Aiwass


Aiwass is the name given to a voice that English occultist Aleister Crowley claimed to have heard on April 8, 9, and 10 in 1904. Crowley claimed that this voice, which he considered originated with a non-corporeal intelligence, dictated The Book of the Law to him.

The dictation

According to Crowley, Aiwass first appeared during the Three Days of the writing of Liber al vel Legis. His first and only identification as such is in Chapter I: "Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat".
Hoor-paar-kraat is more commonly referred to by the Greek transliteration Harpocrates, meaning "Horus the Child", whom Crowley considered to be the central deity within the Thelemic cosmology. However, Harpocrates also represents the Higher Self, the Holy Guardian Angel.
Crowley described the encounter in detail in The Equinox of the Gods, saying:
In the later-written Liber 418, the voice of the 8th Aethyr says "my name is called Aiwass," and "in The Book of the Law did I write the secrets of truth that are like unto a star and a snake and a sword." Crowley says this later manifestation took the form of a pyramid of light.

Identity

Crowley went to great pains to argue that Aiwass was an objectively separate being from himself, possessing far more knowledge than he or any other human could possibly have. He wrote "no forger could have prepared so complex a set of numerical and literal puzzles". As Crowley writes in his Confessions: "I was bound to admit that Aiwass had shown a knowledge of the Cabbala immeasurably superior to my own" and "We are forced to conclude that the author of The Book of the Law is an intelligence both alien and superior to myself, yet acquainted with my inmost secrets; and, most important point of all, that this intelligence is discarnate." Finally, this excerpt :
However, Crowley also spoke of Aiwass in symbolic terms. In The Law Is for All, he goes on at length in comparison to various other deities and spiritual concepts, but most especially to The Fool. For example, he writes of Aiwass: "In his absolute innocence and ignorance he is The Fool; he is the Saviour, being the Son who shall trample on the crocodiles and tigers, and avenge his father Osiris. Thus we see him as the Great Fool of Celtic legend, the Pure Fool of Act I of Parsifal, and, generally speaking, the insane person whose words have always been taken for oracles."
Perhaps more importantly, Crowley later identified Aiwass as his own personal Holy Guardian Angel and more. Again from Equinox of the Gods: "I now incline to believe that Aiwass is not only the God once held holy in Sumer, and mine own Guardian Angel, but also a man as I am, insofar as He uses a human body to make His magical link with Mankind, whom He loves, and that He is thus an Ipsissimus, the Head of the A∴A∴"
Yet even while eventually identifying Aiwass as his Holy Guardian Angel, Crowley still went to even greater lengths in his later years to insist that Aiwass was an objective entity apart from himself, even going as far as to declare in no uncertain terms that the Holy Guardian Angel is not only entirely objective, but is also not to be confused with the "Higher Self," as in his final work, Magick Without Tears: "The Holy Guardian Angel is not the 'Higher Self' but an Objective individual.... He is not, let me say with emphasis, a mere abstraction from yourself; and that is why I have insisted rather heavily that the term 'Higher Self' implies 'a damnable heresy and a dangerous delusion'.... If it were not so, there would be no point in The Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage."
In Magick in Theory and Practice, Aiwass is firmly identified by Crowley as "The Devil," "Satan," and "Lucifer," whose "emblem is Baphomet." This assertion is made while Crowley is discussing "The Devil." After explaining that "The Devil" does not exist, he goes on to clarify his statements by explaining that "The Devil" is in reality a label for the God of any people that one dislikes, and this fact has led to so much "confusion of thought" on the subject that Crowley prefers to "let names stand as they are, and to proclaim simply that AIWAZ, the solar-phallic-hermetic ‘Lucifer,’ is His own Holy Guardian Angel, and ‘The Devil’ SATAN or HADIT, the Supreme Soul behind RA-HOOR-KHUIT the Sun, the Lord of our particular unit of the Starry Universe. This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade ‘Know Thyself!’ and taught Initiation. He is ‘the Devil’ of the Book of Thoth, and His emblem is BAPHOMET, the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of arcane perfection."

Alternative views

A number of authors have expressed the view that Aiwass was most likely an unconscious manifestation of Crowley's personality. Occultist Israel Regardie argued for this view in his Crowley biography, The Eye in the Triangle, and considered that The Book of the Law was a "colossal wish fulfillment" on Crowley's part. Regardie noted that in 1906 Crowley wrote: "It has struck me – in connection with reading Blake that Aiwass, etc. 'Force and Fire' is the very thing I lack. My 'conscience' is really an obstacle and a delusion, being a survival of heredity and education." Regardie argued that because Crowley felt that his Fundamentalist upbringing instilled him in an overly rigid conscience, when he rebelled against Christianity “he must have yearned for qualities and characteristics diametrically opposed to his own. In The Book of the Law the wish is fulfilled.” Charles R. Cammell, author of Aleister Crowley: The Man, the Mage, the Poet also wrote that The Book of the Law was "in part an emanation from Crowley's
unconscious mind I can believe; for it bears a likeness to his own Daemonic personality." Journalist Sarah Veale has also argued that Aiwass was an externalised part of Crowley's psyche and in support of this view quotes Crowley himself as saying:
A number of authors such as Israel Regardie, Sarah Veale, and academic Joshua Gunn have argued that the stylistic similarities between The Book of the Law and Crowley's other writings are evidence that Crowley rather than a discarnate entity was the sole source of the book.
Occultist Michael Aquino of the Temple of Set also believed on esoteric grounds that Aiwass was probably "a subjective idealization of Crowley's own personality". Aquino based this assertion on the fact that Aiwass identifies himself as "minister of Hoor-pa-kraat". In the view of the Temple of Set, Hoor-pa-kraat, also known as "Harpokrates" or Horus the Younger, is considered to be "the later Osirian corruption of the Great Horus" also known as Horus the Elder. Aquino does not believe in the objective existence of Hoor-pa-kraat, hence he considers the objective authenticity of Aiwass "doubtful" although he did consider The Book an "inspired utterance".

Gematria

Crowley, being the Qabalist that he was, labored to discover Aiwass's number within the system of gematria. Initially he believed that it was 78: "I had decided on AIVAS = 78, the number of Mezla, the influence from the highest unity, and therefore suitable enough as the title of a messenger from Him." After receiving a letter from a stranger, the typographer and publisher Samuel A. Jacobs, and whose Hebrew name was Shmuel bar Aiwaz bie Yackou de Sherabad, Crowley asked the Hebrew spelling of Aiwaz. To Crowley's astonishment and delight, it was OIVZ, which equated to 93, the number of Thelema itself, and "also that of the Lost Word of freemasonry, which I had re-discovered". Crowley remained perplexed, though, since the spelling of the name in AL was "Aiwass" not "AIVAS", which does not add up to 93. However, when Crowley decided to use the Greek Qabalah, he discovered that
According to Israel Regardie, a certain "Qabalist of tremendous knowledge" would have discovered a Hebrew spelling that enumerates to 418 were he aware that Tav is pronounced /s/ when without a dagesh: