Author Topic: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?  (Read 2008 times)

Xepera maSet

Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« on: December 15, 2017, 10:02:29 pm »
I am looking for whatever I can on Crowley stating that Aiwass was, more or less, the Prince of Darkness. I know that most followers tend to never mention these, and I only remember learning about it in Levenda's "The Dark Lord".
AKA: Three Scarabs, 1137


The stars don't tell the future, Donkey.
They tell stories.
- Shrek

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2017, 10:47:46 pm »
Here ya go:


From Magick in Theory and Practice:

"’The Devil’ is, historically, the God of any people that one personally dislikes. This has led to so much confusion of thought that THE BEAST 666 has preferred to let names stand as they are, and to proclaim simply that AIWAZ, the solar-phallic-hermetic ‘Lucifer,’ is His own Holy Guardian Angel, and ‘The Devil’ SATAN or HADIT, the Supreme Soul behind RA-HOOR-KHUIT the Sun, the Lord of our particular unit of the Starry Universe. This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade ‘Know Thyself!’ and taught Initiation. He is ‘the Devil’ of the Book of Thoth, and His emblem is BAPHOMET, the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of arcane perfection. The number of His Atu is XV, which is Yod He, the Monogram of the Eternal, the Father one with the Mother, the Virgin Seed one with all-containing Space. He is therefore Life, and Love. But moreover his letter is Ayin, the Eye; he is Light, and his Zodiacal image is Capricornus, that leaping goat whose attribute is Liberty.”

From The Magical Record of the Beast 666 (Crowley's diaries from 1914-1920):

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

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

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

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

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

“Let me end my Comment on The Book of the Law; may Aiwaz, since He spake it, put to my mouth a trumpet, mighty in silver, that shall awake all peoples. And let me work High Magick, work with my Scarlet Woman as She may ordain it. Aiwaz, I whisper Thee, make Thou my wine at all times with Earth’s vigour, strong, fierce with Sun’s flame, magnetic with Moon’s witchery, its serpents many and shining as the Stars! May it suffice Her Graal, that yet hath known no plummet! So let Her drink, and the World drink! All men confess Her power, live by Her breath, their thought, Our Lord the Devil's their Word, the Word Thelema, spoken of me The Beast.”

“I invoked Aiwaz, was shown a phantasm of Baphomet, and suddenly determined to recognize this for Him!”

Also, just for fun, ya know that famous quote where Crowley said this?: “I was not content to believe in a personal Devil and serve him, in the ordinary sense of the word. I wanted to get hold of him personally and become his chief of staff.” Ya know, he never, ever said he DIDN'T eventually succeed in doing exactly that. Seeing as how he saw those three days in 1904 when he got in touch with Aiwaz as the crowning moment of his life, when he was officially declared the prophet of a New Aeon by Aiwaz, and he considered Aiwaz to be identical with the Devil . . . I mean, seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I wrote a little article detailing how and why I have no problem considering Crowley a Satanist in some capacity, and I go into all his Satan-stuff pretty thoroughly. Ya might enjoy it: http://satanicwitchcraft93.blogspot.com/p/aleister-crowleys-satanism.html
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 11:03:11 pm by Frater V.I.M. »
"If somebody were to say ‘well, do you worship Set?’ YES. And what is Set? It is the collective phenomena of conscious existence and self-awareness. And yes we worship that. It is a wonderful, magnificent, beautiful thing.” - Dr. Aquino

Xepera maSet

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2017, 11:00:25 pm »
Hell yes, thank you. I was actually going to PM you this question but figured everyone would be interested!
AKA: Three Scarabs, 1137


The stars don't tell the future, Donkey.
They tell stories.
- Shrek

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2017, 11:06:12 pm »
Also, while this bit from his diaries doesn't explicitly say the word "Devil" or "Satan" in connection to Aiwaz like the above quotes did, it's still a tantalizing passage illustrating the almost stereotypical "Demonic" nature of Aiwaz, even in His visual appearance, and figured it would be worth sharing too:

“I ask her [Leah Hirsig] to invoke Aiwaz . . . I ask for proof of identity. She sees a hand, black, pointed nails, jewels on fingers. (This corresponds with my vision of Him.)”
"If somebody were to say ‘well, do you worship Set?’ YES. And what is Set? It is the collective phenomena of conscious existence and self-awareness. And yes we worship that. It is a wonderful, magnificent, beautiful thing.” - Dr. Aquino

NEMO 93

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2017, 01:26:19 am »
Doesn't the Diabolicon or some Setian Document state that Set was Horus? I think there's more to it and Leviathan claims to have be speaking through all of the Book of the Law in something which would mean Aiwass.

Peter J. Carrol speculates that Aiwass is Crowley's personal Nyarlhotep leading him astray.
"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2017, 01:50:32 am »
Doesn't the Diabolicon or some Setian Document state that Set was Horus?

You're thinking of The Book of Coming Forth by Night, where Set talks about HarWer (Horus the Elder) being his other Self. The Diabolicon is written entirely through the lens of Judaeo-Christian imagery and doesn't utilize any Egyptian iconography, not even "Set."

But besides that, Crowley himself identified Horus with Set as well:

"This child Horus is a twin, two in one. Horus and Harpocrates are one, and they are also one with Set." - The Equinox of the Gods

Also, even in ancient Egypt, in the pre-Osirian mythos, Horus and Set were sometimes portrayed as one being with two heads:

https://i.gyazo.com/caf3eb9d0ff92fc62053f27a3fc59052.png

https://i.gyazo.com/8a2c783e29cb98d97f82d3b66e8db00f.png
"If somebody were to say ‘well, do you worship Set?’ YES. And what is Set? It is the collective phenomena of conscious existence and self-awareness. And yes we worship that. It is a wonderful, magnificent, beautiful thing.” - Dr. Aquino

Mindmaster

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2017, 04:25:12 am »
I am looking for whatever I can on Crowley stating that Aiwass was, more or less, the Prince of Darkness. I know that most followers tend to never mention these, and I only remember learning about it in Levenda's "The Dark Lord".

Satan isn't even Satan really, more like the Horned God who competed with the popular sun god who got demonized. :D

Anyway,  I'm sure he'd have been tickled pink if that was that case. Shit disturber, et al. Basically, where I get with all this is that it is mere speculation by people either jealous of Crowley, or an attempt to discredit him. I find it easy enough to discredit Crowley's Aiwass without demonizing him into the Christian Devil, because I think anyone that "attempts becomes Jesus" is a joke in the first place. As if the gods aren't immediately accessible to any earnest petition... :D

Crowley wasn't beyond bullshitting though, and while there are many comments that seem to allude to this I feel they are much bullshit as him being some kind of prophet. :D
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 04:30:57 am by Mindmaster »

NEMO 93

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2017, 05:09:46 am »
@Mindmaster Crowley never attempted to become Jesus, in any sense of the word. He was still a complicated person even after his experiences.

Unless you mean his cult of personaity he attributed, which I would argue anyone who has access to the press and art and *doesn't use* it to achieve self deification is either not truly dedicated to self-deification or has some kind of ethical hang-up that hinders the LHP.

Who do you thinks more immortal? The hermit monk, or loner alchemest, who found enlightenment in the field or James Dean, or Elvis Presley?
"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2017, 06:11:01 am »
. . . it is mere speculation by people either jealous of Crowley, or an attempt to discredit him.

Identifying Aiwaz with "the Devil" and "Satan" is not even remotely "speculation" on the part of people trying to discredit anything. The identification was made in no uncertain terms by Crowley himself. Repeatedly. Crowley's judgement of the Devil, and his moral character, is of course radically different than that of Xianity. But he all the same admits it is the same personality hated by Xians. In this, Crowley is on the same page as Aquino, a man who also firmly affirms his allegiance to Satan as a literal entity but without any need to accept the Xian evaluation of said entity, or accept Xian theology. If one wants to disagree with Crowley's identification, or think it's silly, that's of course anyone's right. But denying that Crowley even made the identification at all is to flat-out ignore the man's own statements on the issue.

It is RHP hucksters such as Hymenaeus Beta, Lon Milo DuQuette, Israel Regardie, etc. too afraid to turn in their "good guy badges" who are guilty of white-washing Crowley to hell and back. It's a shame they've done such a marvelous job of it too.
"If somebody were to say ‘well, do you worship Set?’ YES. And what is Set? It is the collective phenomena of conscious existence and self-awareness. And yes we worship that. It is a wonderful, magnificent, beautiful thing.” - Dr. Aquino

NEMO 93

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2017, 07:53:59 am »
@Frater V.I.M.

Does Hymenaeus Beta a right-hand path phiosophy? I'd be incredibly surprised with his former music career, and slightly disapointed as a fan of Coil.

The others are obvious from their writings but I honestly don't know anything about Beta's beliefs.
"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2017, 04:09:50 pm »
Hymenaeus Beta, as the head of the "Caliphate" OTO, has a vested interested in doing all he can to maintain Thelema's watered-down, white-washed modern image. He's the guy who initiated Lon Milo DuQuette into the OTO, and is a firm supporter of Lon's writings and interpretations of Thelema. So if you find Lon's take on Crowley and Thelema at all distasteful, then you'll also find Beta's to be equally palatable.

In Beta's introduction to the current edition of Book 4, he goes on a laughably desperate rant trying his damnedest to reassure the reader that Crowley had nothing to do with the Devil, and that anytime Crowley talked about Satan he just couldn't have meant the Devil. He even goes as far as to say: "Crowley nowhere says that Satan dictated The Book of the Law," which is a bold-faced lie. He knows that Crowley directly identified Aiwaz with "Satan." Going by Beta's logic, it's apparent that Samuel Clemens couldn't have written The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, because everyone knows it lists "Mark Twain" on the title page.

He also, like Lon and others, latches onto Crowley's statement in Magick in Theory and Practice that "The Devil does not exist," citing it as Crowley "stressing" that he doesn't even believe in "the Devil." But of course, this is also insane, because he knows damn well what the footnote to that very line says. All he has to do is glance down to the bottom of the same page that line is from: "’The Devil’ is, historically, the God of any people that one personally dislikes. This has led to so much confusion of thought that THE BEAST 666 has preferred to let names stand as they are, and to proclaim simply that AIWAZ, the solar-phallic-hermetic ‘Lucifer,’ is His own Holy Guardian Angel, and ‘The Devil’ SATAN or HADIT, the Supreme Soul behind RA-HOOR-KHUIT the Sun, the Lord of our particular unit of the Starry Universe. This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of our race . . ."

The footnote makes it plainly obvious that by saying "the Devil does not exist," Crowley was only asserting that the popular Xian notion of the Devil as a negative figure hostile to man and life  "doesn't exist." But of course, Beta doesn't even MENTION the footnote or its contents in his introduction. I suppose it's not "good policy" to remind people that not only did Crowley identify Satan with the name Aiwaz, but also with "Hadit" and as the "Supreme Soul" behind "Ra-Hoor-Khuit." The implications of such identifications are all too clear to anyone not allergic to Diabolism. Also, probably worst of all to people like Beta, Crowley had to frame his identification of his Satan as letting "names stand as they are" in light of the "confusion" caused by the history of the terms. In other words, he was stating that yes, he's using the terms "Satan," "Lucifer," and "Devil" together in their MODERN meaning, letting the words "stand as they ARE," and not giving a shit if it bothers people. This simply won't do for Beta, Lon, or anyone else in a leadership or teacher position in the OTO. It would hurt their book sales too much to affirm such a "blasphemous" idea as Crowley affirming his allegiance to the "Devil."

On the one hand, Beta is desperate they we don't look at the footnote to the "Devil does not exist" line, and urges us to accept what the main text says without reference to the footnote at all. However, he seems equally desperate that we make sure we DO look at the footnote to the infamous "A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim" in the same volume, so as to not make a horrible mistake in what Crowley meant. And of course, it IS vitally important to view that footnote for the evidence that Crowley didn't mean that. But why is it only important to Beta to see the footnote for the latter, while on the contrary the footnote to the former could, and should, be ignored? The answer is obvious: Beta has a vested interest in maintaining that Satan has nothing to do with Thelema.

But, I suppose it could be POSSIBLE that deep down Beta is not as allergic to all that stuff as it seems. MAYBE he doesn't really believe the more or less Buddhism-in-Egyptian-Garb take on Thelema as championed by his current OTO. But, if that's the case, he, unlike Crowley, hasn't left many hints to let us know. He instead goes above and beyond duty when it comes to white-washing Crowley's legacy.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 04:15:58 pm by Frater V.I.M. »
"If somebody were to say ‘well, do you worship Set?’ YES. And what is Set? It is the collective phenomena of conscious existence and self-awareness. And yes we worship that. It is a wonderful, magnificent, beautiful thing.” - Dr. Aquino

Mindmaster

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2017, 05:38:02 pm »
. . . it is mere speculation by people either jealous of Crowley, or an attempt to discredit him.

Identifying Aiwaz with "the Devil" and "Satan" is not even remotely "speculation" on the part of people trying to discredit anything. The identification was made in no uncertain terms by Crowley himself. Repeatedly. Crowley's judgement of the Devil, and his moral character, is of course radically different than that of Xianity. But he all the same admits it is the same personality hated by Xians. In this, Crowley is on the same page as Aquino, a man who also firmly affirms his allegiance to Satan as a literal entity but without any need to accept the Xian evaluation of said entity, or accept Xian theology. If one wants to disagree with Crowley's identification, or think it's silly, that's of course anyone's right. But denying that Crowley even made the identification at all is to flat-out ignore the man's own statements on the issue.

It is RHP hucksters such as Hymenaeus Beta, Lon Milo DuQuette, Israel Regardie, etc. too afraid to turn in their "good guy badges" who are guilty of white-washing Crowley to hell and back. It's a shame they've done such a marvelous job of it too.

To be honest, I simply feel most of Crowley's statements on the matter are hyperbole. :D Also, a surprising number of these OTO guys are actually Christians or Jews... Which explains a lot of other things. :)

Personally, I don't care about their white-washing if it pleases them - the powers that actually be are available to anyone who seeks them. At best, it would serve only to deceive and dupe others -
 something we both can probably agree is no problem for these organizations that believe in dirty little secrets and blinds. Someone else's interpretation is basically irrelevant, even Crowley's, since anyone can simply keep working toward the 'source' of powers that interest them and experience it themselves in time. I think it's more dishonest really that they have made themselves the only true clergy even though the modern "OTO" has no direct lineage to Crowley because it IMPLODED. :D Yet, they still prance around acting as though they do... I find it amusing...




NEMO 93

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2017, 07:32:23 pm »
@Frater V.I.M. I don't find DuQuette THAT bad. He's got some interesting opinions even if he's more RHP. I never got the impression he's trying to put his words in the mouth of Crowley, just add his take to it.

Can't say I'm a big fan of those introductions and stuff that you mentioned from Beta. Maybe it's just PR so they can keep selling books without too much controversy?

@Mindmaster I agree with this sentiment. There are a lot of Thelemic organizations around. I did a bit of research and while OTO seems to have been the most legitimate, it seems the least desirable to join for multiple reasons. Their "dues" process is a fucking joke as well.
"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2017, 08:18:34 pm »
It's not so much that Lon tries to put words directly into Crowley's mouth. It's more that Lon bends over backwards to downplay the Satanic elements in Crowley's writing, and sometimes outright lies or distorts certain facts about Crowley's practice.

For example, he claims that Crowley didn't practice animal sacrifice as a part of his system. This is a lie. He admits to Crowley's crucifying a frog, but tries to lessen the importance of why and when by suggesting he flippantly did it as a tongue-in-cheek passion-play before preparing the frog for his dinner while out camping. In reality, the frog was crucified during one of the more significant personal initiations in Crowley's magical career: it was the central act upon his assuming the grade of Magus. In the same source, Lon claims that the only other time Crowley partook in animal sacrifice was indirectly, when he paid for a goat to be slaughtered at a Hindu temple. Lon conveniently ignores the time Crowley tried to get that goat to screw his Scarlet Woman before slashing the goat's throat. (The goat failed to perform the sex act, but it was slaughtered regardless.) This was called by Crowley a "Seth Ceremony." Lon is not ignorant of this ceremony. He's too well-read to not know exactly what happened. He simply lies.

But probably the goofiest, and hardest attempt Lon makes to bullshit about Crowley's links to Satan is his hilarious "explanation" of the inverted pentagrams in Crowley's revision of the LBRP known as "Liber V vel Reguli." Lon goes on a long string of gibberish about how in that ritual, one is supposed to be astrally standing upside-down, thereby making the inverted pentagrams ACTUALLY right-side-up! It all sounds convincing enough to folks who really don't want those pentagrams to be how Crowley drew them. Of course, he hopes the reader doesn't notice that Crowley specifically refers to these pentagrams blazing around the celebrant as "My Father's Face," and we all know which pentagram traditionally makes a face . . . and what sort of face it is. It damn sure isn't the upright one.

Edit: Forgot to add this part a minute ago, but, speaking of Liber V vel Reguli, the ritual in question that Lon works over-time to excuse as being not-Satanic, after one forms the pentagrams, the magician declares "Above me the powers of ShT! Below me the powers of ShT!" And in Crowley's note to the ritual, he makes some pretty interesting explanations as to what "ShT" entails. Guys like Don Webb and Kenneth Grant have had no problem at all recognizing that he means ShaiTain, SaTan, SeT.

Of course, some people still deny that the formula “ShT” in Crowley’s writings is a direct reference to Satan at all. However, there are three key phrases that Crowley puts in quotes in his discussion of the formula, but doesn’t mention what he’s quoting:

“ShT is the formula of this particular Æon . . . Sh is Fire as T is Force; conjoined they express Ra-Hoor-Khuit. . . . Sh is the Holy Spirit as a ‘tongue of fire’ manifest in triplicity, and is the child of Set-Isis as their logos or Word . . . But T is the Holy Spirit in action as a ‘ROARING LION’ or as ‘THE OLD SERPENT’ instead of an ‘ANGEL OF LIGHT.’ The twins of Set-Isis, harlot and beast, are busy with that sodomitic and incestuous lust which is the traditional formula for producing demi-gods . . .” - Liber V vel Reguli

Would you like to know the sources of those quotes?

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a ROARING LION, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” - 1 Peter 5:8

“And the great dragon was cast out, that OLD SERPENT, called the Devil, and Satan.” - Revelations 12:9

“Satan himself is transformed into an ANGEL OF LIGHT.” - 2 Corinthians 11:14

Nah, obviously had NOTHING to do with the Devil. Nope.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 08:49:01 pm by Frater V.I.M. »
"If somebody were to say ‘well, do you worship Set?’ YES. And what is Set? It is the collective phenomena of conscious existence and self-awareness. And yes we worship that. It is a wonderful, magnificent, beautiful thing.” - Dr. Aquino

NEMO 93

Re: Any and All Resources on the Idea of "Aiwass = Satan"?
« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2017, 06:52:39 pm »
The Barbarous words in Liber Samekh/Bornless One/Headless Rite translates to be very satanic oriented. Crowley used this for everything from communicating with his HGA to a preliminary invocation for the Goetia.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib800.htm


AR-O-GO-GO-RU-ABRAO   "Thou spiritual Sun! Satan, Thou Eye, Thou Lust! Cry aloud! Cry aloud! Whirl the Wheel, O my Father, O Satan, O Sun!"
SOTOU   "Thou, the Saviour!"
MUDORIO   "Silence! Give me Thy Secret!"
PhALARThAO   "Give me suck, Thou Phallus, Thou Sun!"
OOO   "Satan, thou Eye, thou Lust!" Satan, thou Eye, thou Lust! Satan, thou Eye, thou Lust!
AEPE   "Thou self-caused, self-determined, exalted, Most High!"


MA   "O Mother! O Truth!"
BARRAIO   "Thou Mass!" 1
IOEL   "Hail, Thou that art!"
KOThA   "Thou hollow one!"
AThOR-e-BAL-O   "Thou Goddess of Beauty and Love, whom Satan, beholding, desireth!"
ABRAFT   "The Fathers, male-female, desire Thee!"


"The Eye! Satan, my Lord! The Lust of the goat!"


Now this word SABAF, being by number Three score and Ten 2, is a name of Ayin, the Eye, and the Devil our Lord, and the Goat of Mendes. He is the Lord of the Sabbath of the Adepts, and is Satan, therefore also the Sun, whose number of Magick is 666, the seal of His servant the BEAST.

But again SA is 61, AIN, the Naught of Nuith; BA means go, for Hadit; and F is their Son the Sun who is Ra-Hoor-Khuit
"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley