Talk:Aiwass

Total rewrite
Okay, this thing was to subjective, so I pretty much scrapped it and started over. Please jump in and make any corrections or additions you think are needed. –Frater5 (talk/con) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frater5 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-25T06:46:35 (UTC)

Factual
Is there any factual evidence that there ever existed an Aiwass? I'd like to see sources added in here, for this is suggestion that this is an actual person, or being that exists outside of Crowleys head, and no evidence that it is not. If none can be found, its suggested that it be included that there is either no references outside of Thelema, or simply that Aiwass does not exist outside of Thelema. Zos 05:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the above contention. How can you decide the subjective nature of a occult magickal experience? And how would you assert that a magickal being "exists"? Its a non starter.--Redblossom 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You can make the argument for any number of so called gods or angels. Did they every exist outside someone's head or outside a specific religion? It doesn't make a difference. The subject is notable for being a primary spirit/god/whatever of a recognized religion/movement. Really, argue that it's necessary to include factual evidence Aiwass exists is the same as asking for factual evidence that God exists.207.237.208.153 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article quotes Crowley at length about his supposed "proof" that Aiwass was an independent entity, so some discussion of the evidence for this claim seems warranted. Israel Regardie, in The Eye in the Triangle and his Introduction to The Law is for All, discusses specific reasons why he thought Aiwass was an unconscious expression of Crowley's personality and why the events surrounding the reception of the Book of the Law were not quite as "miraculous" as Crowley let on. Even though discussion of the supposed existence of a magical entity might seem absurd on its face, I think it fitting to present an alternative point of view to Crowley's claims. --Smcg8374 (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this would be fine as long as there's no original research involved. If you can find some citations to support alternative points of view (and I agree, Regardie would be a good source to begin with) have at it. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Regardie's book anymore, if I can get one from the library I'll have a go. In the meantime, it would be great if any other editors who have a copy would be able to contribute something along these lines. --Smcg8374 (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

why the npov tag
^^^^ El hombre de haha 18:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Added just before an AFD nomination. I've removed the tag - David Gerard 12:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

POV statement about Samuel Jacobs
I have deleted the following text from the "Gematria" section on the grounds that it is unsourced and blatantly POV/editorializing:
 * (In fact, Aiwaz is a Jewish Sephardic surname. It is, however, very rare. Only 0.000005% of the population of the United States have this surname. A similar number have the related surname, "Aiwazian." To explain the coincidence of the choice of just this name, albeit with a slightly variant spelling, in the ms. of the Book of the Law and the receipt of a letter from an unknown American named Aiwaz, some 14 years later, who was a also a libertarian and a reader of Crowley's and who gave him the correct Hebrew spelling of Therion, at the very moment when Crowley was trying to work out this spelling, by chance, stretches credulity to the limit and violates all common sense. Did Aiwaz influence Mr. Jacobs unconsciously to write to Crowley to prove his, Aiwaz's, reality, or was Mr. Jacobs himself an incarnation of Crowley's Holy Guardian Angel? The mind boggles. It's a pity no one ever bothered to ask Mr. Jacobs, who died in 1971.)

Violates common sense indeed! Speculation about whether this Mr Jacobs was in fact an incarnation of Aiwass hardly seems appropriate for WP, and neither is using WP to promote a religious agenda. --Smcg8374 (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Anagrams/Themuru
Replaced info on anagram as Crowley asserted they were a part of Qabalah - called Themuru. The information is therefore relevant to the identity of Aiwass.
 * The problem with this sort of thing is that it represents your own original research on the subject. Even if Crowley asserted that creating anagrams is a part of the Qabalah, the fact remains that creating anagrams is highly subjective. One could easily pick out passages at random from the Book and create anagrams willy-nilly. It does not mean that the anagrams so created have any meaning. Even if you believe this particular anagram sheds light on the identity of Aiwass, this is still just your own opinion. As I have mentioned on your talk page, Wikipedia does not allow original research, only material that has been published in reliable sources. Additionally, articles should not give undue weight to fringe theories. Otherwise anyone could present their own pet theories and speculations.--Smcg8374 (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The creation of anagrams in names has been around since Moses. Crowley actually comments on another anagram in the Book of the Law - verse I, 15. To be a valid and self-evident anagram there are certain rules. Firstly - it must be a 'perfect' anagram - using all the letters. Secondly the anagram must convey obvious meaning and not just be a rearrangement of letters into random words. "A Hairiest Net Swims" (for example) made from the same letters is obviously meaningless. Nevertheless, human beings are able to create and find meaningful anagrams within text and the best scientific minds in history have been using anagrams in their work to lay claim to new scientific discoveries or theories. If anagrams were more subjective than the way we see meaning in plain text then The Times cryptic crossword wouldn't have been able to use them for over a hundred years.

I humbly submit that the anagram in verse I,7 is not original research on my part but a self evident perfect anagram put there by the author - Alesiter Crowley. I do not give an opinion on what that means. I do not speculate or theorise. I let the reader draw their own conclusions. It is relevant to the topic, therefore - given that the anagram is self evident, I'm putting it back in because within wiki's criteria the presence of an anagram in a text is not original research. If it were then you would have to remove most of the wiki page on anagrams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dara Allarah (talk • contribs) 10:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've asked an editor to clarify whether anagrams are original research or not - given the disagreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Please_clarify_that_anagrams_are_not_regarded_as_original_research.3F

Dara Allarah (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been a response to the query you posted and the editor who replied has confirmed that this does indeed constitute original research. No one is denying that anagrams have been around a long time or that humans can create them. This is simply beside the point. You have provided no evidence that this anagram was deliberately placed there by Crowley or that he was even aware of it. Therefore, you cannot verify your claim that this particular anagram actually is what you claim it to be, that is, a valid part of the book created by the author, rather than your own discovery.--Smcg8374 (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The subject is yet to reach consensus on the help pages, and another editor has stated that the anagram has intrinsic verifiability (thus - not original research). There is circumstantial evidence to suggest Crowley was aware of the anagrams in the book and that he created them. 1) Crowley refers to anagrams in the text in his commentary - specifically 1,15.  2)  Crowley also provides pictorial proof that he was aware of an anagram in III, 47. 'Then this line' of the text "Then this line drawn is a key" is an anagram of 'the nine hilts'. When we examine the hilts drawn on the 9 of swords in his Thoth tarot deck we find they are identical whereas in the other cards they are dissimilar (sometimes only in tiny ways such as the weave on the hilts). 3)  Crowley states in his commentary to the Book of the Law that "A "minister" is one who performs a service, in this case evidently that of revealing."  He doesn't refer to Aiwass as a minister again in any later work.  Its a hint.  4) Crowley writes in his original commentary on verse 1,7 - "7. Aiwass -- see Introduction. He is 78, Mezla, the "influence" from the Highest Crown, and the number of cards in the Tarot, Rota, the all-embracing Wheel." You will note that Tarot and Rota are well known anagrams, and this qabalah draws attention to that. Also what's he saying? To quote Lewis Carroll (a favourite author of his and skilled anagrammist) 'You're nothing but a pack of cards!' A quote that Crowley uses in the end at the end of his introduction in 'Confessions', actually. 5) The Book of the Law is not a straight text, but is filled with anagrams, qabalah, ciphers, riddles, and other puzzles both numerical and literary.  These have been put there deliberately by the Author.  This point has notability as it not controversial.

As I say - this is circumstantial evidence but as it is also 'original research' then I don't present it in the main article. But as you asked for evidence that Crowley was aware of the anagrams in the text then there it is.

Please wait for consensus before you decide the matter has been answered please! Dara Allarah (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is clearly original research. The analysis in question has NEVER appeared in any work by Crowley, nor in any major critical work by any legitimate source. Therefore it is clearly original research. If no good third-party citations can be found to verify a statement, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, no matter what it is. You have been pointed at WP:NOR on several occasions yet still refuse to take notice of it, instead peddling your own pet theory (and a very unimportant one at that) tirelessly over several pages dealing with Thelema. If it becoming dangerously close to vandalism. Please stop it. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This matter has been referred to the help desk and other editors have expressed the view that an anagram is intrinsically verifyible (just as a mathematical statement is) and the question of not a matter of Original Research but of Notability - so the question becomes whether a cogent anagram that is of cogenticity to 2 issues of notability - both in the sense of the dictation and the matter of the book being stuffed with anagrams, ciphers, qabalah of all 3 kinds, riddles and other puzzles.


 * In any case - when my book on the Temple is published this sort of thing will become mute, so you're only fighting a rear guard delaying action at best. But again - let's wait for consensus from the help desk.  Please don't accuse me of vandalism when I make good faith edits and don't assume you know anything about my research and the evidence I have to back it up until you've actually read my work. OK? Thank you.   Dara Allarah (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since your book (by your own admission) is the only one that contains this research AND has not yet even been published, I think you've just confirmed that this IS original research. QED. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You mean.... unlike your books that are just a rehash of other peoples research? Ah... yes.  I think we can agree on that, and it is tiresome.  lol.  However - I wasn't justifying the edit on the basis of my OR.  See above.  Dara Allarah (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Help Desk consesus was overwhelming that the inclusion of this anagram was original research. Regardless of how cogent the anagram appears, it is not recognized by the primary text nor any of the other sources that appear on this page. Either produce a source or move on. Livewireo (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why so sirius
I am not an expert but did not Aleister Crowley draw several portraits or depictions of the beings he saw. Should we not include that Aiwass is thought to be of the Lam? The physical appearance is shared, except the 'dark man' statement. Most notably, they are both referred to as a type of angel/god. Now other than himself, his noteworthy student is one of the best sources we can use. It can go under the alternative views section like in comparative mythology articles. Some website articles by reliable authors to consider from worst to best,, ,. So just a thought, thanks.130.182.26.179 (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed rune mention
I removed the following since there were no references and it was pure original research "There seems no etymological connection between the name "Aiwass" and the name of the futhorc rune Eihwaz which derives from the Proto-Germanic word for "yew". While Crowley placed no emphasis upon Nordic mythology, it is suggestive that the rune Eihwaz is sometimes associated with the World-tree Yggdrasil, which, imagined as an ash in Norse mythology, may formerly have been a yew or an oak." Bunnyman78 (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Confusion?
Not to be confused with AEW&C.

Say what?? 24.51.217.118 (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * When asked who really was the author of Liber AL vel Legis, he could truthfully reply,"I was!" Nuttyskin (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Channeling
There is no evidence that Aiwass channeled The Book of the Law through Rose Kelly and wondering why the article states this as fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrpheusVVV (talk • contribs) 00:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We call them 'sources'. In this case Gillavry 2014, Hayward 2017 & Tully 2010, cited at the end of the sentence you question? Do you dispute that these sources say this? Do you have reliable sources which dispute this? Can you provide a survey article which lists any 'alternative theories'? Skyerise (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * courtesy ping
 * All three sources failed verification for the claim that Kelly channeled Aiwass. Gillivray merely states that she worked with him on the ritual, and Hayward and Tully clearly state that it was Crowley who heard the voice. (my emphasis)
 * Gillavry 2014, page 39: "the ritual Crowley and Rose conducted in Egypt"
 * Hayward 2017, page 137: "Working with his wife, Rose, in their honeymoon flat in Cairo, he was able to invoke Aiwass, a spiritual emissary of the ancient Egyptian god, Horus. This demonic entity dictated a series of scripts to Crowley that would become the cornerstone of his system of Thelemic Magick and herald the beginning of a new magical age."
 * Tully 2010, section "The Book of the Law": "During the first week of April Crowley had been preparing to follow Rose’s instructions for a ritual that involved entering the room they had assigned as the ‘temple’ exactly at noon, writing down what he heard for the space of one hour, and rising exactly at one o’clock on three consecutive days. This he did on April 8th, 9th and 10th, during which he clairaudiently heard and transcribed a voice belonging to a being called Aiwass who described himself as ‘the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat’.114 This otherworldly communication session would become known as the ‘Cairo Working’ and the three one-hour dictation instalments would become the basis for The Book of the Law.115"
 * Therefore, I have removed the contested claim for lacking support from sources per WP:CHALLENGE. That means if you want to reintroduce it, the onus is on you not only to cite a reliable source that clearly states that Kelly channeled Aiwass, but also to analyze WP:DUE weight, as this would mean that we have reliable sources contradicting each other. And yes, that would belong in the article body, not the lead.
 * Finally, please don't WP:BITE the newbie. This edit should not have been a revert, but instead should have moved sourced and relevant text into the article body. is clearly editing constructively to the best of their ability, and the treatment they experienced here is not in keeping with a collegial atmosphere, IMO. Paradoctor (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you say so. But I don't have to clean up after them. If they can't paragraph and source their work and keep the lead a summary, I will continue to revert them. I've told them where they can find a mentor. Skyerise (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course you are not obliged to do clean up, for anyone. You are also not obligated to educate newcomers. But reverting valid contributions over formatting issues is not an acceptable alternative. You always have the option to let someone else do the fixing if you don't feel like it, that's entirely up to you. Paradoctor (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have a word with Kwamikagami (see edit history of Enochian), then. He edit-warred to revert every piece of work I did on that article for weeks. When I took it to ANI, I was told that when two editors dispute, any previous editor of the article may repeatedly revert any other single editor — because when two editors are tangling, there is no WP:CONSENSUS for change — until a third editor steps in and participates in the discussion, and therefore any changes by new editors may be reverted repeatedly as long as one doesn't violate 3RR. I was told that the burden of establishing a consensus for change falls on the editor wanting to make that change, and that any single editor can block those changes indefinitely until the incoming editor can show consensus for those changes on the article talk page. If ANI allows that reasoning to be used against me, a long-established editor, I feel fully entitled to use the same reasoning here. Skyerise (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)a
 * You wouldn't have to happen a link to the ANI case? I'd like to read that for myself. Paradoctor (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, found the three them:
 * Paradoctor (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I checked, and your claim failed verification. I suggest being scrupulous in justifying your reverts from actual policy and verifiable facts, because, based on your reasoning above, I expect you will get in hot water if you don't. Paradoctor (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Paradoctor (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I checked, and your claim failed verification. I suggest being scrupulous in justifying your reverts from actual policy and verifiable facts, because, based on your reasoning above, I expect you will get in hot water if you don't. Paradoctor (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer Comment
I just closed this case on the DRN because there hasn't been enough discussion to justify a case. If this cannot be solved in the next 3-4 days- you are welcome to re-file the case- HOWEVER- the way things are going, I don't think that you three will make it that far- so please, let me offer you some advice. , review WP:SOURCING for a guide of how to properly cite information you are adding into an article. Once its cited correctly- you should have no problem getting consensus for your edits. At this point, however- your edits have been challenged so you do have to get consensus on the talk page before editing the article. Thats how this collaboarative environment works. See WP:BOLD. , I understand you have had issues with other editors on other pages reverting and battling with you over changes you want- but you are now doing the same thing to another editor you didn't like being done to you. You are flirting with WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BITE. Might I suggest you back up, and discuss the edits and help the new editor learn how to properly source their edit instead of just arguing that they arn't editing correctly? No- you are not obligated to educate or clean up after newbies- but we were all new once. And sometimes educating the newbie is both easier and kinder than bashing your head against a wall fighting them. Just my two cents- take it for what its worth. But- if you both continue arguing and not trying to work together- not only will the article not improve, you will end up at the ANI or blocked / tbanned. No one wants that. So please- work together and find a solution. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Uhh, you might want to try that again. You're confusing me with . And I should point out that the edit by OrpheusVVV I was talking to Skyerise about did cite sources. Paradoctor (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry You are correct, I put the wrong user. Also, While Opreus is citing sources now- a good review of WP sourcing guidelines will help ensure they are reliable and formatted correctly and remove that avenue of protest from users like Skyerise- leaving nothing but content for users to discuss.  Nightenbelle (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)