philogelos' ((Simon Hinton's) "Liber Omonoia", which he himself assessed to be a "Typhonian Transmission", and whether or not this view was shared by the leadership of the Typhonian O.T.O. / Typhonian Order at the time and since. Surely regular reader and Lashtal contributor Michael (Staley) would therefore be ideally placed to give the "official" verdict & thumbs up/down on this phenomenon and if it is a genune commuunication from Aiwass?
I also was wondering (after a four year period of waiting for an answer of sorts, and as just one out of several similar pertinent queries) whether anyone could answer why it was that if Aiwass was A.C.’s very own Holy Guardian Angel - as he himself continually averred the older he got - why did he therefore shrug when asked at Netherwood about where Aiwass had got to, with the implication that he had been out of contact more or less ever since the first (and only) preter-natural transmission, of The Book of the Law?
It’s just a “minor” point but surely this ‘Superior’ would then, in effect, be a Philosophus 7=4, would it not – not even on the level of an Adeptus Minor (Within or Without) let alone anyone higher up the Tree (cf. Aiwass = Ipsissimus)?
A fair question, without a doubt. To speak for myself, within and in a major way. Are there made exemptions from above? Unknown. Could the contemplation have a developmental effect on the lower grades? Without a doubt goes within? Philosophically, that's a feather and Icarus pushed to the limit. A solid foundation in any mystery school should suffice without a doubt. In the dark is no doubt an eye opener. Outside all or nothing. Then exclude those without a doubt. Total it all to an exempt thought experiment.
Thinking about the idea of Aiwass being a separate entity to Crowley, following one of the earlier statements about Liber Legis' origins.
In the situation that Aiwass is completely separate from Crowley, do you think that it makes valid or lessens the validity of Crowley's commentaries? and his own contributions to building Thelema into what it is?
I think Crowley's Tunis Comment on Liber Al vel Legis (the short comment ) makes a powerful statement and is worth repeating here:-
" Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
Love is the law, love under will.
The priest of the princes,
Crowley was amazed by Liber Al and spent most of the rest of his life trying to understand it. Possibly Liber Al encodes a form of initiation and having read it, one cannot but be impressed with the power of the verses. I think Aiwass was a separate entity from Crowley.
The Tunis Commentary delivers a warning from the Master. Over the years I have seen many people come and go on Lashtal who, having read Liber Al, quote from the Book in attempts to prove their own (usually silly) points. This demeans the Book and in the light of the Tunis Commentary, I keep my understanding and interpretation to myself; however I have traveled to Cairo several times to research aspects of Liber Al and deepen my understanding.
Out of curiosity I have to ask, do you accept the Book of the Law?
Out of curiosity I have to ask, do you accept the Book of the Law?
Accept it as what? A divine transmission from the minister of an Egyptian god? i have much less trouble accepting Aiwass as the author of the Book of the Law than I do accepting Crowley's authority to forbid the study or discussion of it. The Tunis Comment quoted above fails to take into account statements made in the Book about all prophets being true, and that Crowley would never understand the full meaning of the Book, while others would. Crowley's motivation in writing The Comment can be traced back to July of 1923, when upon realizing he could never prove the existence of Aiwass or his authorship of the text, he came to the abrupt conclusion that he should forbid all analytical study of it. In other words, it was a matter of "If I can't prove it, then no one will." After considering the facts of the matter, it's hard to not see that ego and spite pervade The Tunis Comment.
Well that may be true. But the Tunis Comment was written 19 years after the Reception of the Book and one could equally say that having studied it for this length of time, that was Crowley's advice to those who wished to read it. The bit that has always interested me is the advice to read the Book once, and then destroy it.
It looks like he also wanted people to read more of his works. The Book of Lies goes well with Liber Al
frater_anubis: "I think Crowley’s Tunis Comment on Liber Al vel Legis (the short comment ) makes a powerful statement ...".
Crowley signed that comment with the words "The priest of the princes, Ankh-f-n-khonsu”.
And within The Book of the Law, the words "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit (Chapter I, verse 36.).", are preceded by the words "Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat (Chapter I, verse 7.)."
Words like "Abrahadabra; the reward of Ra Hoor Khut (Chapter III, verse 1.)", and words like "There is division hither homeward; there is a word not known. Spelling is defunct; all is not aught. Beware! Hold! Raise the spell of Ra-Hoor-Khuit! (Chapter III, verse 2.)", and words like "... I greet Thy presence, O Ra-Hoor-Khuit! ...(Chapter III, verse 37)", and words like "Abide with me, Ra-Hoor-Khuit! (Chapter III, verse 38)", do also indicate that Ra-Hoor-Khuit and thus "the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit", can also be a presence for, and can also abide with, other persons than the Aleister Crowley who wrote those words.
So, who or what was this entity that delivered Liber Legis to the Prophet during the Cairo Working?
We don't know....yet. Was the reception just some occult-scholar poet in a frenzy jotting down notes as poets do? To the singular materialist well yeah that's all it was. Singular materialism though is not a finality. Those who think it should be are inverse religionists. By doing certain things certain things happen. I like to think that rational human beings can account for the source of measures of contentment/discontent in their inner lives free of dogma or belief. In other words True Will does have some sort of bio-barometer regarding Aiwass and it's/his/her/their delivery of the declaration of Do what thou wilt.
Every time i meet American Mormons in the street who stop me as part of the conversion-"Mission" I can tell that the level of inner peace and strength and resources they have is exceptional or extraordinary so I let them talk on and talk on. Unfortunately when I ask for real solid evidence about their claims....it all comes tumbling down and I'm just talking to some humanoid robot lost in his own web of delusion.
Richard Cole’s Liber Bogus centred on his view that the reception story had been fabricated; only occasionally did Aiwass get a mention
Having had recent direct communication with spirit based entities, I have no trouble believing the crowley was in touch with real beings and wasn't fabricating anything. More likely he simplified it to be more understandable to readers since the experiences can be rather difficult to explain.
People that are not open (aka atheists) generally have trouble experiencing such things themselves because they have closed themselves off to it.
Unfortunately when I ask for real solid evidence about their claims….it all comes tumbling down and I’m just talking to some humanoid robot lost in his own web of delusion.
One of the things iv'e come to understand recently with my "communications" is that all human religions are very limited and disappointing to the creator and his helpers. They have some parts but none have all, due to our own human failings.
And, we humans are obsessed with finding the one right perfect religion and claiming all others are false just like humans form other types of social groups and discriminate others that are not like them (races, gangs etc).
So, for example, those Mormons fervently believe their religion is 100% true and everyone else is mislead and/or wrong, but in truth they have only a fraction of stuff from the beyond and much of it was misinterpreted by fallible humans to the disappointment to the powers above humans.
But I do agree with you that Mormons have a pleasant energy about them.
“One of the things iv’e come to understand recently with my “communications” is that all human religions are very limited and disappointing to the creator and his helpers. “
There are Powers and Principalities that aid humanity; and There are Powers and Principalities that hinder .
The ones that hinder can come in the form of aid and the ones that aid can come in the form of hindrance .
The Father is impotent it’s time for the Child to take the Throne .
Thank Nahash !
Realize your Truth !
The word 'Awasis' means child.
In the first post in this thread frater_anubis wrote: "I would like to start a topic on the nature and identity of Aiwass, who by Crowley’s account dictated Liber Legis in April 1904. [...] who or what was this entity that delivered Liber Legis to the Prophet during the Cairo Working?"
In REPLY #103525 to this thread, I referred to statements within The Book of the Law indicating that the "Ra-Hoor-Khuit" and “the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit” mentioned within that book, can also abide with, and can also be a presence for, other persons than Aleister Crowley.
With respect to the quotes from Crowley's The book of the Law at the end of this post, Aiwass is within it identified as "the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat." This "Hoor-paar-kraat" is later in the same book described as something some "Heru-ra-ha" is called in addition to being called "Ra-Hoor-Khut". Thus it appears that this Aiwass is "the minister" of something that can also be accessed by other individuals than Aleister Crowley:
The book of the Law, Chapter I, verse 7.: "Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat."
The book of the Law, Chapter II, verse 8.: "Who worshipped Heru-pa-kraath have worshipped me; ill, for I am the worshipper."
The book of the Law, Chapter III, verse 35.: "The half of the word of Heru-ra-ha, called Hoor-pa-kraat and Ra-Hoor-Khut."
You referenced parts of AL and the relevant New Comment passages deal with the dual gods Horus and Harpocrates therein. Bluntly put as we cast off the fear of missing out on everlasting life bound to Jesus and his external Father God we are left with our inner most self-selves and their symbiotic links to the solar "energies" of this new aeon.
So Aiwass is "the minister" of one half of our inner most dual self-selves which is ordinarily obscured from the ego. Can the inner most identity have a minister? Does this minister really have to be an entity of some sort? Not really ........and besides who cares? We're just describing a process using anthropomorphic terms.
The etymology of the word minister is generally meant to be some sort of "servant" ;one who carries out a service as in e.g. a household. Similarly the word angel means "messenger" and we know AC's opinions of angels and the like. As follows;
In 'Magick in Theory and Practice' he wrote:
"Let me declare this Work under this title: ‘The obtaining of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel’", because the theory implied in these words is so patently absurd that only simpletons would waste much time in analysing it. It would be accepted as a convention, and no one would incur the grave danger of building a philosophical system upon it.
Well likewise only a simpleton would waste time analysing who or what Aiwass is.
Taking into account your points about definitions of RHK, HPK, Heru-ra-ha, Horus, Ra, Liber Al and Aiwass we're basically describing a process of reception and transmission from a self which is really not separate but is us. So Liber Al was "served" to the prophet of the new aeon for him and all. Getting hung up about who Aiwass was/is is or the like is basically the pits.....isn't it?
Dom: So Aiwass is “the minister” of one half of our inner most dual self-selves which is ordinarily obscured from the ego.
Right. It's called the "unconscious."
Can the inner most identity have a minister?
Yes. He's called the Holy Guardian Angel, the Solar Angel, and the Anima.
Does this minister really have to be an entity of some sort?
No. But some kind of a mechanism or process can be set in motion. For most folks, an entity seems to be the common symbol.
We’re just describing a process.
Not really ……..and besides who cares?
Right answer. Brilliant anal-isis. Poor final conclusion. Almost everybody in this spiritual game cares a lot. They're trying to figure out how to talk to their source, while attempting an escape from mortal humdrum. A few (the "esoteric" guys) who have talked to the minister and then moved on might not care.
Well likewise only a simpleton would waste time analysing who or what Aiwass is.
Your condescension exceeds your humbleness. I believe you have participated with us simpletonian idiotic savants on other threads regarding the Angel. I always wondered what the "S" in S.'.S.'. stood for. Who would ever have thought it means simpleton?
Question from me to Los: "... does “Aiwass” of Thelema represent something certainly existing, or something certainly real?" (Source: My reply #76692 in: Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring --- https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/cleansing-charging-a-new-lapis-lazuli-silver-ring/page/20/#post-76692)
Answer from Los: "“Aiwass” can be read as representing the energy of 418. Hence, he is the “minister” of the Silent Self." (Source: Los' reply #76693 in: Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring --- https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/cleansing-charging-a-new-lapis-lazuli-silver-ring/page/20/#post-76693)
"Follow up question from kidneyhawk to Los: "What? You sound like Kidneyhawk here. “Energy of 418?” “Silent Self?” These descriptions seem to be themselves representations. Metaphors for metaphors?
Could you please define the “Energy of 418” and let us know what evidence there is that such a thing ought to be taken seriously?" (Source: kidneyhawk's reply #76694 in: Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring --- https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/cleansing-charging-a-new-lapis-lazuli-silver-ring/page/20/#post-76694)
Answer from Los to kidneyhawk: "The enumeration of the word Abrahadabra, which expresses 5=6 (5 A’s and 6 consonants), the union of the microcosm and macrocosm. The word (and its number) is a glyph for the fact that the True Self is intertwined inseperably with All (and all-possibility, Nuit). If it were not for the Khu producing the illusion of separateness, this True Self would have no way to experience anything. See Liber Aleph for an examination of the word as a metaphor for certain sex magick techniques.
The True Self, the one that an individual can observe by silencing the conscious mind. The True Self doesn’t speak (in the sense of producing thoughts), it goes. Hence, it’s the silent self.
As noted above, the Silent/True Self is united with Nuit, and hence 418 (Abrahadabra, Aiwass) is a formula for expressing its place in the universe. ..." (Source: Los' reply #76696 in: Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring --- https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/cleansing-charging-a-new-lapis-lazuli-silver-ring/page/21/#post-76696)
Yeah me, Crowley and Los are driving at the same thing there with the Aiwass question. That is, just saying, there is no need to be a simpleton and ask if Aiwass is a leprechaun, an alien with an incredibly long lifespan, an 'Ascended Master' or a Greek god in disguise or the like. I can't really add to what I wrote about it earlier with the inner dualistic "twin-god" self and the etymology of the word 'minister' etc.
Yeah me, Crowley and Los are driving at the same thing there with the Aiwass question.
What an hilarious remark. In the most recent post by wellreadwellbred, Los appears to be talking about the union of the microcosm and the macrocosm (or more correctly, the realization of their identity). There's been no remark from you in this thread which goes remotely in this direction.
WRWB: The True Self, the one that an individual can observe by silencing the conscious mind. The True Self doesn’t speak (in the sense of producing thoughts), it goes. Hence, it’s the silent self.
Hey! You're giving away the innermost secret. You'll have to report, within 24 hours, to the Aero-pagus and take an Oath of Secrecy.
Seriously, you hit the nail right on the (non) head of the whole path and its accompanying circus.
It goes ... via passive intuition or by active wisdom. The key is "non-thought production."
As noted above, the Silent/True Self is united with Nuit, and hence 418 (Abrahadabra, Aiwass) is a formula for expressing its place in the universe.
This [^] is an example of "thought production." It adds words and terms and names and numbers as a further explanation of going without thought.
Los: "As noted above, the Silent/True Self is united with Nuit, and hence 418 (Abrahadabra, Aiwass) is a formula for expressing its place in the universe. …" (Source: Los’ reply #76696 in: Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring — https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/cleansing-charging-a-new-lapis-lazuli-silver-ring/page/21/#post-76696)
Michael Staley: "It doesn’t have “its place in the universe”. It IS the universe." (Source: Michael Staley's reply #76704 in: Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring — https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/cleansing-charging-a-new-lapis-lazuli-silver-ring/page/21/#post-76704)
With respect to Michael Staley's apparent statement in reply to Los, concerning that the Silent/True Self "... doesn’t have “its place in the universe”. It IS the universe.", Los have stated that the term A.’.A.’. understood as "an eternal order", "... is the universe itself ...":
Los: "The term A.’.A.’. is used to refer both to a terrestrial group founded by Aleister Crowley and George Cecil Jones — from which several terrestrial groups today claim to descend — and to an eternal order of which all the terrestrial groups are reflections. This eternal order might be thought of as the “order of things” — that is to say, it is the universe itself, which works according to regular laws that can be studied and learned.
Crowley suggests as much in several places, including the part of the Confessions that gets quoted a lot in these discussions: “Many people may go through the ordeals and attain the degrees of the A.’. A.’. without ever hearing that such an Order exists. The universe is, in fact, busy with nothing else, for the relation of the Order to it is that of the man of science to his subject. He writes CaCl2 + H2SO4 = CaSO4 + 2HCl for his own convenience and that of others, but the operation was always in progress independently.”" (Source: Los’ reply #101006 in: A.’.A.’. in relation to terrestrial groups --- https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/a-a-in-relation-to-terrestrial-groups/#post-101006)
Shiva: "It [= The True Self, the one that an individual can observe by silencing the conscious mind. ] goes … via passive intuition or by active wisdom. The key is “non-thought production.”"
How this Silent/True Self "goes … via passive intuition or by active wisdom.", is apparently aligned with "the flow of the universe". Considering 418 (Abrahadabra, Aiwass) being a formula for expressing the Silent/True Self united with Nuit, and hence its place in the universe, as stated by Los, and that the Silent/True Self "IS the universe.", as apparently stated by Micahel Staley.
What an hilarious remark. In the most recent post by wellreadwellbred, Los appears to be talking about the union of the microcosm and the macrocosm (or more correctly, the realization of their identity). There’s been no remark from you in this thread which goes remotely in this direction.
Wow you really haven't been following the thread properly have you? We're discussing the construct that is Aiwass. No i wasn't talking directly about numerology or microcosm in relation to macrocosm but so what?
Is this point being bought with the flip side of the currency or from the circus side ?
frater_anubis (OP): “I would like to start a topic on the nature and identity of Aiwass, who by Crowley’s account dictated Liber Legis in April 1904. […] who or what was this entity that delivered Liber Legis to the Prophet during the Cairo Working?”
"Crowley made Aiwass coterminous with Ra-Hoor-Khuit/Horus in attributing them both to Kether.
He claims in Liber Samekh that they are the same.
He claims that it took him 16(?) years to realize that RHK is his Angel cloaked in martial symbols.
IAO131" (Source: --- http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2364&start=25)
("Kether: The First "Emanation" of the Absolute. Kether is in Malkuth and Malkuth is in Kether, but after another manner, Malkuth reflects Kether, for that which is above is like that which is below, and that which is below is like that which is above. (Crowley's Little Essays Towards Truth)" (Source: https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Kether )
"Harpocrates is the God of Silence; and this silence has a very special meaning. [...] The first is Kether, the pure Being invented as an aspect of pure Nothing. In his manifestation, he is not One, but Two; he is only One because he is 0." [...]
"I. SILENCE [From Little Essays toward Truth.] [...] For this attitude there is sound traditional authority; Harpocrates, God of Silence, is called “The Lord of Defence and Protection”. [...] this is the Aeon of Horus: it is He who sent forth Aiwass His [= Hoor-paar-kraat's] minister to proclaim its advent. [...]
"XX. THE AEON
In this card it has been necessary to depart completely from the tradition of the cards, in order to carry on that tradition [...] Around the top of the card is the body of Nuith, the star-goddess, who is the category of unlimited possibility; her mate is Hadit, the ubiquitous point-of-view, the only philosophically tenable conception of Reality. He is represented by a globe of fire, representing eternal energy; winged, to show his power of Going. As a result of the marriage of these two, the child Horus is born. He is, however, known under his special name, Heru-ra-ha. A double god; his extroverted form is Ra-hoor-khuit; and his passive or introverted form Hoor-pa kraat. (See above, the Formula of Tetragrammaton). He is also solar in character, and is therefore shown coming forth in golden light." (Source: Crowley's The Book of Thoth, The Atu (Keys or Trumps) --- https://hermetic.com/crowley/book-of-thoth/atu)
" In the Ontology of the New Aeon, whose prime theorem is 0 = 2, Kether exists only as the Child of any Marriage of one particular Hadit with one particular aspect of Nuit. There are thus as many Kethers as there are positive possibilities. More, Kether is not in any case a sole Unity, for each Marriage produces a Twin, [...] There is a positive "Third Being", a Kether; and there is an Ecstasy, or dissolution into Nothing, by the same Event. One is the Magical, the other the Mystical, Result of an Act of Love under Will." (Source: Crowley's The Vision and the Voice, The Cry of the 21st Aethyr, Which is Called ASP, endnote 29. The Vision and the Voice --- http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/418/aetyr21.htm)
WRWB: He [AC] claims that it took him 16(?) years to realize that RHK is his Angel cloaked in martial symbols.
OK. But he al;so stated that the "Angel" idea was outlandish, or absurd, or ridiculous, or some adjective that was posted here on some thread not too long ago. He also associated Aiwass with some Sumerian demon-god.
According to AC, at different times and in different books, that Aiwass was a man, an Ipsissimus, etc, etc.
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 hm (Aiwass) with all sorts of things, people, and archetypes.
He (AC) also said that it was all in his mind/consciousness, and that it simply more convenient to assign all these things to an external entity. This, of course, is acceptable because many people contact (or are contacted by) some part of their unconscious, perceiving that contact as an external or higher entity - without even thinking it's just a part of their Self.
Jamie J Barter: “… logically it follows on that if Aiwass was indeed a kosher Secret Chief who had communicated [...] once there is absolutely no reason why he would not do so again – in fact the opposite is the case, that it seems more unlikely that he shouldn’t…" (Source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/aiwass/page/4/#post-98042)
According to the following quoted from page 172 in Richard Kaczynski’s 2010 published book Perdurabo, The Life of Aleister Crowley, Revised and Expanded Edition, “Liber VII” was “… the first of a series of “Holy Books” that Crowley claimed were dictated by his holy guardian angel, Aiwass.”
Crowley also wrote (source lost in damaged brain cells) that he "had a say" in all the Class A books, but not Liber AL ... that was a completely non-elf, channeled, "automatic writing," dictated experience. Paraphrasing lavishly embellished by Shiva, but it delivers the gist.
So ... he claimed AL was absolutely not the work of himself, but he conjured up a dialog with the author of the first book (probably enhanced an catalyzed by medicinal substances), presenting such dialogs in mystical prose.
As for the nature of Aiwass, this Aiwass appears to be identical with one "V.V.V.V.V. [...] an exalted adept of the rank of Master of the Temple", described in verse 29. and 30. in Liber 61 or Liber vel Causae, written by AC in 1907:
"29. Also one V.V.V.V.V. arose, an exalted adept of the rank of Master of the Temple (or this much He disclosed to the Exempt Adepts) and His utterance is enshrined in the Sacred Writings.
30. Such are Liber Legis [= The Book of the Law], Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, Liber Liberi vel Lapidis Lazuli and such others whose existence may one day be divulged unto you. Beware lest you interpret them either in the Light or in the darkness, for only in L.V.X. may they be understood."
Kaczynski which in his AC biography Perdurabo states that "Liber VII” was “… the first of a series of “Holy Books” that Crowley claimed were dictated by his holy guardian angel, Aiwass.", is a member of the current OTO, and has had access to its archive writing this biography. But I don't know if is the official position of the current OTO that The Book of the Law and all the “Holy Books” of Thelema were dictated by AC's HGA.
"... The Messiah was not Aleister Crowley; despite all his genius, which is undeniable, he was merely the scribe for a greater Adept. Neither does V.V.V.V.V. only represent a motto for Aleister Crowley. Frater Perdurabo, upon attaining to Magister Templi, took a motto with these initials of the A.’.A .’. It would be improper to discuss this matter openly in this place. However, it is essential to understand that V.V.V.V.V. is another Magister entirely, individual and unique, insofar as such terms apply above the Abyss.” (Source: The 2009 edition of J. Daniel Gunther’s book Initiation In The Æon of the Child – The Inward Journey, page 124 and page 125.)
In Liber Porta Lucis sub figura X [“The Book of the Gate of Light under the number 10”], a "Class A" text considered a Holy Book of Thelema, written December 12, 1907, a "V.V.V.V.V." is described "as a ray of my light, as a messenger", sent forth "from the Ages beyond the Ages, from the Space beyond your vision" to "Men and women of the Earth".
This "V.V.V.V.V." appears to represent the Messiah hinted at by J. Daniel Gunther on page 124 and 125 in the 2009 edition of his book Initiation In The Æon of the Child – The Inward Journey.
"Crowley’s descriptions [of Liber Porta Lucis sub figura X]
“This book is an account of the sending forth of the Master by the A∴ A∴ and an explanation of his mission […] X. Porta Lucis, the Gate of Light, is one of the titles of Malkuth, whose number is X.”
—Liber 207: A Syllabus of the Official Instructions of the A∴A∴
“LIBER X. This book is called ‘The Gate of Light’. It explains how those who have attained initiation, taking pity upon the darkness and minuteness of the earth, send forth a messenger to men. The message follows. It is an appeal to those who, being developed beyond the average of their fellows, see fit to take up the Great Work. This Work is then described in general terms with a few hints of its conditions.”
—Confessions, chapter 69" (Source: Quoted from https://iao131.com/commentaries/liber-porta-lucis-sub-figura-x/ - - - written by one IAO131.)
For the third time this morning, over a period of 4 hours, I selected this thread to see what Wellread had said. But each time, I got a page that included only the Reply scenario ... with clearly visible boxes. But no "last post" or any post(s).
So I decided to make a Reply, and this is it, in order to bump the thread into proper page break sensibility.
To read what I have said, drag your browser over the word Thelema, among the words "Home › Forums › Thelema › Thelema › Aiwass" listed to the left on top of this thread. Then click on the word Thelema, and you will under Topic find the topic Aiwass. Then click on number 6 on the pages listed in this topic, to read what I have said at the bottom of that page.
w: As for the nature of Aiwass, this Aiwass appears to be identical with one “V.V.V.V.V.
Yes, I agree. But we must consider any and all such names, titles, and figures to be an emanation of the universal self, witch is generically called Atma by the Hindoos. Thelemically, the term would be "True Self." On that plane, or in that dimension, "there is no difference."
“V.V.V.V.V.” is described “as a ray of my light, as a messenger”, sent forth “from the Ages beyond the Ages
Okay. So Atma sends forth VVVVV - yes, he would be a messenger or a messiah or some other "m-" word.. Yes he displays a cosmic persona (below the Abyss), and that makes him "different" from other messengers, mahachohans, and magi, which tells us all this differentiation is taking place at Chesed or further downstairs.
At the bottom of the stairs, we find the dense physical vehicle called Edward Alexander. All his physical plane letters and publications describe an interaction between Aleister and Atma (A.'.A.'.) at various levels and in different formats.
I see all that. There remains one further "dimension," where the universal Self is seen as a projection of (universal) mind, and thus as an illusion. 61.
As already mentioned, "... Liber Legis [= The Book of the Law], Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, Liber Liberi vel Lapidis Lazuli and such others whose existence may one day be divulged unto you ....", are within Liber 61 or Liber vel Causae, written by AC in 1907, described as "the Sacred Writings", within which V.V.V.V.V.'s "utterance is enshrined".
I wonder if this is the basis for Richard Kaczynski within his Perdurabo, The Life of Aleister Crowley, Revised and Expanded Edition (page 172, 2010 edition), stating that “Liber VII” was “… the first of a series of “Holy Books” that Crowley claimed were dictated by his holy guardian angel, Aiwass.”
AC first published The Book of the Law among other "Class A"-texts (consisting of works that are not to be changed, even to the letter), in 1909 under the title "ΘΕΛΗΜΑ", within the last and third volume of this "ΘΕΛΗΜΑ".
AC did not publish any details about Aiwass dictating The Book of the Law to him, before March 1912 in The Equinox, Volume I, number 7. It appears that AC when he first published it, did not include his claim that The Book of the Law is the only "Class A"-text, he had no part in the authorship of.
Kaczynski is a member of the current OTO, and has had access to its archives writing this biography. But I don’t know if is the official position of the current OTO that The Book of the Law and all the “Holy Books” of Thelema were dictated by AC’s HGA.
Shiva: "I see all that. There remains one further “dimension,” where the universal Self is seen as a projection of (universal) mind, and thus as an illusion. 61."
In An Account of A.·.A.·., in The Equinox, Volume I, Number 1, AC describes V.V.V.V.V. as the Messiah: "This society is in the communion of those who have most capacity for light; they are united in truth, and their Chief is the Light of the World himself, V.V.V.V.V., the One Anointed in Light, the single teacher for the human race, the Way, the Truth, and the Life."
And with respect to AC's just mentioned description of V.V.V.V.V., I do grasp that there is wisdom in comprehending "the universal Self" as an illusion, or any description of "the universal Self" as an illusion, to counteract "Old Aeon" thinking about "the universal Self".
But what is the meaning of the number "61" at the end of your REPLY #113325 in this thread, Shiva? Is it some kind of number magick?
AIN, a Hebrew word meaning 'Nothing', enumerates as 61.
Don't thank me, WRWB; it's nothing.
"Nothing is a seret key ... 61 the Jews call it. I call it 8 (infiniy + other significants), 80 (T+A+O = 80), 418." Says so in the AL scripture.
In An Account of A.·.A.·., in The Equinox, Volume I, Number 1, AC describes V.V.V.V.V. as the Messiah: “This society is in the communion of those who have most capacity for light; they are united in truth, and their Chief is the Light of the World himself, V.V.V.V.V., the One Anointed in Light, the single teacher for the human race, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”
However doesn't V.V.V.V.V. as such an important and leading character seem to rather abruptly disappear and be displaced when the Master Therion (To Mega Therion 9=2) appears on the scene around 1915 in the figure of the Logos of the Aeon?
And with respect to AC’s just mentioned description of V.V.V.V.V., I do grasp that there is wisdom in comprehending “the universal Self” as an illusion, or any description of “the universal Self” as an illusion, to counteract “Old Aeon” thinking about “the universal Self”.
In which case, what is this "Old Aeon" thinking about" the universal Self" and how does it notably differ from "New Aeon" thinking about it?
But what is the meaning of the number “61” at the end of your REPLY #113325 in this thread, Shiva? Is it some kind of number magick?
It's surprising that you're not familiar with this number as Shiva has made reference to it many times and as a regular reader of Lashtal (or even someone with a very basic knowledge of cabbala) you'd have encountered it before? Although "the Jews" call it (Ain) 61, Aiwass himself instead equated it with 8, 80 & 418 (although of course every number is infinite [and/or zero] and there is no difference.)
But I don’t know if is the official position of the current OTO that The Book of the Law and all the “Holy Books” of Thelema were dictated by AC’s HGA.
Probably not, as it would be harder to attribute copyright and intellectual property rights to an airy entity rather than Aleister Crowley, whom they have already collared the rights under probate from the British Inland Revenue. Authorship of The Holy Books of Thelema was also attributed to Crowley when McMurtry published them in 1983 and The Book of the Law had "Crowley" as implied author along the spine of the red leatherette edition which came out in the 1990s.
Probably not, as it would be harder to attribute copyright and intellectual property rights to an airy entity rather than Aleister Crowley
In the runup to the 'Thelema Beyond Crowley' conference of 2004 we were thinking of publishing a centennial edition of The Book of the Law, and consulted the intellectual property experts Finders Stephen Innocent on this very point. They dug up a precedent, when Bligh Blond took to court a medium who had claimed copyright on a text that she had received during work with Bond. The judge said that he could not attribute authorship to "the other side of the river"; the medium had transcribed the material and thus authorship was to be attributed to her.
It would be a similar case with any of the 'Holy Books', I imagine.
Jamie J Barter: “In which case, what is this “Old Aeon” thinking about” the universal Self” and how does it notably differ from “New Aeon” thinking about it?”
“Old Aeon” thinking in the sense of understanding AC’s description of V.V.V.V.V. as a Messiah figure as referring to an actual Messiah, instead of ultimately an illusion.
Jamie J Barter, earlier in this thread you wondered about why Aiwass via The Book of the Law provided only “the one utterance in rather gnomic fashion”.
It appears that Aiwass’ (or V.V.V.V.V.’s) utterance was provided via all of the ‘Holy Books of Thelema’.
Jamie J Barter: “It’s surprising that you’re not familiar with this number …”
Well, I have never cared much for the “gnomic” aspects of The Book of the Law. Aiwass’ (or V.V.V.V.V.’s) capability to provide utterance[-s] repeatedly over many years, bodes well for being capable of also providing less gnomic utterance[-s] in the future.
AC understood “the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel” as “… communication similar to The Book of the Law as to origin, authority and value, each as may be suited to the nature and T[rue] Will of the aspirant or experimenter.” (Source: Norman Mudd, Notes of Conversations with Aleister Crowley concerning the Book of the Law, quoted in The Holy Books of Thelema, Weiser 1985.) The Book of the Law can be understood as communication particularly suited to the nature of AC.