Lore talk:Anuiel

Antipode of Sithis

Anuiel is described here as being the primal antipode to Sithis, the aspect of chaos and entropy. Does this suggest that Sithis and Anuiel are opposing aspects that both descend from Anu, the Everything? Perhaps Sithis is the equal of Anuiel, but descended from Padomay instead? If this is the case, I think there needs to be more detail on the Sithis and Padomay pages describing the relation of the two with each other and with Anu. But where does reference to this Anuiel come from? In other places I have seen Anu itself listed as the counterpart to Sithis. Could we get a few sources here? — Unsigned comment by 96.237.232.81 (talk) on 31 December 2010

Most of this can be found in The Monomyth, so if somebody has more skills in editing than me, go ahead an create a reference to it! --Knight 11:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Akha Inclusion

I contest Akha being mentioned on this page as equivalent with Anuiel. According to the Monomyth, Anu-Padomay, Anuiel-Sithis, Satak-Akel are all names for the same dualism. Ahnurr-Fadomai definitely seem to be in this same classification, being Khajiiti readings of Anu-Padomay, as seen with their other almost-but-not-quite spirit names. Putting Anuiel underneath Anu-Padomay conflates two separate mythologies from a source that already calls them equivalent. To then take that interpretation and put it upon Khajiiti mythology is expounding upon original research. Akha doesn't have an opposite, nor does his interaction with his opposite give rise to the universe, further distinguishing him from Anuiel. He should not be listed on this page. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2020 (GMT)

They are the same dualism, yes. However, they are also not the same. Further down The Monomyth is the Altmeri creation story which explicitly puts Anuiel-Sithis underneath Anu. Granted, there is no Padomay, but it is also the only creation myth that includes Sithis. Additionally, it can be argued that Anu and Anuiel are the same being while simultaneously being separate (as Anuiel is the soul of Anu). However, it is also stated in the same text that Auriel is the soul of Anuiel. So by this rationale, Anu/Anuiel/Auriel are all the same being. But also, separate. But I digress, here are my reasonings for why Akha = Anuiel:

Why Ahnurr = Anu

1. The dualism is always stated as Anu-Padomay or Anuiel-Sithis etc. It is NEVER Anu-Sithis or Anuiel-Padomay or Satak-Sithis or any other combination.

2. Ahnurr-Fadomai is one of these dualisms (on this we are in agreement). Occam's razor, "Fadomai" is another spelling for "Padomay" as opposed to "Sithis".

3. Due to #1, if Fadomai is Padomay, then Anhurr must be Anu, and not Anuiel.

Why I placed Akha with Anuiel

Anuiel is the anthropomorphization of the Aurbis created by his interplay with Sithis (Monomyth). Akha "explored the heavens and his trails became the Many Paths" (The Wandering Spirits), which sounds a lot like creation. However, we also know that the "Many Paths" is short for "Many Paths of time" from this NPC in ESO. Time is, of course the sphere of Akatosh/Auriel/Alkosh; this has been clear since Morrowind.

Now, Alkosh has been called the "First Cat" ever since Words of Clan Mother Ahnissi first appeared in Morrowind. But now in ESO, The Wandering Spirits gives that moniker to Akha, and in the next section lists Alkosh without it (this is probably a retcon as Akha didn't exist prior to ESO), but it means Akha's existence clearly precedes that of Alkosh (which is backed up elsewhere). And in any case, Akha can't be Akatosh, because the Time Dragon is Alkosh. And Akha can't be Anu, since he isn't the first being. Therefore, Akha must in between those two, and the only known entity that exists in that slot (besides Sithis) is Anuiel/Aka.

tl;dr, Akha doesn't fit anywhere else. Also, this was apparently the conclusion of whoever listed Akha on Lore:Gods, which is what I was working off of when I added it to Anuiel.

That said, there is always the possibility that Akha is Alkosh, since Akha vanished and then Alkosh showed up and took over all the Time stuff, but I cannot find anything definitive to support this, therefore it must remain speculation.

Finally, let me be clear that I am not opposed to splitting Akha off this page. I would actually prefer to do so. In fact, I'd prefer to split all the culturally distinct versions of the gods into separate pages and then posit who they *may* be analogous to, because as this situation shows, it's not always a nice perfect fit. But, the consensus is currently to place them all on one page, which was the reason for the revert and why I bothered to put Akha on here in the first place.

Many of the Gods pages in lorespace have info that has persisted since the pages were created and is now out of date (or was outright speculative in the first place), and the whole lot of them could use a revamp. Perhaps it's time to draft some new standards and build a consensus? Echo (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2020 (GMT)

Jacksol and I were actually in the 'merge things' camp when it came to Padomay and Sithis a bit ago. Whichever way we go, though, we have to be very careful of speculation. It is only barely speculative to say that Ahnurr and Fadomai giving birth to the universe is the same idea as Anu and Padomay interacting to form the universe. I definitely agree that those are the same concepts.

The issue here is the identity of Anuiel, which really is an issue with the identity of Anu. First, Anuiel represents Order, Stasis. He interacts with Sithis, and that interplay leads to all other things, the Aurbis. We don't see that for Akha. Akha seems responsible for Time, as well as (I presume) dragons and perhaps some other monsters, and then he vanishes and his place is taken by Alkosh. Akha does not seem to represent Aurbis (especially because Aurbis vanishing doesn't fit our stories), nor the primal force of Stasis that interacts with Change to form the Aurbis (since that's already Ahnurr). I'd be inclined to say that Akha and Alkosh are related in a similar way Auriel is related to Akatosh: different perspectives/facets of the same being. Note that Alkosh is supposed to be the 'usurper' to Akha's throne, but the dragons recognize Akatosh/Alkosh as their father. (Which may mean the silent priest is incorrect, or he is making a point about shifting roles).

Anyhow, the core of the issue: Your argument is that Ahnurr = Anu, Alkosh = Auriel/Akatosh, and Akha is in between those two so it must be Anuiel. The issue is that there are two different concepts that share the name Anu, within the Monomyth. Anu of Anu and Padomay is a different entity than Anu of Altmeri belief. Anu and Padomay are opposites that create the universe. In Altmeri belief, Anu has his soul, and his soul Anuiel interacts with its opposite Sithis to create the universe. You cannot equate one Anu to another in these stories. Monomyth makes it clear: "All Tamrielic religions begin the same. Man or mer, things begin with the dualism of Anu and His Other." In Altmeri, they call Anu 'Anuiel' and His Other 'Sithis'. They just confuse things by also having something called Anu in it. Thanks for nothing, MK. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2020 (GMT)

A fair set of points, but is it enough to warrant splitting the pages? Yeah, it probably is.

So who the heck is Akha, then? Its own thing? Alkosh v1.0 is sounding a lot more reasonable after writing it out, but I don't know enough ESO to make a determination either way. Echo (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2020 (GMT)

Technically they're already split! We have an Akha page, and just need to not transclude it. I do think 'Alkosh v1.0' is probably the right take, but I wouldn't claim it's the only possibility. I think that if we can't clearly associate two entitites (like Sheogorath and Sheggorath), then splitting the pages is warranted. Perhaps on Akha's page, connections to Akatosh/Auriel could be mentioned if they are done neutrally. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2020 (GMT)