Notifications

Aiwass  

Page 1 / 3
  RSS

frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 199
05/07/2016 9:40 pm  

93 All

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. The recent, detailed discussion of Richard Cole's Liber Bogus centred on his view that the reception story had been fabricated; only occasionally did Aiwass get a mention.

Crowley described Aiwass as a "praeterhuman intelligence" - this description has intrigued me for a long time.

A number of suggestions have been made over the years by various occultists, thelemites and psychologists - Aiwass was one of the Secret Chiefs who manifested to deliver the thelemic Holy Book, Aiwass was an egyptian waiter, coached by Rose to give Crowley's head a spin when he was bombed out on hash or anhalonium during their honeymoon, Aiwass was conjoured to visible appearance by aliens with a message, thus interfering with human evolution, Aiwass was an Egyptian adept who chose Crowley to warn humanity of a coming world war....

Crowley himself considered the possibility that Aiwass originated in his own subconcious, but considered this unlikely - he also dismissed the idea that the Book had been received by the technique of automatic writing. He documents a clear description of the reception of the Book by an entity which materialised in the room. So, who or what was this entity that delivered Liber Legis to the Prophet during the Cairo Working?

93 93/93

Johnny


Quote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
It's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3831
06/07/2016 12:05 pm  

Speculation is always interesting, Johnny. It's my opinion, though, that as an analogy we are like two-dimensional creatures trying to make sense of a third-dimensional.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 3745
06/07/2016 3:01 pm  

"Crowley himself considered the possibility that Aiwass originated in his own subconcious ..."

This is the one that's correct, in my opinion. AC may jave "considered this unlikely," but he never really KNEW, did he?

The said projection from his subconscious/superconscious/unconscious mind may well have overshadowed the waiter/servant.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
It's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3831
06/07/2016 3:40 pm  

I've always considered that a possibility, Shiva. The crucial point for me in all this is the extent of the subconscious. To what extent is it my subconscious, Shiva's subconscious, Crowley's subconscious, and so forth. I think that what we regard as "our" subconscious shades into a deeper subconscious beyond individual identity, and forces can upsurge from this deeper level into "our" subconscious.

This is the sense that Spare references the subconscious in his Book of Pleasure, hence resurgent atavisms.


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 199
06/07/2016 4:28 pm  

Well, i'm not so sure that Aiwass was a - shall we say atavism - from Crowley's subconcious. We know that Rose made changes to the text, apparently where Crowley could'nt write fast enough. This suggests that she may have discussed the text with him and by inference may have overheard Aiwass speaking.

I've heard it said that the text of the Book is written in Crowley's style of writing, but this is a matter of opinion. An old friend of mine once laboriously loaded the text of Crowley's poem Hymn to Pan (which has passages reminicent of Chaper III of Liber Legis), his Leah Sublime and Moonchild into software that could analyse style, grammar etc and compared it to the text of the Book. The result was inconclusive - aparently there were similarities, but the result was by no means certain.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
It's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3831
07/07/2016 12:10 am  

I think you've misunderstood my post. I wasn't suggesting that Aiwass was an atavism from Crowley's subconscious, but rather suggesting that Aiwass came from depths beyond Crowley's subconscious. However, we live in a culture which glorifies individuality and personalities, so perhaps it's no wonder.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 387
08/07/2016 5:12 am  

Aiwass was an egyptian waiter, coached by Rose to give Crowley’s head a spin when he was bombed out on hash or anhalonium during their honeymoon,

To consider that theory a possibility, one must assume Crowley fabricated the reception story, which given the evidence, is far-fetched to say the least.

Aiwass was conjoured to visible appearance by aliens with a message

Imaginative, but also baseless.

Noticeably absent from your list of possibilities is the role of Aiwass defined in the Book of the Law: the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat. Accordingly, the first step in answering your question is to ask who Hoor-paar-kraat is. The fuzzy logic Crowley applied to Hoor-paar-kraat led him to conclude that Harpocrates and Hoor-paar-kraat mean the same thing: Horus the child. The odd thing about the association of the two names is Harpocrates is the Greek rendering of Heru-pa-khered, with the latter meaning Horus-the-child in the Egyptian language. In order to believe the two names share the same meaning, one has to believe that Aiwass took the Greek to English spelling Harpocrates and reverse transliterated the name into the Egyptian language, and then rendered it back into English letters.

The interesting thing about Hoor-paar-kraat is it actually has a specific meaning when treated as a name that originates in the Egyptian language: it means Horus-House-Child: The House of Horus The Child, which is the official title of Hathoor: Hat-Hoor means House-Horus, the House of Horus. If my interpretation of Hoor-paar-kraat is correct, it means Crowley and everyone else is wrong, and Aiwass is the minister of Hathoor.

Crowley himself considered the possibility that Aiwass originated in his own subconcious, but considered this unlikely

I doubt he considered it likely at all considering Aiwass originated in the mind of his wife; it was Rose who was first contacted by Aiwass, and Rose who introduced her husband to Aiwass by revealing his name before the Book of the Law was received. Based on Crowley's account of the events that comprise the Cairo Working, Aiwass has to be more than a subconscious manifestation that exists or existed within the mind of one person.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 3745
08/07/2016 3:51 pm  

As Michael pointed out, there is the potentiality that some entity manifested through AC's subconscious. One should not dismiss the concept of Archetypes. which certainly can appear to be independent beings or forces. Since Archetypes seem to be spread out through the Collective Unconscious (which includes everyone), then something like Aiwass could easily be percieved by both Rose and Aleister ... and any one of us as well. See Jung.

Archetpes appear in dreams, sometimes in normal waking consciousness, and obviously can be "contacted" through the use of libations.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
09/07/2016 1:55 am  

I doubt he considered it likely at all considering Aiwass originated in the mind of his wife; it was Rose who was first contacted by Aiwass, and Rose who introduced her husband to Aiwass by revealing his name before the Book of the Law was received.

Could you please clarify, herupakraath, when & how it was that Rose was first directly contacted by Aiwass, and how & when she introduced her husband to Aiwass by revealing his name before he did so himself in The Book of the Law I:7?
As far as I can recall this "how-do-you-do" seems to have had its origins in "They are waiting for you" - which presumably referred to the nuteru at The Equinox of the Gods rather than to Aiwass himself "by name", personally - and after all, she is not down on record as having said "he is waiting for you"?

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 387
09/07/2016 5:18 am  

From The Equinox of The Gods, Chapter Six:

"Now who, it may be asked, was Aiwass? It is the name given by W. to P. as that of her informant. Also it is the name given as that of the revealer of Liber Legis."


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 199
09/07/2016 8:51 am  

It is interesting to speculate on the mechanism by which elements of Crowley's subconcious may have been projected onto the entity Aiwass during the Cairo Working.

However, it seems clear in the Equinox that Crowley was clearly describing a materialisation - his impression was of Aiwass as having a body composed of "fine matter," which had a gauze-like transparency. Also he "seemed to be a tall, dark man in his thirties, well-knit, active and strong, with the face of a savage king, and eyes veiled lest their gaze should destroy what they saw. The dress was not Arab; it suggested Assyria or Persia, but very vaguely.

Aiwass is said to have spoken - in a voice passionate and hurried - "of deep timbre, musical and expressive, its tones solemn, voluptuous, tender, fierce or aught else as suited the moods of the message. Not bass—perhaps a rich tenor or baritone"

I belive in later life Crowley came to the view that Aiwass was in effect the manifestation of his HGA.
Is that actually the best way to consider the entity of Aiwass?


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
09/07/2016 9:49 am  

From The Equinox of The Gods, Chapter Six:

“Now who, it may be asked, was Aiwass? It is the name given by W. to P. as that of her informant. Also it is the name given as that of the revealer of Liber Legis.”

Ah, so there is something tucked away in the small print! But it doesn't say precisely when it was revealed to W. as her personal informant and as that's all there is that comment is again frustratingly meagre on detail, "defeating very plain purpose." Furthermore its lack of a precise timing means the name could even have been given by her after the event (i.e., April 8th, 1904, so far as is known according to the standard given "reception story") - maybe even as late as the time of her "revisions" to the manuscript.

So herupakraath, although it is conceivable it may have been "Rose who was first contacted by Aiwass" that matter is inconclusive, but as for it also being "Rose who introduced her husband to Aiwass by revealing his name before the Book of the Law was received" there is still no firm evidence for this one way or the other.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 387
09/07/2016 8:19 pm  

Ah, so there is something tucked away in the small print! But it doesn’t say precisely when it was revealed to W. as her personal informant and as that’s all there is that comment is again frustratingly meagre on detail, “defeating very plain purpose.”

Once again from TEOTG, Chapter VII: "Between these dates (March 23rd - April 8), too, my wife must have told me that her informant was not Horus, or Ra-Hoor-Khuit, but a messenger from him, named Aiwass."

I'm curious Jamie, have you read any of the material on this subject?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5312
09/07/2016 8:58 pm  

To be honest, @herupakraath, that's the problem these days, as evidenced by Cole's book. It's not just Jamie who demonstrates a rather appalling lack of knowledge of the handful of basic resources. It seems to me that way too many commentators on Thelema in general do so without putting any effort into the basic research.

It's not as if there are many first-person accounts of the Cairo Working, after all!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 525
10/07/2016 8:24 am  

A supremely interesting topic Anubis! I've considered it from many different angles over the years & what I've got is that he was being honest when it came to Aiwass & his/her/it's message. He just does not fit the profile type when it comes to faking these things & extracting money from fools. Even with his British Intelligence work it still would not make any sense to uphold what he did his entire life. He was making money but not nearly as much as he could have had he merely persisted as an upper middle class Englishman with an eccentric twist. We can think "Well he stole that bit from Rabelais", but he was well aware that others would think that he faked the whole thing so why then choose something so obvious? Even if Liber AL did not exist he would still be considered in the same breath as Eliphas Lévi due to his tremendous insights & personal stamina. Sure not everyone in the GD's good books but a magician to be reckoned with. Allan Bennet would not have taken him on otherwise. AC knew the difference between a projected Entity from the Planetary spheres or something coming from outside that. Yet still he admitted his confusion as to its origin. An extremely rare instance for this know-it-all of a man. Through extension, how then could someone like Kenneth Grant write such works of erudition & passion as his student had AC fraudulently created Aiwass? It's impossible.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
10/07/2016 3:29 pm  

I’m curious Jamie, have you read any of the material on this subject?

OK, I must admit it's a fair few years since I studied TEofG in close detail, so put my "rather appalling lack of knowledge" down to absentmindedness/ incipient old age/ the fact that I don't have a perfect 'Memory Palace', unfortunately. I suppose, as with Homer Simpson, I must have pushed this bit of information out of my limited brain storage capacity & forgotten it in favour of something else - a shopping list, perhaps? Having said that, herupakraath, if we're going to discuss matters of efficiency & human (im)perfection it would have helped clarify the matter considerably more & prevented the need for my further enquiry if you'd bunged your second quotation from TEotG in with or instead of your first.

Assuming that the old rascal's account of it was the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth anyway,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 199
10/07/2016 6:35 pm  

@Jamie J Barter - we have covered the topic of the truth of the reception story in depth elsewhere. If you dont have anything constructive to add to this discussion - which is on the nature of Aiwass - maybe you should read up on the subject before you post?

Aiwass is described as the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat, as Herupakraath points out above. Horus was the egyptian god of the sky and of royal power. If this is right, can we say that Aiwass was sent/conjoured from ancient egypt to deliver Liber Legis to Crowley?

The fact that Horus was a falcon-headed sky god made me wonder about the alien possibility


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
10/07/2016 8:18 pm  

@Jamie J Barter – we have covered the topic of the truth of the reception story in depth elsewhere. If you dont have anything constructive to add to this discussion – which is on the nature of Aiwass – maybe you should read up on the subject before you post?

I wasn't aware that I was covering the truth of the reception story here - as you say, other threads should be available for those wishing to do so. I was simply asking for clarification of details of when it was that Aiwass - this topic title - was first mentioned by name as such, as according to the account - would it be deemed too sensitive to say "story"? - it was from outside of any contact with A.C. himself, which may or may not be a significant factor.

Aiwass is described as the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat, as Herupakraath points out above. Horus was the egyptian god of the sky and of royal power. If this is right, can we say that Aiwass was sent/conjoured from ancient egypt to deliver Liber Legis to Crowley?

Well since you ask, in that case maybe he (Aiwass) was carrying on a dialogue begun with A.C.'s previous incarnation, Ankh-af-na-khonsu?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 890
11/07/2016 5:01 pm  

frater_anubis (July 5, 2016 at 8:40 pm #96644): "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."

frater_anubis (July 9, 2016 at 7:51 am #96672): "It is interesting to speculate on the mechanism by which elements of Crowley’s subconcious may have been projected onto the entity Aiwass during the Cairo Working."

In respect of the nature and identity of Aiwass, who by Crowley’s account dictated The Book of the Law, the following quotes from his The New Comment to the said book, indicate that Crowley’s subconcious or "own Unconscious" was "in alliance with Aiwaz"/Aiwass, during the time he wrote this book. And this is in contradiction of that "... elements of Crowley’s subconcious may have been projected onto the entity Aiwass during the Cairo Working."

Hoor-paar-Kraat or Harpocrates of whom Aiwass is "the minister" according to The Book of the Law, is within the said quotes from Crowley's The New Comment to the said book, also described as "the Secret Self of every man," and as "... almost the "Unconscious" of Freud, unknown, unaccountable, the silent Spirit, blowing "whither it listeth, but thou canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth". It commands with absolute authority when it appears at all, despite conscious reason and judgment."

AL I,2: "The unveiling of the company of heaven." The New Comment [...] The 'company of heaven' is Mankind, and its 'unveiling' is the assertion of the independent godhead of every man and every woman! Further, as Khabs (see verse 8) is "Star", there is a further meaning; this Book is to reveal the Secret Self of a man, i.e. to initiate him."

AL I,7: "Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat." The New Comment "He [Hoor-paar-Kraat or Harpocrates of whom Aiwass is "the minister"] is almost the "Unconscious" of Freud, unknown, unaccountable, the silent Spirit, blowing "whither it listeth, but thou canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth". It commands with absolute authority when it appears at all, despite conscious reason and judgment." [...] "Harpocrates is also the Dwarf-Soul, the Secret Self of every man, the Serpent with the Lion's Head."

AL II,12: "Because of me in Thee which thou knewest not." The New Comment [...] "Aiwaz here explains that his power over me depended upon the fact that Hadit is verily "the core of every star." As is well known, there is a limit to the power of the hypnotist; he cannot overcome the resistance of the Unconscious of his patient. My own Unconscious was thus in alliance with Aiwaz; taken between two fires, my conscious self was paralyzed so long as the pressure lasted. It will be seen later -- verses 61 to 69 -- that my consciousness was ultimately invaded by the Secret Self, and surrendered unconditionally, so that, it proclaimed, loudly and gladly, from its citadel, the victory of its rightful Lord."


ReplyQuote
k4n3
 k4n3
(@k4n3)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 27
12/07/2016 7:48 pm  

My personal belief is that Aiwass was Crowley's HGA, supraconscious (as we would call it in modern psychological terms), his True Self. Crowley's persona was a perfect vehicle for his True Self, Aiwass, to accomplish his purpose. The problem with Aiwass, if we consider him being an Ipsissimus and a Secret Chief, is that he "resides" above the abyss, above the rational conceptions of our minds, so by this very reason it will be hard, if not impossible, to fully Understand the apparently contradictory nature of Crowley's True Self.


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 199
13/07/2016 10:41 pm  

@k4n3 - many have considered that Aiwass was a projection of Crowley's subconcious/supraconcious/id/ego or couched in other psychological terminology. These views seem to me based on a belief that the content of the Book of the Law originated from within Crowley himself.

But taking another angle, that of considering Aiwass as an independent "praeterhuman intelligence" with a message for humanity and separate from Crowley, leads one to consider Aiwass differently. In this scenario, Aiwass was brought to a physical manifestation as the culmination of a lengthy Working involving both the Seer Oarda and her consort. The Seer, in a trance-like state, anounced the time of the appearances and Crowley - intrigued - made himself available at the appointed time and acted as scribe. Only afterwards did they consider the actual content of Liber Al vel Legis, during the Reception itself it is clear that Crowley was focussed on acurately recording the message.

One cannot overestimate the role that Rose Crowley played in the Cairo Working,


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
14/07/2016 3:52 pm  

It does seem possible to very much underestimate Rose, though! For example, when she/ W/ Ouarda made her "corrections" to her husband's manuscript original version of The Book of the Law is the implication that she had some sort of a "hot line" to Aiwass, or more prosaically that she had merely overheard the dictation and had an exceptionally good memory that retained accurate recall of what was said (I don't believe reference has been made elsewhere to this particular gift of hers, but neither can it be discounted as a possibility either) ?

(At a slight tangent, I wonder if there were there any case notes made at the mental institution(s) where Rose was committed and which are still extant, which perhaps may have recorded her detailed memories on the matter during more lucid intervals.)

However if it the former implication is the more accurate, one might query why Aiwass didn't just "dictate" to her as the more efficient conduit of the pair, and why instead there had to be three separate hour long channelling periods imposed (indeed, why did they have to be exactly one hour long and spread over three days and not allow extra time for, for example, a readback which would have prevented these very corrections from needing to be made?)

Does anybody not find it rather curious that Aiwass never seems to have updated his personal communication with Crowley in a similarly direct and immediate fashion again for the remainder of his life, especially if their connection with one another was deemed to be so important ("I am the Master, thou art the Holy Chosen One" - II:65) and indeed Crowley seems to have regarded him in some essentials as being his HGA?

My personal belief is that Aiwass was Crowley’s HGA, supraconscious (as we would call it in modern psychological terms), his True Self.

What is the precise difference between supraconsciousness and superconsciousness - is it just meant to be a matter of "psychological" terminology? I always tended to use the latter term until I was recently corrected by somebody whose opinion I hold in high regard, although he was unable to come up with the reason why at the time and I am presently out of touch to enquire his reasoning further. Maybe somebody else could oblige, as I am sure there will be others reading who must be equally unclear on the distinction?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
16/07/2016 7:29 pm  

@ frater anubis :

In this scenario, Aiwass was brought to a physical manifestation as the culmination of a lengthy Working involving both the Seer Oarda and her consort.

The manifestation of Aiwass was not a physical one, though - as in having the same substantiality or corporality of a human body. Crowley described it as "he seemed to be in a body of 'fine matter', transparent as a veil of gauze, or a cloud of incense-smoke."

Only afterwards did they consider the actual content of Liber Al vel Legis, during the Reception itself it is clear that Crowley was focussed on accurately recording the message.

This was not the case, though, as there were several "breaks" in the transmission, such as the following:

I:4 - "startled my intelligence into revolt" (TEotG, Chapter 7 Part VIII)
I:26 - "The prophet demanding a sign of his mission." (Old Comment.)
Also, illustrates a break in his concentration resulting in the need later to correct the writing "in whiter words".
I:30 "Another doubt must have arisen in my mind..." (TEotG, Chapter 7, Part VIII)
I:33 - "The prophet then demanded instruction: ordeals, ritual, law." (Old Comment);
"I thought to myself 'in this case let us have written instructions as to the technique'" (TEotG, Chapter 7, Part VIII)
I:48 - "My prophet is a fool with his [mindset insistence on thinking] one, one, one"

II:9 - "After [this verse, Hadit] notices my vehement objections to writing statements to which my conscious self was obstinately opposed." (TEotG, Chapter 7 Part VIII)
II:10-13 - "The prophet who wrote this was at this point angrily unwilling to proceed." (Old Comment)
"I remember clearly enough the impulse to refuse to go on, and the fierce resentment at the refusal of my muscles to obey me..." (New Comment)
II:46 - "The prophet was again perplexed and troubled..." (Old Comment)
II:52 - "I must have objected to something..." (TEotG, Chapter 7 Part VIII)
II:53 - "But the prophet again disliked the writing" (Old Comment)
II 61-69 - ending: "The prophet's own consciousness re-awakens." (Old Comment).
II:69 - "I think this is the one passage in the whole book which was not spoken by Aiwaz" (TEotG, Chapter 7 Part VIII)
II:70 - "does not deign to reply to my questions..." (TEotG, Chapter 7 Part VIII)

III:1 - "The omission of the 'i' in thename of the God appears to have alarmed me...." (TEotG, Chapter7, Part VIII)
III.20 - "In answer to some mental 'why' of the prophet, the God gives this sneering answer." (Old Comment)
III:35 - "I seem to have become enthusiastic, for there is a kind of interlude..." (TEotG, Chapter 7, Part VIII)

There may be one or two others I haved missed out which some other Lashtalian may be thoughtful enough to append, but that should be enough to be going on with to illustrate that the above statement is not' clear' at all.

All of this, without mentioning once Cole (- Oh, d'oh!)
‘И ∫ºλ


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 157
16/07/2016 11:34 pm  

"Fine matter", whether the ephemeral density of incense smoke or no, certainly bespeaks of materiality, the measure of which is hardly the human body. Crowley does after all, in the quote you have provided, describe Aiwass' manifestation as a body of fine matter.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
18/07/2016 2:53 pm  

If you look at my first sentence, my reference was to using the human body as a comparative measure in this case, however, because - well, you tell me, what is the alternative - smoke?

The reason I posted it was that any reader coming to this thread not knowing too much about the subject and reading the words in question might be under the (mis)apprehension that a full and solid materialisation into matter was involved, and additionally that on the path of the World lying between Yesod and Malkuth the manifestation would have been nearer the astral former than the fully physical latter (given the event occurred exactly as stated, of course.)

I notice you left the second half of my post unattacked - does that mean *shock emoticon* you actually agree with me there, Arthur?!

N Joy


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 199
21/07/2016 8:43 pm  

@Jamie J Barter - If any newcomer to LashTal reads your posts, I hope it is in the knowlege that you have been banned from posting here for trolling and had your membership deleted. If I had any confidence in your erudition or a belief that you were knowlegeable about matters Thelemic I would respond to some of your posts, pointing out the many errors in what you write, but frankly, I can't be bothered.

You make provocative comments designed to elicit a response such as "I notice you left the second half of my post unattacked – does that mean *shock emoticon* you actually agree with me there, Arthur?!" And Arthur's response was to ignore you, as most of the regulars here do too.

Here's a link to an occult forum site that may be of interest to you http://www.occultforum.org/

You can post your nonsense there as you like


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
22/07/2016 1:12 am  

My, you're touchy.

Cant think what I could have done to offend you personally, either - unless it was just to criticise your assertions that Crowley was focussed on accurately recording Liber Legis and the actual extent of Aiwass' manifestation (fully pointing out & justifying my reasons for doing so to enable you or others to be able to debate or find issue with them, as you will.)

I find the fact that you say you "can't be bothered" to respond to the points I've made - whilst actually then responding to them, in your own way - concerning the points which you've made on a thread topic which you yourself initiated, and on a forum which is open to all Lashtalians - to be LAME in the extreme. It suggests to anyone of discernment that you are quite unable to do so. Likewise, your description of them as "nonsense" and pointing to the "many errors" I apparently made. Like many others I am sure, I am left wondering where they all must be. Or even one of them.

Similarly your attempt to deflect the need for any answer by an erroneous reference to a banning for "trolling". Luckily for you I am not similarly touchy about matters of false accusation, but nowhere has Paul mentioned the banning was for trolling (- but you would be able to give the exact reference where it can be found, I imagine?) As I understand the matter, it was principally over a misunderstanding regarding the source of a solution given for II:76 in another thread for which Paul had the impression I was accusing him of thes erious charge of dishonesty relating to a matter of plagiarisation, but which was never the case. We have since regarded the matter as water under the bridge between us & as civilised grown-ups have managed to move on; you however appear to be stuck in time. Get with it, man - be up-to-date! You know it makes sense...

Furthermore, although you apparently don't want to go to all the bother of addressing my posts yourself, you appear to want to deign to answer & give a response for Arthur as well, in his place? I'm still trying to work that one out, although it does seem to smack a bit of both wanting to have one's cake & eat it.

But "back to topic", as they say:
N Joy


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2119
27/07/2016 7:49 pm  

I am of the opinion that Crowley and Aiwass were two separate entities. Aiwass dictated to Crowley.

However, the possibility does stand as mentioned, that AC and Rose's energy (through ritual etc) created Aiwass, or brought him out of a dormant state somewhere 'inside' or 'in between' Crowley; if this makes sense?

If we view Aiwass as Crowley's HGA, then the previous possibility does make sense. The HGA could be viewed as both a separate entity existing outside of time, outside of the current incarnation, yet part of the 'Whole' entity which was Crowley and also his past and future lives.

What do you all think of that definition of the HGA? Separate yet integrated.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 890
29/07/2016 11:56 am  

frater_anubis (July 5, 2016 at 8:40 pm #96644): “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. [...] Crowley himself considered the possibility that Aiwass originated in his own subconcious …”

In Liber LXI vel Causae (Book 61 or Causes) written by Crowley in 1907, he - referring to himself with the words "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)", (verse 29) - states that "His utterance is enshrined in the Sacred Writings. 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 (verse 29 and 30)."

According to Crowley himself in Liber LXI vel Causae (Book 61 or Causes), "His utterance is enshrined in ..." The Book of the Law and "Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, Liber Liberi vel Lapidis Lazuli ..."

So as for the nature and identity of Aiwass, who by Crowley’s (later) account dictated Liber Legis in April 1904, the said account is predated by Crowley's account in his book from 1907, Liber LXI vel Causae (Book 61 or Causes), according to which "His utterance is enshrined in ..." The Book of the Law, and other "Sacred Writings" like "Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, Liber Liberi vel Lapidis Lazul and such others whose existence may one day be divulged unto you."


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2119
29/07/2016 2:24 pm  

Wellbread,

Through your (always) masterful use of quotes we know now that "His utterance is enshrined in" a bunch of books, but what exactly are you attempting to say? And how does it relate to what Aiwass is?

Perplexed and wary,

Chris


ReplyQuote
Pasqual
(@pasqual)
Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 3
21/08/2016 11:20 am  

To me it is clear that EVERY sentence in Liber Al has a HOLY meaning
'7. Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat.'
is not just a description-it veils important mysteries IMO.

Aiwass is the 7th sphere in the celestial spheres, the most exaltet of the planets, Saturn/Set/Shaitan, possibly Exu/Ea/Osiris, the true benevolent god.

In the Thelemic middle pillar Aiwass belongs to the Tiphareth Sphere, the heart center, the manifestation of the divine spark in humans.

Obviously the Book was dictated to Crowley through Aiwass. We can draw more conslusions from there.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
21/08/2016 6:34 pm  

@Pasqual:

‘7. Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat.’
is not just a description-it veils important mysteries IMO.

IMO the key word in this verse is revealed; which to begin with relates directly (although not immediately obviously) to the coda of Liber Legis which reads: "The Book of the Law is Written and Concealed. Aum. Ha."

Aiwass is the 7th sphere in the celestial spheres, the most exaltet of the planets, Saturn/Set/Shaitan, possibly Exu/Ea/Osiris, the true benevolent god.

Is Saturn/Set/Shaitan the most exalted of the planets? Or Exu/Ea/Osiris the true benevolent god. In what sense though? And could you please tell me where it would say so?

Obviously the Book was dictated to Crowley through Aiwass. We can draw more conslusions from there.

Obviously. Well not obviously enough for me: I wasn't actually there, for thing! So the conclusions that can be drawn are, nebulous at the moment, to carry on with the astronomic and astrologic theme & imagery. (Your statement also depends on what exactly is meant by "through Aiwass" as well - it's not clear (as well as being the subject of this thread!) whether your reference is to some higher part of Crowley's mind. Or some sort of an extra/ultra terrestrial. Or some put-up(on) Bogus confidence-trick, let us not neglect the third option.)

И ∫ºλ


ReplyQuote
Pasqual
(@pasqual)
Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 3
21/08/2016 8:28 pm  

But whoever he was, most Thelemites seem to think that He dictated the Book of the Law.

As this is the 7th verse it is ruled by the number 7 to which some attribute the planet Saturn to who's sphere sometimes gods like Osiris, Dionysos, Set etc. are ascribed.
Crowley somewhere said that Saturn is the highest of the planet as its sphere (Binah) is the topmost of the 7 planets on the Tree of Life.
"benevolent" as in "God of the Golden Age" for mankind.

I personally think that Aiwass is an entity from another planet like the Agrippa or Goetic spirits.


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 199
22/08/2016 5:03 pm  

@Pasqual

A number of people over the years have suggested that Aiwass had an extra-terrestrial origin. Crowley himself called Aiwass a "praeter-human intelligence" which has always intrigued me.

Ive never properly studied the Kabbalah, but I know Crowley did. Many thanks or your interesting reply.

Regards

Johnny


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 199
22/08/2016 7:51 pm  

Here is a link to an article that suggests Crowley may have been an "extra-terrestrial medium" which is an interesting thought in itself:

http://weekinweird.com/2012/12/01/sirius-business-aleister-crowley-extraterrestrial-medium/


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
22/08/2016 9:58 pm  

@Pasqual:

As this is the 7th verse it is ruled by the number 7 to which some attribute the planet Saturn to who’s sphere sometimes gods like Osiris, Dionysos, Set etc. are ascribed.
Crowley somewhere said that Saturn is the highest of the planet as its sphere (Binah) is the topmost of the 7 planets on the Tree of Life.

Ah, now I think I see where you're coming from on this. But the number 7 is more commonly attributed to Venus; 3 is the actual number (sphere, sephiroth) more usually attributed to Saturn. The designation of the gods mentioned is arguable, but ultimately a question of taste. Ditto the belief that Saturn is the most exalted or Osiris the true benevolent deity.

I personally think that Aiwass is an entity from another planet like the Agrippa or Goetic spirits.

This being the case though, it's very odd that 'he' only made the one utterance in rather gnomic fashion, and that for three strictly timed one-hour periods, and has since then never seen fit to come back again to give humanity the further benefits of the communication of his intelligence - partcularly so at this crucial time for the planet?

@frater anubis:

A number of people over the years have suggested that Aiwass had an extra-terrestrial origin.

Including Crowley himself. But see supra.

Crowley himself called Aiwass a “praeter-human intelligence” which has always intrigued me.

'Praeter' simply means 'beyond' or 'more than'.

Ive never properly studied the Kabbalah, but I know Crowley did.

Some say (including Crowley himself) 'tis a lifetimes work. Or even, several lifetimes.

И ∫ºλ


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
It's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3831
23/08/2016 11:55 am  

@jamie

‘Praeter’ simply means ‘beyond’ or ‘more than’.

IIt was clear to me from his post that frater_anubis was declaring himself interested in the concept of praeter-human, rather than the dictionary definition, of which he was probably aware.

Concerning praeter-human intelligence, I've always found intriguing a passage by Crowley from Magick Without Tears, quoted by Grant at the outset of Outer Gateways:

My observation of the Universe convinces me that there are beings of intelligence and power of a far higher quality than anything we can conceive of as human; that they are not necessarily based on the cerebral and nervous structures that we know, and that the one and only chance for mankind to advance as a whole is for individuals to make contact with such Beings.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
23/08/2016 9:23 pm  

IIt was clear to me from his post that frater_anubis was declaring himself interested in the concept of praeter-human, rather than the dictionary definition, of which he was probably aware.

No - you don't think!? And there I was, trying to be so helpful! Perhaps in order to be really unambiguously clear frater anubis ought to have written

"Crowley himself called Aiwass a “praeter-human intelligence”, the concept of which has always intrigued me."?

More importantly though - no further comment on the possible reasons for the (non)reappearance after Crowley's death of the aforementioned apparently bashful 'extraterrestrial'? Are we likely to hear no more from 'him' for the next two thousand-odd years, do you think? (Or if so, when?)

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Pasqual
(@pasqual)
Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 3
27/08/2016 10:43 am  

Interesting article mentioning Aiwass in conjunction with the Sirius mystery:
http://weekinweird.com/2012/12/01/sirius-business-aleister-crowley-extraterrestrial-medium/

Also I believe had once seen a painting of Aiwass by Crowley, but don't seem to be able to find it again. It looed like a daemon spirit (with horns). Anyone know anything about it? THX


ReplyQuote
OMH
 OMH
(@omh)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 7
24/10/2016 7:06 pm  

Pascal you state:

" To me it is clear that EVERY sentence in Liber Al has a HOLY meaning
‘7. Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat.’
is not just a description-it veils important mysteries IMO.
Aiwass is the 7th sphere in the celestial spheres, the most exaltet of the planets, Saturn/Set/Shaitan, possibly Exu/Ea/Osiris, the true benevolent god.
In the Thelemic middle pillar Aiwass belongs to the Tiphareth Sphere, the heart center, the manifestation of the divine spark in humans. "

How do you reconcile a 7th "celestial sphere" with the Tipharetic 6th sphere of QBL? I'm not understanding how you link the one with the other. Besides, isn't Aiwass ID'd as a messenger and personification of his personal HGA, which seems a low function to assign unto an entire celestial sphere. Regards.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 890
25/10/2016 11:48 pm  

Jamie J Barter:

More importantly though – no further comment on the possible reasons for the (non)reappearance after Crowley’s death of the aforementioned apparently bashful ‘extraterrestrial’? Are we likely to hear no more from ‘him’ for the next two thousand-odd years, do you think? (Or if so, when?)

"On January five in the year 1976 c.e. a 21-year-old American in Beaverton, Oregon, James Charles Beck, a.k.a. Jimmi Rocket (1954-2004), took down dictation from a disembodied voice that called itself Aiwass. On the following three days, January 6, 7 and 8, four more chapters of The Book of Codes, Liber 718, were received.

A year later, Aiwass dictated the three short chapters of The Book of Oz, Liber 77, to Jim Beck on January 11 and February 17, 1977.

These three Books together: 220, 718, and 77, are collected under the title Liber 440, The Book of Perfection. Jim Beck also received a short dictation from Aiwass in 1980 entitled Liber 75 vel Luciferi. The Angel clearly indicated that this message was “conversation”, not the scripture of the earlier writing." Source: http://www.aiwass.com/Aiwass_com_Introduction.html

More from Aiwass since 1904; http://www.aiwass.com/ScriptureMain.html


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 890
25/10/2016 11:51 pm  

Jamie J Barter:

More importantly though – no further comment on the possible reasons for the (non)reappearance after Crowley’s death of the aforementioned apparently bashful ‘extraterrestrial’? Are we likely to hear no more from ‘him’ for the next two thousand-odd years, do you think? (Or if so, when?)

"On January five in the year 1976 c.e. a 21-year-old American in Beaverton, Oregon, James Charles Beck, a.k.a. Jimmi Rocket (1954-2004), took down dictation from a disembodied voice that called itself Aiwass. On the following three days, January 6, 7 and 8, four more chapters of The Book of Codes, Liber 718, were received.

A year later, Aiwass dictated the three short chapters of The Book of Oz, Liber 77, to Jim Beck on January 11 and February 17, 1977.

These three Books together: 220, 718, and 77, are collected under the title Liber 440, The Book of Perfection. Jim Beck also received a short dictation from Aiwass in 1980 entitled Liber 75 vel Luciferi. The Angel clearly indicated that this message was “conversation”, not the scripture of the earlier writing." Source: http://www.aiwass.com/Aiwass_com_Introduction.html

More from Aiwass since 1904; http://www.aiwass.com/ScriptureMain.html


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
26/10/2016 12:27 am  

Well fancy!

N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 890
26/10/2016 12:17 pm  

Even more from Aiwass since 1904;

"On July 13th 1997 e.v., I received a direct communication from Aiwass, 418, which formed part one of a short three fold book. This book I later named, Liber Omonoia, 311 (meaning Unity in Greek). Prior to this date I had received a number of short 'written' communications from Aiwass, my Holy Guardian Angel, which had been provided me with vital initiatory information. These were recorded in my magical record for the period."

Source: Simon Hinton; http://hermetic.com/wisdom/omonoia.html


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 890
26/10/2016 12:19 pm  

More on the nature of the said Aiwass;

"Its [The Book of the Law's] author, Shaitan-Aiwass, is a praeter-human Intelligence of supreme power and insight. We must consider ourselves extremely fortunate that His will includes friendship and assistance to mankind. This is of great value. I have further found that with persistence, determination and a heartfelt desire to advance ourselves, it is possible to tune our consciousness to the relevant pitch, and receive direct illumination from such praeter-human intelligences. For me personally, Shaitan-Aiwass has been my close instructive guide and Angel for a myriad incarnations. I have recently had the pleasure of discovering this all over again! We all can. Bon Appetit!"

