Conference hydra::dejavu

It is a Black Magic bible and I wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole.

steve

How about elaborating on that - do you know of any incidents resulting from
it, or do you have any further knowledge on the book itself ?

				Jamie.

All I know is that when I thumbed through it once and read bits and pieces 
I got the impression that it was conceived in evil and I put it down never
to touch again.  In other words I felt that it did not come in the light
of Christ.  This was a feeling I got and I generally go by my feelings.

zy
                                         steve

The _original_ NECRONOMICON was a thoroughly fictional book invented out of
whole cloth by the author H. P. Lovecraft, and was mentioned in a lot of his
horror/supernatural stories and books (the so-called Chtulu Mythos).  It was
so famous as a non-real book that booksellers werebesieged with requests for
it.

	As might well be imagined, when there's a demand for something, some-
one tries to satisfy the demand.  Thus, an anynonymoue version was published,
first in paberpack, then in hardcover.

	With that background:  The figures, spells, and rituals in this
quasi-NECRONOMICON are based on somewhat questionable forms of Ceremonial
Magic and are, if not black, certainly something not to be fooled around
with by anyone with the slightest trace of psychic ability.

	My suggestion: leave it alone unless you're an expert.  If you are
already knowledgable in these areas, compare it wih more standard rituals
and you'll see the traps in it.

	In short, I don't reccommend it.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

A short addendum to .4:

	The basic "beings" in this pseudo-grimoire are rough analogs to the
Assyro-Babylonian pantheon; some of the sigils presented seem derived in-
directly from the _Legemeton_.  As I say, it's nothing to fool around with
casually, or even seriously unless you know considerably more than what's
presented in the book.  I reiterate: it's better stayed-away from.

	The name Lovecraft gave the original (mythical) nbook, roughly
translates as "the image of the Name of Death."  Not a very cheery title.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

I went out and bought this book (in paperback) because I had read some
of the Lovecraft stuff and wondered what they would put in such a book.
I glanced through it, but have never done much else with it.

Are you cautioning me to aviod TRYING the rituals until I KNOW what I am
doing (or never)? Or are you cautioning me to throw the book out in the
trash?

Nervously,
DDA


P.S. Lovecraft said something about "even owning a copy would cause
things (One would assume bad) to happen"...

    Re: .6
    
    I also own a copy of the book and have skimmed through it.  I would
    NEVER TRY any of the rituals in that book under any circumstances.
    The ones I have read are VERY DANGEROUS.
    
    What Lovecraft said "Even owning a copy would cause things to happen".
    seems to be a gross exageration.  Suppose, say an illiterate person
    happened to get a copy.  Do you really think it would do him any
    harm?  This sounds like talismanic magic to me.
    
    My advice would be to keep it and read it if you want.  If you had
    a book titled "1001 ways to commit suicide" you might read it out
    of curiosity but certainly wouldn't try any of them!
    
    /Kathleen

    Remember that the fictional Necronomicon that Lovecraft
refers to is not the one you can buy.  Thus, the caveat about
owning it wouldn't apply.
		<_Jym_>

    re .5, .6, .7:
    
    It is correct that the "real" _Necronomicon_ is fiction, so whatever
    Lovecraft wrote about it is "as real": i.e., os okay for his stories,
    but not outside them. :-)
    
    However, the book _titled_ by that name, available in hardcover
    and paperback, which I also own, is really an amalgam of fairly
    dangerous rites even for an expert in ceremonial magic, much less
    someone who may have Talent but who is not trained.  A lot of the
    stuff was derived from Assyro-Babylonian rites, and neither culture
    was known for its gentility (e.g., the biblical Moloch).
    
    An expert juggler can get away with juggling bottles of nitroglycerine
    -- if he or she were foolish enough to do so -- and of course, even
    experts can slip.  The same's true with the rituals in this 
    quasi-_Necronomicon_: an expert using lots of discipline and counters
    could conceivably use the presented rituals, but experts slip, upon
    occasion.  To the novice in either case, it's hardly a good idea.
    
    I've often wondered what motivated people to create this book and
    publish it.  Outside of the sheer profit motive, which could equally
    have been done with a book of nonsense words.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    Speaking as someone with some experience in ritual magick, I cannot
    see much use in the rituals of The Necronomicon.  Why would anyone
    attempt to perform them other than for the element of curiosity?
    It is my personal opinion that rituals performed for no purpose
    other than curiosity are likely a) to simply not work, or b) be
    dangerous in the extreme.  I would hope that anyone performing the
    Necronomicon rituals for curiosity's sake would get no results!
    (And fear that instead they would be dangerous!)
    
    Re:  books that it is dangerous to own:  Is anyone familiar with
    the "King In Yellow" mythos?  The King In Yellow was another fictional
    book which allegedly drove any reader insane.  I believe the works
    referring to The King In Yellow (much to my embarassment, I have
    forgotten the author's name) predated Lovecraft's work, and he may
    have borrowed from this work to create the idea of The Necronomicon
    in the same ways that he borrowed from Lord Dunsany.  Perhaps the
    King In Yellow deserves a note of it's own?
    
    Rita
    
    

    re .10:
    
    _The King In Yellow_ was the name of a collection of short stories,
    several of which involved a book of that name.  The author was Robert
    Chambers.  Some of his stories, while dated, are still very effective.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr
    

    UNfortunately - for all of us - a relatively recent installment
    of the New Twilight Zone was a dramatization of Lovecraft's story
    about that very book of necromancy (title mercifilly excised here).
    Almost immediately after, I was visited by a thoroughly noxious
    little 'biker' who demanded I sell him a copy; evidently he'd also
    seen the same program. The irony is that the necromancer in the
    dramatization is turned into a cancerous growth before a class
    of students during a lightning-storm. This alone must have drawn
    the biker to its presumed power. He wanted some of the lightning.
    White light plus high-voltage = noxious energy. 
    
    
    -Boleslaw
    

    Re .12:
    
    >UNfortunately - for all of us - a relatively recent installment
    >of the New Twilight Zone was a dramatization of Lovecraft's story
    >about that very book of necromancy (title mercifilly excised here).
     
    _Which_ story?  It must have appeared in at least a dozen?  Lovecraft
    invented the book, after all....
    
    Also, he encouraged his friends among authors to refer to it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .12
    
    This sounds like a short bit which appeared many years ago on Rod
    Serlings Night Gallery.  It was meant to be humerous (actually in
    a gruesom way it was).  It was about a professor who gave a lecture
    to his class on superstition.  He illustrated the stupidity of such
    superstition by showing that nothing would happen if he recited
    an incantation to the Old Gods from the Necronomicon (which, by
    the way, despite its title was *not* supposed to be a book of
    necromancy -- foretelling the future by calling up the dead).  As
    was said, he turned into a large, still mocking, fungus.  The thunder
    storm seemed to be a side effect of the spell, rather than the source
    of its power.  The joke is old, but was well done.  Actually the
    funniest part, for those who were "in" for it, was the names of
    his students, Mr. Lovecraft, Mr. Bloch, etc.  The story was not
    written by Lovecraft, rather it used his invented mythos.
    
    					Topher

	The statement made about a "biker" requesting a copy of the
	book is interesting to me.  A couple of weeks ago I was browsing
	in a bookstore and a couple of "bikers" (classic models... dressed
	in black leather, torn tee-shirts, many tattoos, chains, etc.)
	came in *very* interested in "playing around" with ceremonial magic.

	The owner tried to talk them out of the idea, but they ended up
	with some Golden Dawn stuff and a copy of Crowley's "Magick in Theory
	and Practice".  I remember thinking that this was in the same context
	as giving some kids a box of blasting caps to play with.

	It still bothers me when I think about it.

    RE: .15
    
    Uhm...forgive me if I'm being dense, but why the concern about bikers,
    as opposed to anyone else? Presumably, J. Random Yuppie in the tank
    top, shorts, docksiders would evoke the same feelings if s/he were
    interested in "playing around" with ceremonial magic. Yes? 
    
    --DE
    

    RE: .16
    
>    Uhm...forgive me if I'm being dense, but why the concern about bikers,
>    as opposed to anyone else? 


It wasn't concern so much about the "bikers" (though the two of them had
an extremely belligerent attitude)... I would be bothered by *anyone* who
was just playing around with evocation as a "party game".

It was in reference to note 46.12 and the "noxious little 'biker'"... I didn't
mean to imply anything... the comment just brought the memory vividly back. 

My apologies if I offended anybody.

						-- Mike

    As the writer of .12 I'll herewith call your attention to the 'biker'
    being in single-quotes, meaning 'so-called' in common-use. Now,
    that chappie wore jeans, had a bandana, had minor chains on
    & whisked himself in the door coming off a smallish motorcyle.
    
    This style of dress is not the Hollywood Image of the leather-biker
    who is a brigand-of-the highway, going back to Brando in THE
    WILD BUNCH, Kenneth Anger in SCORPIO RISING (an L.A. documentary),
    but rather more the satirical image of the biker in RAISING ARIZONA,
    in very oily cutoff jeans, bearing sawed-off shotguns, grenades
    ninja-throwing knives, etc. (He's defeated by the weak protagonist.)
                                                                  
    What concerned me in writing the note was that that chap imagined 
    the book actually exists and that it was a handbook for empowerment.
    I had only heard of it myself a few days before in that installment
    what I gather was an old Rod Serling satire now running on cable
    TV. What was a satire to those in-the-know was an advertizement
    for empowerment via necromancy to that chap who was demonstrably
    very short-tempered that the bookstore didn't have the book exactly
    when he wanted it. Power and entitlement were written all over him:
    their lack, that is. He was shopping for power; he felt entitled.
    
    If he had asked for IN SEARCH OF EXCELLENCE he'd have been a Yuppie
    dressed in minor-'biker' attire. If he had asked for ZEN & THE ART
    OF MOTORCYLE MAINTENANCE he might have been a tech-writer like its
    author.  But he asked for (book the subject of this conference.)
    
    -Boleslaw
      

    
    Could somebody please tell me what necromancy is.  I think somebody
    said that it is telling the future by calling up the dead?  And
    you're telling me this book is available at your every day bookstore?
    I'm not really clear on what this book is all about, but I can't
    say I'd ever pick up a copy.
    
    

    Re .19:
    
    The first few notes go into the _Necronomicon_; however, a quick
    precis: the writer H. P. Lovecraft wrote a series of stories that
    involved, among other things, a book supposedly writted by a "mad
    Arab," Abdul Alhrezed (I believe) called _The Necronomicon_.  The
    book, which was fictional, was in part akin to a book of spells,
    whereby powerful supernatural entities could be called up.
    
    Some years ago, someone created a pseudo-_Necronomicon_, which can
    be found in paperback in some bookstores.  This book bears little
    relationship to the fictional work (besides title), though the author
    tries to make a case for it.  The pseudo-_Necronomicon_ is actually
    a collection of spells and incantations for various Assyro-Babylonian
    supernatural entities of significant power.  The book can be very
    dangerous in the hands of someone with the Talent, and especially
    so for a "dabbler."  I most emphatically do _not_ suggest anyone
    try the spells (the experienced Adept wouldn't; the inexperienced
    person might get more than he or she bargained for; if the
    inexperienced dabbler were lucky, she or he woiuld get nothing).
    
    Technically, "necromancy" is indeed telling the future by calling
    up spirits of the dead (presuming they know more about it than the
    living do); however, popular usage has made "necromancy" mean about
    the same as "black magic," meaning magic used for evil purposes
    [some popular usage has "black magic" mean the same as "magic,"
    but that's another story].  Some have corrupted the term to
    "nigromancy" to mean "black magic," but it's a distinction lost
    on most ["...mancy" meand "divination by means of," such as
    "cartomancy" meaning "divination by means of cards (as in Tarot)].
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .18,.19
    
    I should add that books devoted to many forms of ceremonial magic
    -- necromanic, shamanistic, demonic, etc. -- have been easily available
    since the last century and not too hard to obtain in the late 17th
    century.  Frankly, they are, I think, rather less dangerous than
    a gun.  Most of the books are nonesense by *any* coherent system
    of magic.  For those which remain, few people have enough Talent
    to use them without training.  For those few with a lot of raw talent
    I doubt if there are many (if any at all) who can do much more than
    hurt themselves.  Those who recieve training and have learned the
    necessary discipline, would not have much trouble getting these
    sources through less public channels, for good or ill.
    
    This most certainly does *not* mean that I think dabbling is harmless.
    If you don't know what you are doing you will either waste your
    time or endanger yourself.
    
    					Topher

    
    There is something DRASTICALLY wrong here.
    
    Fact 1.	It has proven very difficult (I would personally say
    		impossible) to produce psychic/spiritualistic phenomona
    		in a laboratory.
    
    Fact 2.	Using this book of magic spells is very dangerous because
    		of what will happen to you if you do => using it has
    		a significant probability of causing something supernatural
		to happen.                                                 
    
    I don't believe it.
    
    If I gave you some mysterious powder, and told you that 1000's of
    attempts to make it explode in a laboratory have failed, are you
    going to worry about having it in your living room?  What about
    table salt -it doesn't explode in laboratories, but maybe...
    
    /Bevin

    Re .22:
    
    >Fact 1.	It has proven very difficult (I would personally say
    >		impossible) to produce psychic/spiritualistic phenomona
    >		in a laboratory.
    
    
    That "fact" may or may not be true, but psychic/spiritualistic
    phenomena and "magic spells" may not be quite the same class of
    phenomenon.  The operative theory of what's called "magic" is that
    there are some people who have what's called "the Talent," who can
    somehow attune themselves to whatever forces are necessary to produce
    the results.  Only such people would really be able to do anything
    with the book under discussion.
    
    >Fact 2.	Using this book of magic spells is very dangerous because
    >		of what will happen to you if you do => using it has
    >		a significant probability of causing something supernatural
    >		to happen. 
    
    I believe I and others who have spoken on it have said that using
    this book _can be_ very dangerous to those with the Talent. 
    
    Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that there is no such
    thing as the Talent.  But let's assume someone who has this (or
    any other serious) spellbook _thinks_ he or she does.  One aspect
    of that form of magic is that the person doing it generally supposes
    that whatever's really manifesting what's to be done is possessing
    the person to do so.  Thus, even without the supernatural entity,
    the "user" of the pseudo-_Necronomicon_ can come to harm if he or
    she believes something alien has taken residence inside her or him.
    "The Devil made me do it," is a valid excuse for some people to
    rationalize evil acts.
    
    If you are willing to keep an open mind about the possibility that
    a spellbook might work (you can't handle unprocessed photographic
    film in a lighted room if it's out of its container; this might
    be analogous to the type of laboratory conditions imposed in certain
    paranormal research areas), then the warning may have an added
    dimension.
    
    I think Topher Cooper might take some issue with your first "fact,"
    by the way.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .22
    
    It has proven difficult, but unquestionably *not* impossible to
    reproduce phenomena which certainly seem to be similar in the
    laboratory.  The question is, under the highly "artificial" conditions
    under which it is produced in the laboratory, are we producing the
    same phenomena?
    
    Your analogy is incomplete.  What you left out is the several thousand
    *other* times when the "powder" did explode.  The question here
    is, when this occurs do you conclude that their is some unknown
    factor which sometimes causes the powder to explode (or to not explode
    depending on your viewpoint) or do you conclude that all the scientists
    who do get it to explode are incompetents or frauds?  (Yes, the issue
    is a bit more complex than this, particularly because there seems
    to be some difficult to identify, although probably perfectly ordinary,
    skill required to successfully get the "powder to explode".  But
    this is the essence of the argument.)
    
    					Topher

              
    Long ago when I was back in my teens, I remember reading some sort
    of book which had spells, potions, etc, with some friends of mine
    who were much more understanding of these sorts of things than I
    was (and still am - so I avoid such things, even today).
    
    In one of the books, there was some sort of spell where you could
    make the person of your dreams love you until the end of time. 
    It involved planting a certain number of acorns corresponding with
    the number of letters in their name (along with some other stuff,
    I've since forgotten).
    
    My question to my friends was, "Seems pretty innocent, what is the
    danger here?".  Their reply was, "If all the acorns grow into trees,
    then that's fine.  The problem, and what the book doesn't tell you,
    is that if the acorns DON'T all sprout and grow into trees then
    you must be prepared to deal with the consequences - and they could
    be severe (such as death, hate, abandonment, etc).  There are ALWAYS
    two sides to these sorts of things - this is NOT stuff to take
    lightly."              
    
    Do be careful.  
    
    

re: .25
    
    And of course there are the moral implications of attempting to
    "force" someone else to do anything, *especially* love you.  Power
    corrupts, immoral power is especially corrupting, and even to reach
    for such power, albeit unsuccesfully, can be very bad for ones mental
    health (this may have, of course, been some of the "other things"
    the acorns could sprout into that your friends were speaking of).
    
    					Topher

    Ah, wonderful, I'm most relieved we've moved on (again) to the moral
    implications of All These Matters.  That is (to link-back to .26):
    
    " Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. "(J. M. Keynes)
    
    My anecdote of the 'biker' was intended to show a power-seeker In
    Search Of (book title of this Note; I refuse even to use its name
    as a matter of personal fastidiousness; it's 'bad sauce' as Lenny
    Bruce used to say, copying the old black blues-brothers...) QED.
                                                                    
    Shall we say, rather loosely, but most certainly religiously: 
    
    Seek & Ye Shall Find.
    
    It's that to start; a great deal more, to continue; [?] to end;
    ...if (indeed) There Is ANY End (to: All These Matters).
                                        
    - Boleslaw

    Re .27:
    
    >" Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. "(J. M. Keynes)
    
    Keynes may have said it, but he was quoting Lord Acton.  ;-)
    
    Actually, that's an assinine statement, because if true, God would
    be the most corrupt thing in existence.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    re: -1
    
    Mon dieu! Someone's finally figured it out!
    
    -Perry
    
    ;*)
    

    Keynes was hardly making a theological observation, mes amis, he
    was making a contemporary political one. Let's be sensible in our
    dismissals; i.e. let us not be so Jesuitical in our methodology.
    (Having endured Societas Jesu I'm quite practiced in the method:
    reductio ad absurdum is the simplest of all Jesuitical reductii.) 
    
    But theologically we have now opened the {Q} of God's Mercy as well
    as God's Will. St. Anselm's proof is the argument from First Cause
    (prima causa), not First Motive. All cause is attributed to a singular
    point of origin, a reductio qua nulla & all motion derived from it.
    It is merely the Medieval form of implosion-physics (Big Bang Theory). 
    Power, here, means merely the power to unfold action (potential energy).
    It is the concept on which particle-physics is ultimately founded.
    
    God's Will & Man's (Free) Will operate in the Moral Realm, not merely
    the Physical Realm; and yet their effects are both physical & moral, 
    as humanly perceived & formulated, that is. Consequently, J. M.
    Keynes, as an economist & political commentator, was concerned with
    man's-inhumanity-to-man, as anyone with the least-glimmer realises.
    Or do I hereby slyly outscorn my most inept Jesuitical debutantes? 
    
    - Boleslaw (anti-S.J.)                          
     
      

    
       I purchased my copy of the psuedo-Necronomicon about two years
    ago and read it cover to cover.  I was a bit surprised at the time
    to find out how many people knew of the book, and were afraid of
    it.  I read it mostly as a matter of curiosity, having seen it
    referenced in some TV show (perhaps the Twilight Zone episode
    previously discussed).
    
       What amazed me was that people assumed that merely because I
    was reading the book that I was an active practitioner of the
    black arts.  I was actually shunned by a few people who previously
    had been quite friendly to me, on the basis that I might perform
    some magic on them.  It is to laugh.
    
       The Necronomicon is a very stylized story with some interesting
    symbolism.  To my mind, it is nothing more.  I am not inclinedf
    to attempt the rituals, primarily because the conditions behind
    the rituals are so uncommon.  If I recall correctly, to properly
    perform the rituals you must wait until the moon is in a certain
    phase, and several other pre-conditions are met.  You must also
    perform the rituals in the specified order, lest the greater
    spirits invoked by the latter spells sense your lack of knowledge
    caused by not having performed the former rituals.
    
       As I read it, the Necronomicon is basically supposed to be a
    means toward higher knowledge, not a 'black magic bibile'.  If
    properly performed, the rituals grant the necromancer with knowledge
    beyond human knowledge... not much more.
    
    - Greg

    Re .31:
    
    >   As I read it, the Necronomicon is basically supposed to be a
    >means toward higher knowledge, not a 'black magic bibile'.  If
    >properly performed, the rituals grant the necromancer with knowledge
    >beyond human knowledge... not much more.
     
    It's some more than that.  A ceremonial magician would point it's
    long on evocation and short on control and dismissal.  Not a very
    good way to acquire transhuman understanding.
    
    No, it's not a "black magic bible"; it's more like a "terrorist's
    cookbook": you can develop a lot of [destructive] power, but it's
    always easy to slip along the way and thereby damage yourself, possibly
    mortally.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.: The [fictional] _real_ Necronomicon was supposed to be worse.

    Well-put, Steve: a " terrorist's cookbook. "  Commendably said.
    Isn't it interesting that H.P. Lovecraft made it the Utlimate
    UNLIMITED POWER book? No stage-down transformer included. QED.
    
    -Boleslaw
    
    UNLIMITED POWER's a current best-seller by the founder of The 
    Boston Fire Walk Experience empowerment-ceremony, one strange
    Anthony Robbins, a capitalist-guru-who-walks-on-live-coals!)
             

    
    
    as numerous teachers have said...
    
    		" learn to Banish first... *THEN* Invoke "

    
    Well I possibly could have started another note on this but I dislike
    starting new topics when there may be little or no intrest. (one
    can be started if there is a need)
    
    SUBJ: CONJURING
    TOPIC: QUESTION;"what is conjuring?"
                    
    a)A summoning of actual entities (angels,demons,others) to preform
    	tasks?
    
    b)A process that focusses the emotional, spiritual, physical energies
    	to produce a poltergeist type, will controled being?
    
    c)An illusionary image of the workers own ID/Shadow/self/Darks-side?
    	IE-A means of self-programming at the subconsious level? (usually
    	requests of the worker were of basic needs such as sex,shelter,food
    	($), ect...things important to the lower human levels.
    
    d)Yes!
    
    e)Other...(please expain?)
    
    Craig :-)
    

Conjuring is (e) Other:

   Conjuring is something you DON'T want to do.
  
   Not without a lot of experience in certain disciplines. Even then, its 
desirability is doubtful.

   I'm not kidding. I speak from experience.

                                              -Robert Brown III

    Reply to .36, Robert,
    
    Then what is the difference between evocation, invocation and
    conjuring?
    
    Why is it that I can evoke and invoke without danger and others can't
    conjure anything without stepping on their own toes?
    
    To me "conjuring" stems from a different philosophy which doesn't
    seem to be very educated or aware of it's base of power.
    
    I think invocation and evocation require will. The problem probably
    lies in the fact that a very little percentage of people have any
    will at all.

    
    RE: .37
    
    I wrote a note ref: .36 but was a bit redundent of .37 so I deleted
    that one and will address the more interesting of the two. ;-)
    
    	I guess the diff between evoc, invoc, and conjuring is that
    conjuring is a bit more complex in design. It distracts the conscious
    with 10,000 things to remember/say/and do while it bombards the
    unguarded sub-conscious with pretty much the same material as used
    during the other two.
    	As for education level required for use. I agree that one does
    not have to know the source for conjuring. One might argue..."do
    I care?" I do think that conjuring works a bit better on minds that
    are use to a strict ordered way of life. People who feel more at
    home by doing things "by the book" as it were. Or perhaps are battling
    with a past religion that haunts their sub-con.
                                                   
    >	I think invocation and evocation require will. The problem probably
    >	lies in the fact that a very little percentage of people have
    >	any will at all.
    
    			*BINGO!* 
    	    *GIVE THIS MAN A RUBBER DUCKIE!!!*
            
    	My question is more towards the relm of....Are physical/forceful
    results an occasional result and are visionary type results more
    to be expected. 
    	Is the result of the "session" internal or external in nature
    is it the magicians creation or imagination? Is it real if it has
    shown power on the physical plane? If so what is the life expectancy
    of it? If not created or imagined what is it? and how can I fit
    it into my belief structure. (dont take me too seriously folks
    danger,doubt,and funning are part of my trip.) 
    
    	Another question to anyone out there familiar with Celtic
    Mythology. I am looking on info on another serpent type god...
    named ChromCraunch (spelling is off.) form the Tuatha de Dannan
    myths.(oh Steve K. Jr.????)
    
    FYI It doesn't look like I will be with DEC much longer than December.
    I am a temp "GASP!" and have not gone perm due to the lack of a
    perm position opening. Being a temp I can be zapped out at any time
    and dont want you folks to think that the Rapture took me or that
    I am lying out in some field somewhere covered with slime from a
    failed incantation.
    
    Craig :-)
    

    Reply to .28, Steve,
    
    The power corrupts statement may have more weight than you think.
    
    From _Patterns_in_Comparative_Religion_, by Mircea Eliade, section 29
    "Yahweh", pages 95 and 96...
    
    "Yahweh made a "covenant" with his people, but his sovereignty meant
    that it was quite possible for him to annul it at any moment. That he
    did not was due not to the "covenant" itself--for nothing can bind
    God--but to his infinite goodness. Throughout the religious history of
    Israel, Yahweh shows himself a sky god and storm god, creator and
    omnipotent, absolute sovereign and "Lord of Hosts", support of kings of
    David's line, author of all the norms and laws that make it possible
    for life on earth to go on. The "Law", in every form, finds its basis
    and justification in a revelation from Yahweh. But unlike other supreme
    Gods, who cannot contravene their own laws (Zeus could not save
    Sarpedon from death), Yahweh maintains his absolute freedom." 
    
    To save much typing Mircea says in previous sections that ancient
    peoples got tired of the supreme Gods not playing by fair rules so they
    abstracted and superceeded the supremes with more relative and fair
    deities. Ones that would listen to their concerns, not just sit in
    estate on a golden throne, ignoring man's pleas. Indeed this is a
    pattern for all supreme Gods. They are passive and unyielding to
    humanity. 
    
    In my way of thinking any supreme deity that promises any particular
    thing and has nothing forcing it to abide by it's own rules, other than
    some mans claimed "infinite goodness", is much akin to corruption. No
    one is safe, neither the believers nor the unbelievers. The supreme God
    could change it's mind aeons latter, reversing the rules or getting a
    better offer elsewhere from a foreign tribe or race. 
                                              
    So as far as humanity goes absolute power is absolute corruption.
    Nothing can influence it, not even itself. The maltheists metaphor
    strikes. And as I've said elsewhere, an absolutely powerful sky god
    could lie to us, forcing us to beleive it's lie as truth, and lure
    innocent, believing humans into a hell of heaven. 

    
    	Hi folks,
    	I got my hands on a copy of the book and browsed through it...
    	(when do I get my "I SURVIVED THE NECRONOMICON" T-shirt?) and
    	found it hard not to look at it as science-fantasy-fiction...
    	matter of fact...I couldn't see it any other way...
    	but noticed out of amusement that the Typography was done by
    	"Feint Type" and the "Artwork by Khem Set Rising" that as
    	well as the statement "Published by arrangment with the author"
    	(the book was supposed to be written in the 8th century A.D.)
    	caused a few snickers.
    
    	But I do agree that if someone was sincere in their effort to
    	work with this they would be asking for problems.
    
    	Craig

    Hey!  That's a _great_ idea for a T-shirt!
    
    Kind of goes with the Miskatonic University sweats- they say
    
    	"The Truth Shall Make You Flee"
    
    -Bill  :-)

    Isn't there a mention of the Book in the movie "THE EVIL DEAD" (1 & 2)?
    
    If that does'nt put someone off trying any of the stuff in the book
    then I don't know what would !!!!
    
    						George.
    

    Robert anton Wilson refers to the nec. in the Illuminati trilogy.
    Basically he says that the pentagon (yeah in DC) was built to trap
    some monster whos name escapes me in order to prevent another world
    war. The discordians were trying to breach the pentagon with explosives
    to let it out. (There actually is a garden and a little house in
    the center of the pentagon.) Wilson says that it became possible
    to publish  the nec because the worst possible consequences were
    bottled up! An intertaining idea anyway.
    
    					john turner

    Re .43 (John T.):
    
    >Robert anton Wilson refers to the nec. in the Illuminati trilogy.
                  
    Er, um ... we can speculate endlessly about the fictional ["real"]
    _Necronomicon_.  If we do, though, we must recall that its chief
    deities (Yog-Sothoth, Azathoth, Nyarlatothep, etc.) are "outside"
    trying to get back in (and, for that matter, Cthulhu lies sleeping
    in the sunken city of R'yleh).  So nothing's been defused, in that
    sense.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    What is the Illuminati?
    

    Re .45:
    
    "The Illuminati" is a group (or are members of a group) that
    supposedly controls all world events behind the scenes.  They allegedly
    infiltrate their agents into other organizations (e.g, the C.I.A.,
    the K.G.B., McDonald's Hamburgers, the Chilean Postal Service ...)
    in order to guide things to their hidden plans.
    
    The reference here was to a series of books built around that concept.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

RE: .43 (John Turner), .46 (Steve K.)

    What may not be obvious from these notes is that The Illumanti Trilogy
    by Wilson and Shaw (not just Wilson) is quite explicitly and obviously
    a work of fiction.  However, Wilson is a self-proclaimed Discordian,
    someone who believes that one should shake people out of their
    presumptions by lying when apparently telling the truth and by telling
    the truth when apparently lying.  How much of what Wilson believes is
    "the truth" is embedded in the trilogy is therefore a bit hard to
    determine (especially since he presumably believes in telling "lower
    truths" in his non-fiction in order to prepare people for recieving
    the "higher truths").

    To make a very long and complex (but light and fun) story short -- The
    Illumanati starts with the premise that *all* the conspiracy theories
    you've ever heard are true and due to a single group, the Illumanati --
    or maybe its really *two* groups -- no *three* -- no we got that wrong
    too, the opposing groups are only *pretending* to be different
    organizations there is really only one group -- whoops, they are
    actually only pretending to get along...  You get the idea.

					    Topher

    This is being reposted from a recent Usenet alt.magick post
    by Colin Low.  It gives some information on the 
    elusive-if-existent Necronomicon, based largely on
    
"The Book of the Arab",  by Justin Geoffry,  Starry Wisdom Press, 
                            1979
    
    The network headers were moved to the end.  Long, about 281 lines.
    
--------------  Colin Low's post begins here ----------------------------
Following my last posting on the subject of the Necronomicon, I received
some mail pointing out a number of minor inaccuracies. I've pulled all
the information together, and can now present.....
 
The alt.magick Necronomicon F.A.Q.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Q. What is the Necronomicon?
 
The Necronomicon of Alhazred,  (literally:  "Book of Dead Names") 
is not,  as popularly believed,  a grimoire, or sorceror's spell-
book;  it was conceived as a history, and hence "a book of things 
now dead and gone", but the author shared with Madame Blavatsky a 
magpie-like tendency to garner and stitch together fact,  rumour, 
speculation,  and complete balderdash,  and the result is a  vast 
and almost unreadable compendium of near-nonsense which bears more 
than a superficial resemblance to Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine".
 
In  times  past the book has been referred to  guardedly  as  "Al 
Azif",  or  "The  Book  of the Arab".  It was  written  in  seven 
volumes, and runs to over 900 pages in the Latin edition.
 
Q. Where and when was the Necronomicon written?
 
The  Necronomicon was written in Damascus in 730  A.D.  by  Abdul 
Alhazred.
 
Q. Who was Abdul Alhazred?
 
Little  is known.  What we do know about him is  largely  derived 
from  the  small  amount  of  biographical  information  in   the 
Necronomicon itself - he travelled widely, from Alexandria to the 
Punjab,  and  was well read.  He had a flair for  languages,  and 
boasts  on  many occasions of his ability to read  and  translate 
manuscripts   which   defied  lesser   scholars.   His   research 
methodology  however smacked more of Nostradamus than  Herodotus. 
As Nostradamus himself puts it in Quatrains 1 & 2:
 
     "Sitting alone at night in secret study;
     it is placed on the brass tripod. A slight
     flame comes out of the emptiness 
     and makes successful that which should 
     not be believed in vain.
 
     The wand in the hand is placed
     in the middle of the tripod's legs.
     With water he sprinkles both the hem
     of his garment and his foot.
     A voice, fear; he trembles in his robes.
     Divine splendour; the god sits nearby."
 
Just  as Nostradamus used ritual magic to probe  the  future,  so 
Alhazred  used  similar techniques (and an  incense  composed  of 
olibanum,  storax,  dictamnus,  opium and hashish) to clarify the 
past,  and it is this,  combined with a lack of references, which 
resulted in the Necronomicon being dismissed as largely worthless 
by historians.
 
He  is  often referred to as "the mad Arab",  and  while  he  was 
certainly eccentric by modern standards,  there is no evidence to 
substantiate a claim of madness, (other than a chronic  inability 
to  sustain  a train of thought for more than  a  few  paragraphs 
before  leaping  off at a tangent). He is  better  compared  with 
figures such as the Greek neo-platonist philosopher Proclus (410-
485 A.D.),  who was completely at home in astronomy, mathematics, 
philosophy,  and metaphysics, but was sufficiently well versed in 
the  magical  techniques of theurgy to evoke  Hekate  to  visible 
appearance;  he  was  also an initiate of Egyptian  and  Chaldean 
mystery religions. It is no accident that Alhazred was intimately 
familar with the works of Proclus.
 
Q. What is the printing history of the Necronomicon?
 
No  Arabic manuscript is known to exist;  the author Idries  Shah 
carried  out a search in the libraries of Deobund in  India,  Al-
Azhar  in  Egypt,  and  the Library of the Holy  City  of  Mecca, 
without success. A Latin translation was made in 1487 (not in the 
17th. century as Lovecraft maintains) by a Dominican priest Olaus 
Wormius. Wormius, a German by birth, was a secretary to the first 
Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition, Tomas de Torquemada, 
and  it  is likely that the manuscript of  the  Necronomicon  was 
seized during the persecution of Moors ("Moriscos") who had  been 
converted to Catholism under duress;  this group was deemed to be 
unsufficiently pure in its beliefs.      
     It  was an act of sheer folly for Wormius to  translate  and 
print the Necronomicon at that time and place. The book must have 
held an obsessive fascination for the man, because he was finally 
charged  with heresy and burned after sending a copy of the  book 
to   Johann  Tritheim,   Abbot  of  Spanheim  (better  known   as 
"Trithemius");  the accompanying letter contained a detailed  and 
blasphemous  interpretation  of certain passages in the  Book  of 
Genesis.  Virtually all the copies of Wormius's translation  were 
seized  and  burned with him,  although there is  the  inevitable 
suspicion that at least one copy must have found its way into the 
Vatican Library.
     Almost  one  hundred  years  later,   in  1586,  a  copy  of 
Wormius's Latin translation surfaced in Prague. Dr. John Dee, the 
famous English magician,  and his assistant Edward Kelly were  at 
the  court of the Emperor Rudolph II to discuss plans for  making 
alchemical  gold,  and Kelly bought the copy from  the  so-called 
"Black  Rabbi"  and Kabbalist,  Jacob Eliezer,  who had  fled  to 
Prague from Italy after accusations of necromancy.  At that  time 
Prague  had  become  a  magnet  for  magicians,   alchemists  and 
charletons of every kind under the patronage of Rudolph,  and  it 
is  hard to imagine a more likely place in Europe for a  copy  to 
surface.
     The  Necronomicon appears to have had a marked influence  on 
Kelly;  the character of his scrying changed,  and he produced an 
extraordinary  communication  which struck horror  into  the  Dee 
household; Crowley interpeted it as the abortive first attempt of 
an  extra-human entity to communicate the Thelemic "Book  of  the 
Law".  Kelly  left  Dee shortly afterwards.  Dee  translated  the 
Necronomicon  into  English  while warden  of  Christ's  College, 
Manchester, but contrary to Lovecraft, this translation was never 
printed - the manuscript passed into the collection of the  great 
collector  Elias  Ashmole,  and  hence to the Bodleian  Library  in 
Oxford.
 
There  are  many modern fakes masquerading as  the  Necronomicon. 
They  can  be  recognised  by a  total  lack  of  imagination  or 
intelligence, qualities Alhazred possessed in abundance.
 
Q. What is the content of the Necronomicon?
 
The  book  is  best  known  for  its  antediluvian  speculations. 
Alhazred appears to have had access to many sources now lost, and 
events  which  are only hinted at in the Book of Genesis  or  the 
apocryphal  Book  of Enoch,  or disguised as mythology  in  other 
sources,  are  explored in great detail.  Alhazred may have  used 
dubious  magical  techniques to clarify the  past,  but  he  also 
shared with 5th.  century B.C. Greek writers such as Thucydides a 
critical  mind  and  a willingness to  explore  the  meanings  of 
mythological and sacred stories.  His speculations are remarkably 
modern,  and  this  may account for his  current  popularity:  he 
believed  that many species besides the human race had  inhabited 
the  Earth,  and  that much knowledge was passed  to  mankind  in 
encounters with being from other "spheres".  He shared with  some 
neo-platonists the belief that stars are like our sun,  and  have 
their own unseen planets with their own lifeforms, but elaborated 
this belief with a good deal of metaphysical speculation in which 
these  beings  were  part  of a  cosmic  hierarchy  of  spiritual 
evolution.  He  was  also convinced that he had  contacted  these 
"Old  Ones"  using magical invocations,  and warned  of  terrible 
powers waiting to return to re-claim the Earth - he interpretated 
this  belief  in the light of the Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  but 
reversed the ending so that the Beast triumphs after a great  war 
in which the earth is laid waste.
 
Q. Why did the novelist H.P. Lovecraft claim to have invented the 
Necronomicon?
   
The answer to this interesting question lies in two  people:  the 
poet  and  magician Aliester Crowley,  and  a  Brooklyn  milliner 
called Sonia Greene.
 
There  is no question that Crowley read Dee's translation of  the 
Necromonicon in the Ashmolean,  probably while researching  Dee's 
papers;  too  many passages in Crowley's "Book of the  Law"  read 
like  a  transcription of passages in  that  translation.  Either 
that,  or  Crowley,  who claimed to remember his life  as  Edward 
Kelly in a previous incarnation,  read it in a previous life! Why 
doesn't  he  mention  the  Necronomicon  in  his  works?  He  was 
surprisingly reticent about his real sources - there is a  strong 
suspicion that '777',  which Crowley claimed to have written, was 
largely plagiarised from Allan Bennet's notes. His spiritual debt 
to  Nietzsche,  which  in  an unguarded moment he  refers  to  as 
"almost  an  avatar of Thoth,  the god of wisdom"  is  studiously 
ignored;  likewise the influence of Richard Burton's "Kasidah" on 
his doctrine of True Will. I suspect that the Necronomicon became 
an embarrassment to Crowley when he realised the extent to  which 
he had unconsciously incorporated passages from the  Necronomicon 
into "The Book of the Law".
     In 1918 Crowley was in New York. As always, he was trying to 
establish his literary reputation,  and was contributing to  "The 
International" and "Vanity Fair".  Sonia Greene was an  energetic 
and ambitious Jewish emigre with literary ambitions,  and she had 
joined  a dinner and lecture club called "Walker's Sunrise  Club" 
(?!);  it was there that she first encountered Crowley,  who  had 
been invited to give a talk on modern poetry.       
     It  was a good match;  in a letter to Norman  Mudd,  Crowley 
describes  his ideal woman as "rather tall,  muscular and  plump, 
vivacious,  ambitious,  energetic, passionate, age from thirty to 
thirty five,  probably a Jewess, not unlikely a singer or actress 
addicted to such amusements.  She is to be 'fashionable', perhaps 
a  shade loud or vulgar.  Very rich of course." Sonia was not  an 
actress  or  singer,  but qualified in other  respects.  She  was 
earning what,  for that time,  was an enormous sum of money as  a 
designer and seller of woman's hats.  She was variously described 
as "Junoesque",  "a woman of great charm and personal magnetism", 
"genuinely glamorous with powerful feminine allure",  "one of the 
most  beautiful  women  I have ever  met",  and  "a  learned  but 
eccentric  human phonograph".  In 1918 she was thirty-five  years 
old and a divorcee with an adolescent daughter.  Crowley did  not 
waste  time  as  far as women were  concerned;  they  met  on  an 
irregular basis for some months.
     In 1921 Sonia Greene met the novelist H.P. Lovecraft, and in 
that  year Lovecraft published the first novel where he  mentions 
Abdul Alhazred ("The Nameless City").  In 1922 he first  mentions 
the  Necronomicon  ("The  Hound").   On  March  3rd.  1924,  H.P. 
Lovecraft and Sonia Greene married.
     We do not know what Crowley told Sonia Greene, and we do not 
know what Sonia told Lovecraft.  However,  consider the following 
quotation from "The Call of Cthulhu" [1926]:
 
     "That cult would never die until the stars came right  again 
     [precession of the Equinoxes?], and the secret priests would 
     take Cthulhu from His tomb to revive His subjects and resume 
     His rule of earth.  The time would be easy to know, for then 
     mankind  would have become as the Great Old Ones;  free  and 
     wild,  and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown 
     aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. 
     Then  the  liberated Old Ones would teach them new  ways  to 
     shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all earth 
     would flame with a holocaust of ecstacy and freedom."
 
It may be brief, it may be mangled, but it has the undeniable ring 
of Crowley's "Book of the Law". It is easy to imagine a situation 
where  Sonia and Lovecraft are laughing and talking in a  firelit 
room about a new story,  and Sonia introduces some ideas based on 
what  Crowley  had told her;  she wouldn't even have  to  mention 
Crowley,   just   enough  of  the  ideas  to  spark   Lovecraft's 
imagination.  There  is no evidence that Lovecraft ever  saw  the 
Necronomicon,   or   even  knew  that  the  book   existed;   his 
Necronomicon  is remarkably close to the spirit of the  original, 
but the details are pure invention, as one would expect. There is 
no Yog-Sothoth or Azathoth or Nyarlathotep in the  original,  but 
there is an Aiwaz...
 
Q. Where can the Necronomicon be found?
 
Nowhere with certainty,  is the short and simple answer, and once 
more we must suspect Crowley in having a hand in this.   In  1912 
Crowley  met Theodor Reuss,  the head of the German  Ordo  Templi 
Orientis (O.T.O), and worked within that order for several years, 
until in 1922 Reuss resigned as head in Crowley's favour. Thus we 
have  Crowley  working  in close contact for 10  years  with  the 
leader  of  a German masonic group.  In the  years  from  1933-38 
the  few  known copies of the  Necronomicon  simply  disappeared; 
someone in the German government of Adolf Hitler took an interest 
in  obscure occult literature and began to obtain copies by  fair 
means or foul.  Dee's translation disappeared from the  Bodleian 
following  a  break-in  in the spring of  1934.  The  British  Museum 
suffered several abortive burglaries, and the Wormius edition was 
deleted  from  the  catalogue  and  removed  to  an   underground 
repository  in a converted slate mine in Wales (where  the  Crown 
Jewels were stored during the 1939-45 war).  Other libraries lost 
their  copies,  and  today  there is no library  with  a  genuine 
catalogue entry for the Necronomicon.  The current whereabouts of 
copies  of  the Necronomicon is unknown;  there is a story  of  a 
large  wartime cache of occult and magical documents in the Osterhorn 
area near Salzburg. There is a recurring story about a copy bound 
in the skin of concentration camp victims.
 
 
This F.A.Q. was compiled using information obtained from
 
"The Book of the Arab",  by Justin Geoffry,  Starry Wisdom Press, 
                            1979
 
Colin  Low  has  never read  the  Necronomicon,  never  seen  the 
Necronomicon,  and  has no information as to where a copy may  be 
found.
    
Article: 1265
Path: pa.dec.com!decwrl!usenet.coe.montana.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!otter!cal
From: [email protected] (Colin Low)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Necronomicon F.A.Q.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 7 Nov 91 11:07:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 262

> In  times  past the book has been referred to  guardedly  as  "Al 
> Azif",  or  "The  Book  of the Arab".  It was  written  in  seven 
> volumes, and runs to over 900 pages in the Latin edition.
    
    A translation of (what is claimed to be) a part of the above may be
    found on the WWW at:
    
    	http://www.primenet.com/~ottinge/n.html