Source: Simon Hinton; http://www.parareligion.ch/sunrise/simon5.htm


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 387
26/10/2016 6:26 pm  

“On January five in the year 1976 c.e. a 21-year-old American in Beaverton, Oregon, James Charles Beck, a.k.a. Jimmi Rocket (1954-2004), took down dictation from a disembodied voice that called itself Aiwass. On the following three days, January 6, 7 and 8, four more chapters of The Book of Codes, Liber 718, were received.

Having previously read Mr. Rocket's literary contributions, to me they read like drug-fueled gibberish with a few thees, thous, and thines thrown in to make it superficially similar to Liber Legis. Nonetheless, there are those that take his writings seriously, which in itself highlights the dilemma Aleister Crowley faces as an author: without proof Liber Legis is authentic, anyone can imitate it, and those without experience or knowledge in such matters might not understand the difference.


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 199
26/10/2016 9:29 pm  

Ah, surely you can see the difference! A disembodied voice did not deliver Liber Al vel Legis in Cairo in April 1904 - but a "voice of deep timbre, musical and expressive, its tones solemn, voluptuous, tender, fierce or aught else as suited the moods of the message. Not bass — perhaps a rich tenor or baritone"

Crowley could write excellent prose when the occasion justified it. Mr Rocket's contribution would not appear to be of the same standard


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1213
28/10/2016 4:30 am  

@herupakraath :

drug-fueled gibberish with a few thees, thous, and thines thrown in to make it superficially similar to Liber Legis.
I agree. 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? Seems like a right old bandwagon being jumped on, and I totally draw the line at and refuse to accept the idea that a preter/super-human intelligence of the powers which Aiwass is alleged to possess is stuck in such a linguistic time warp that 'he' is incapable of modifying or upgrading his lingo. I wonder if he's particularly partial to Latin too? I'm not suggesting he might get down with it and perhaps adopt some more contemporary form of street patois, but come on, really now...!?

without proof Liber Legis is authentic, anyone can imitate it, and those without experience or knowledge in such matters might not understand the difference.
Unfortunately a lot of right-thinking people cannot help having an initial default reaction of cynicism towards any supposed follow-up communications to Liber Legis, although logically it follows on that if Aiwass was indeed a kosher Secret Chief who had communicated the 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...
Several years ago, I entertained the idea of publishing a book which brought together all of the various claimants to be the 4th chapter or successor to Liber Legis in one place, for the amusement just as much as any scholarship value. (If I ever win the lottery I may decide to revive the project.)

@frater_anubis :

A disembodied voice did not deliver Liber Al vel Legis in Cairo in April 1904 –
Surely it was a disembodied voice, though, in the sense that a human body was not physically involved or present - unless we accept the idea of there being one which was composed of “a body of ‘fine matter’, transparent as a veil of gauze, or a cloud of incense-smoke.” (It's funny, I've the strangest feeling that readers of lashtal with a long memory might possibly recall that I did actually raise a similar point somewhere before...now where on earth could it have been??)

@wellreadwellbred :
Even more from Aiwass since 1904:

“On July 13th 1997 e.v., I received a direct communication from Aiwass, 418, which formed part one of a short three fold book. This book I later named, Liber Omonoia, 311 (meaning Unity in Greek). Prior to this date I had received a number of short ‘written’ communications from Aiwass, my Holy Guardian Angel, which had been provided me with vital initiatory information. These were recorded in my magical record for the period.”
hermetic.com/wisdom/omonoia.html :

[...] In the O.T.O. a strong working lodge (The Lamal Lodge) has recently been established, which I feel prepared the ground for its reception [of Liber Omonoia]. It's interesting to note that when the Lodge was formed, of which I am a member, its purpose was very clearly specified: to make effective and beneficial contact with praetor-human [sic] intelligence and to traffic with wider and deeper ranges of consciousness. [...] As such I consider Liber Omonoia to be a Typhonian Transmission. - Frater Philogelos, 1648. August 1997 e.v.

Are we meant to take it that this "transmission" was (is) therefore apparently endorsed as genuine by the Typhonian Order (or Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis as such)?

Yours whilst getting quite accustomed these days to not receiving answers,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 387
28/10/2016 2:10 pm  

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?

In the case of Liber Legis, its to make the text appear superficially similar to the Bible.

Unfortunately a lot of right-thinking people cannot help having an initial default reaction of cynicism towards any supposed follow-up communications to Liber Legis, although logically it follows on that if Aiwass was indeed a kosher Secret Chief who had communicated the 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…

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. 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.

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 apologize for promising the document earlier, but more evidence was uncovered during the course of finishing it, requiring extensive revisions. The good news is the document is complete, and the process of performing the final editing and proofreading is all but finished. I've decided to release it on Halloween, for it truly is a skeptics' nightmare.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 890
28/10/2016 10:11 pm  

herupakraath:

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. 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.

"[…] [It] is my special business to set people to obtain the K and C of the HGA by such means as I have myself proved valid. By the word “conversation” I understand 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."

(From Norman Mudd, Notes of Conversations with Aleister Crowley concerning the Book of the Law, quoted in The Holy Books of Thelema, Weiser 1985.)


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 3
Share: