I was wondering if anyone here teaches the system to individual students, I am new to this system but have felt a strong interest or pull if you will to get involved in it, my main problem is that I don't have any of the books and at present cannot afford to buy them, and I have read that the pdf versions have mispronunciations? In any event I would ordinarily not persue something under these circumstances but I am feeling a strong attraction to the system that I cannot explain, as I have never worked with it at all.

I have spent time with some other systems such as Initiation into Hermetics and Donald Michael Kraigs Modern Magick, and while they did give me some good theoretical insight into the world of magick, I just never felt a connection, my work under those systems just felt lifeless and clinical at times, so here I am, seeking a teacher and I will await any replies to this topic, I would also like to know why I feel such a pull toward the system practically out of nowhere if anyone can offer an explanation.

Greetings!

No, I don't teach Necronomicon, though I have used it to veritable effect.

First things first: You can buy a paperback Necronomicon for 8 dollars new or for 4 dollars used on Amazon.com. I have plenty of used magical books, including a used Necronomicon, and you don't have to worry about curses. Nor is this book much more expensive at the bookstore. Unless you are really 10 years old and don't have access to money (and most 10 year olds can figure out how to earn a few bucks here and there), no offense but I doubt a lack of resources is holding you back here. And if it's not the money, what is it?

Your request for a teacher makes me think that you feel you need help to learn how to use magick and Necronomicon. Don't let this stop you from being able to purchase and study the book on your own, because you are capable of doing this and also learning Necronomicon. Even working with a teacher, the vast majority of magical work is learned on one's own. We are lucky in this century to be able to have access to other magicians on forums like this one.

I have also been attracted to certain schools and ideas in magick out of nowhere in the past, and my general advice when you get that urge is to really go for it, full throttle. That's why I'm urging you to really get your own copy of the book if you are feeling a serious inclination towards working with Necronomicon.

I can't be your teacher, but I'll be around and there are a lot of other people on this forum that also have a lot of knowledge and experience to share.

Go get that book!

This post has been edited by monkman418: Jan 29 2011, 08:11 PM

Thank you for the reply monkman, I have actually located a cheap copy of the book and will be ordering it soon, I did not realize it could be obtained for under 10 dollars in most locations as the first copy I saw was going for about 50 dollars. I have spent some time over the past few days reading in this forum and I was wondering what tools are considered essential for beginning work and where can they be bought?

Fantastic! Yeah, there are a few expensive hardcover copies on the market, some for as much as $1000. Sellers try to mark occult books up far beyond what they are worth in general, glad you found a deal.


Other magical systems use a larger assortment of tools, the Necronomicon is very minimalist. For the Necronomicon, a piece of paper to draw the sigils and a candle are the only tools you need to start with. A blackened mirror may also be useful for scurrying, but that can wait for now; you can usually find such a thing online for around $30. If you want, you can also wear a simple robe, such as may be bought at azothart.com, but robes run around $100 in general; fortunately, the text only calls for "simple vestments," and one could use a plain set of regular clothing. Some spells call for the use of an alter, but you can use a small table that you own...or buy a small table at Family Dollar for $10 (that's what I did) or at the thrift store. Finally, some spells call for incense; you can buy a lot of this for cheap at panpipes.com

Anything else?

I read somewhere that you need to buy a certain bowl for the bandar at some point and that you have to burn nettles and pine incense, I was wondering will lawn grass or something else do in it's place as I don't have access to nettles. Also I thought I read something about needing a copper dagger which I could not find for sale using google, thankfully I do own a black robe and I was thinking of using a paper mache mask for the crown of Anu, I suppose these things are meant to be acquired gradually as one works through the system but I am just trying to make certain I have my bases covered before starting as I want to give the system the respect it deserves.

With odors...generally you can use substitutions, but only if the substitution smells something like the original. I don't know if grass smells like nettles, but I'm guessing not. Did they not have nettles at panpipes.com? If not, maybe they could recommend something to you that would smell like nettles.

For a copper dagger, try a nice copper letter-opener like this one:
http://compare.ebay.com/like/200459131253?...4=263602_304662

You can then engrave whatever words need to be on the blade yourself.



This post has been edited by monkman418: Jan 30 2011, 03:15 AM

Stinging nettle is quite common worldwide. I don't know where you live, but if you live in the Eastern (esp. NE) US or Europe you should just be able to go out and pick your own. A field guide to wildflowers would help here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinging_nettle

This post has been edited by Darkmage: Jan 30 2011, 03:52 AM

Wow. Good job helping him out guys. With all the information you just rattled off, I might just get myself a Necronomicon too. (Anyone seen the Evil Dead movies? LOL)

I was also wondering what kind of bowl you guys use for the burning of offerings, do you use a clay bowl? And when you are instructed to burn bread or nettle you just use a match or lighter? Also when it comes to the offering of fresh bread do you guys just use regular loaf bread that you buy from the store or do you actually make it fresh? Sorry about all of the questions I am sure you all have answered them before many times.

Oh and I checked panpipes.com and yes they do have nettle very cheap prices, thank you for the site monkman it seems to have just about everything one would need and at great prices.

This post has been edited by Archimonde: Jan 30 2011, 09:59 AM

Maybe we should start a Necronomicon club, and decide to open this or that gate week by week and report our experiences. Might cause the end of the world, but it would be fun while it lasted...



Awesome, yeah, panpipes is great in the incense/herbs/oils department.

I don't think you need to have any specific type of material for an offering bowl, though clay is inexpensive and easy to come by on ebay...factors which also probably made it a popular choice of material in ancient Sumeria. Some magical tools do use specific materials that line up with elemental or other attributions; I doubt this has anything to do with it in this case, but if you're worried clay is cheap.

Use a match or a lighter, unless one or the other bothers you too much. I started doing magick with matches because it felt more "old fashioned" and therefore authentic or something, but switched to using a lighter when I ran out of matches. There is no difference, fire is fire.

Hmmm...well...I wouldn't use a loaf of Wonder bread as an offering. Many stores have a "fresh baked" section where they sell loaves of bread for a few bucks that they baked that morning, so I would try that. Learning to bake bread is very easy though if you want to go that route. What probably matters most is that one is using a nice loaf of bread.

I would suggest sticking to whatever the book calls for. That way if things don't go the way they are supposed to, you can know that it wasn't because you didn't have the correct tools. And in some books, the various tools are specific and intended for some kind of protection. Metals and various plants, etc., have been long associated with particular uses, and substituting other materials may either produce no effects, or may altar the outcome of the ceremonies in ways you don't want.

Start altering the ceremonies after you have enough experience and knowledge with them as they are, and have had the opportunity to start inquiring of the entities involved personally how much leeway there is - and then keep in mind that they might prefer you be less protected or otherwise in charge.

A copper dagger, a copper crown, an earthen vessel (clay or stone), fresh bread (it takes very little ingredients to make bread, and it is not difficult, and you can make a small amount just for this purpose for less than a dollar per loaf), and a little bit of space is not a lot to ask. Until you get up to the need for gold and silver, most everything in the system is easily acquired. Look for sheets of copper for the dagger and the crown. You can by a rectangular sheet of 'craft' copper thick enough to use as a dagger for $20 or so online (plus a $5 metal file and a $20 set of metal sheers that you can use for other projects), and the same place will sell thinner sheets for less money that can be used to create the crown (which you can secure into a circular shape with an awl driven through in the back in three or four holes that you can use the same metal file from the dagger project to file down).

If you want to explore the system, then take the time to get the appropriate materials. If it takes a little longer to do it right, it will be worth it if you get what you want out of it.

peace

In fact I am attempting to get everything as precise as I can, however I have read some posts from various users here that suggest certain substitutions are not harmful, I cannot imagine that if I am being urged to involve myself in the system, that I would be begrudged for not having every single thing down to the most exacting detail. For example I got the idea of using a paper mache mask as the crown, from reading one of Ashnooks posts, and I understand that he is something of an authority on the system.

If what I have is not suitable and does not yield good results I will simply set the system aside until such a time that I can afford to be that precise in my workings.

A balance needs to be struck between practicing magick according to the text and working within the boundaries of one's limitations in the modern world. Some items, like the book itself obviously, can't be done without. In other cases, it is acceptable to substitute (or even omit) the tools used in ritual.

Probably the best general rule on this is to understand the purpose of the various tools, gestures, and accessories going into a ritual; as long as the rituals remain intact, with all objects maintaining their purpose, there shouldn't be a problem.

I think the BIGGER issue here is whether or not we become too anxious that "something will go wrong" or that "we won't be doing it right" if the ritual isn't copied from the manual to a T. I would also be wrong to say that one shouldn't be careful about following the instructions, but I don't think a goal of "perfect emulation" is sufficient to ensure that the ceremonies will function as they were intended. Understanding the ritual itself is key first and foremost.

Approaching it without the proper passion or solemnity, as might be exemplified by going with a paper-mache crown instead of waiting a week or two to acquire a "better" one, can cause problems. But this is for the individual to decide. Not to pick on the paper-mache crown, either; I'm not sure I would be able to make a metal crown within a reasonable timespan, myself.

I think that perhaps there is an element of cultural empathy involved as well. These rituals were, supposedly, created by summerians, or possibly babylonians depending on whose time line you're reading. These are both cultures who believed in these gods in a very real way, and did not believe that those all powerful beings would appreciate the 'effort' to execute their holy rituals properly and bestow their boon on the righteous heart who calls them. Like many cultures of the time, religion and law were the same thing. Magic as part of a religion had very specific laws and taboos to be observed, and not deviated from by a hair. It's fairly likely that if the Necronomicon text did originate in summeria, the common person is not supposed to even read it, much less use the rituals contained in it - that would be for the holy men of that age to do, and they would not have allowed just anyone to do it.

Understanding the ritual is impossible - not just difficult - if you don't dig into the culture as well, and with these cultures there's not a lot to dig into, so you have to begin looking at other surrounding cultures that we know more about, and then start understanding the mindset of the age, etc.

If you're going to approach this book as though Marduk is listening to your calls, as though Inanna really did descend into the underworld and return, as if Tiamat very well may swallow you up; that is, as a manual of spiritual AND magical practice, then treat it the way the summerians would have. That's what Marduk expects of his priests. If the cost to the individual hoping to get something from the book is an extra $100 - My goetia quest cost nearly $2000 as a comparison, this book IS a minimalist approach in the grand scheme - not just to avoid things 'going wrong' but as a way of showing the all knowing entities it is supposed to connect you to, then isn't it a little disrespectful to try it off the cuff with 'whatever I can manage' first, and then fulfill the requirements later on if that doesn't pan out?

The copper used in the dagger of inanna, for instance, was, to the summerian's, probably not just a convenient material for them - copper was precious, getting it was difficult, people DIED mining copper, and kings demanded it by the cartful to make valuable objects, religious icons, etc. Gold was reserved for actual representations of deities and the adornments of kings - because kings were considered incarnations of gods. There are virtues to copper that are considered to be reflective of it's subtle nature. A clay construct or wooden knife painted coppery red is not the same thing.

Ashnook and Edunpanna have gone through the book back to front a thousand times probably, and both consider themselves priests of Enki, both of them have walked the gates and worked with the names. Neither has much of anything to show for it, both talk a lot about crazy astral battles, tearing up people's souls, etc. I haven't met ashnook personally, but I've known a lot of occultists, some a little on the new agey side, some crystal toting hippies, and some very serious about their work. The most successful and reliable always seem to be the ones that take the culture behind the magic seriously.

If you're going to work some kind of poorly constructed magical tradition like Golden Dawn Hermetica, Chaos Magik, etc., then by all means add in and take out whatever you want, those are systems not intended to actually produce the kinds of miraculous things ancient magicians and priests expected. And you can still get something from those systems. If you're going to summon a deadly watcher, walk the gate of Inanna, and invoke one of the fifty names, you should approach the system with the kind of seriousness those things imply.

I worked the Necronomicon, it worked for me, I put it down. My experiences do not coincide with Ashnook and Edunpanna's. What I experienced with it was far from the flavor that surrounds it due to Lovecraft and the media, but was not pleasant at all in any case. The summerians and babylonians were a brutal, severe pair of cultures, and their magic and religion are equally as severe and brutal. Take that into consideration.

peace

War!

Sorry to see that you agree with Imperial Arts on the issue of materials. Apparently, the rest of us aren't doing real magick, and I laugh at that.

...and for all of your emphasis on "cultural sensitivity," I find it interesting that Sumeria and Babalon are condemned as brutal and severe peoples with an equally severe religion! I don't recall their myths being any more brutal than any other group of people. And surely you have read about the feats of civilization, including stable housing and nutrition, that reached the average man in these cultures? And what about the great works of art and the feats of learning and science that these groups were able to achieve? They were hardly savage! But oh, how the white man has learned to demonize the brutal and unknown "savage" of the other world! What a convenient blank slate for us magicians to use to project our darkest fantasies! Vagrant, I'm surprised at you, for this and for the dig at the Golden Dawn and Kaos magic, apparently some paths are better than others. Or did the ancient powerful magicians from the days of yore also look down on other groups and their gods? Actually, that's right, they did compare the power of their gods to those of other people to assure their power and superiority...and I suppose this is a necessary prerequisite as well?

I'm not convinced that the Necronomicon is an authentic document dating from the Sumerians/Babylonians in any case. Though I feel sorry for any god who can't keep up with the currency and materials of the day, requesting an old bronze dagger instead of titanium!

This post has been edited by monkman418: Jan 31 2011, 09:13 PM

I certainly did not mean to come across as willy nilly about working with the system, and I am not out to be a cheapskate don't get me wrong, in fact several things I am purchasing/acquiring are in line with what the book calls for, I have no skill with metal crafting however, nor do I know of anyone in my area who does, so I am merely attempting to do the best I can under my circumstance.

I do understand where you are coming from Vagrant, in the sense that all work done should be given proper respect.

By the way, when you mention producing miraculous things, what exactly do you have to show from your own experience? I'm not mocking you here I am genuinely curious.


Also I agree with monkman from the reading I have done on Sumerian culture I have seen no indication that their religion was any more or less brutal than any other old time religion. Again though when it comes to this system I admit I am out of my depth as I have not really gotten started with it as of yet.

Real magic can be done with a prayer or a thought. Real magic does not depend on the materials used. Executing a formula follows an algorithm though, and if you are not following the algorithm magic may happen - but it may not happen the way you expected or intended, and it may not be as efficacious as you need or want it to be. Laugh all you want. When it comes to meditation or something like that, materials are inconsequential, and if what you are looking for is spiritual enlightenment, then go for it.



Brutal and Severe do not equal savage, and in any case savage does not equal a lack of civilization. They reached those points, in their age, because of their strict adherence to their religion/law. I didn't condemn them, and they certainly weren't the only brutal ancient civilization. Don't assume I'm judging them by painting them with a realistic color. In today's modernized world we can afford to be all universal love and freedom (as long as your sufficiently strong enough and on the right soil, of course) and let everyone follow whatever God they want to, but at that age that spelled the end of your culture, and your culture was what made you strong enough to survive when everyone wanted to kill one another off and take each other's land. When a harvest was short for too many years in a row, people were sold as slaves for fewer mouths to feed, not out of cruelty but for the good of the whole because genetically engineering wheat to produce more grain wasn't an option.

As for golden dawn? It's a system based largely on kabbalah, using corrupted information. Their application of enochian is haphazard as well, they tended to take things and move them around to suit their comforts. To date I don't know of a golden dawn magician who's magic works reliably and efficiently every time. Most people just use their system as a structure at this point and hang whatever drywall and curtains on it seems appropriate to them. My own system is based on theirs, but with corrected kabbalistic symbolism drawn from accurate translations of many of the same sources they translated poorly on their own.

And Chaos magic - how do you even define a jab at that 'system'? If altering your subconscious through suggestion is what you consider magic, then it works for that. I've been threatened by chaos magicians in the past, and a handful of others that technically only fit under chaos magic but deny that label as well, of course, and so far all i can figure is that the system is so bare that you might as well make up your own system because getting a concrete effect out of that one is a crapshoot.



Neither am I, but the Gods and Names included were around before the book was. Beings outside of our time and space understanding of the world don't care about changing times. At some point in our own history, they handed down mandates to be followed and formulas to be executed, or they put their blessing of acceptance on those the devout brought to them.

What I suggested in the beginning was just that a practitioner treat the book as though it were, if they wanted to work with it. If you look at it as Chaos Magic that will work just because you believe it will, then expect to get results accordingly, but don't expect to get what the book suggests. A psychological model of magic produces psychological results.



This would be a good time and reason to learn metal crafting then. Don't be afraid to widen your skillset to meet the demands of whatever system you are working with, it is good for you and teaches you about the system. I'm not judging you at all, don't get me wrong there, I just honestly believe that any system like this operates more effectively when you treat it part as crucial and powerful as it is. If it takes a little extra time, isn't it worth it? If taking shortcuts because you don't have access to something easily, or because you need to learn something new to produce what you need, means that there is a degree of error inherently present, then why even try it that way?



The results of my own experiments with the Necronomicon were achieved with the full setup. I had called the Bandar, and attempted to walk the first gate in a quiet place far away from most everything where I wouldn't be disturbed.

I received a private vision during the experience, and a deity demanded my fealty. I gave it (and apparently am still paying for that) and then became violently ill for about two weeks, had vivid and usually terrifying dreams every night (and still have one dream in particular on a semi-regular basis) of that period, and then afterwards was followed by a constant sense of paranoia, heard people laughing at me quietly sometimes even when I was alone, and finally realized that my business had declined drastically and I was alienating my friends and family.

Now, other people seem to have experienced other things in that ritual and afterwards, so I don't think my case is typical, but what I do think is that either somehow the deities named therein found me wanting as a devotee, and let me know it; or that dealing with them just comes with some degree of craziness. Either way, I needed my life to be in order and magic is, for me, a part of that order. My magic was not lacking at the time, I wanted to explore the necronomicon for it's own merit and interest. So, I ritually rejected my oaths and asked for Inanna's forgiveness, and swore to never touch the rituals again if she would release me. The 'craziness' stopped immediately, and I have not touched them since that time.

From other systems, including my own which has been crafted over a long time now piece by piece, I have gained daily guidance on how to best apply my skills to gain the greatest advantage; I have a comparatively massive clientele in a city where there currently isn't a lot of money to go around and most people cut every expenditure they can; I have a healthy relationship full of open communication and honesty with not even a small argument or altercation of any kind in the two and a half years we've been together; my dreams are vivid and more and more frequently lucid and communicate significant ideas to me, many of which I have actually applied to improve my waking life to great effect; and I am on the verge of starting my own clinic. I have seen things levitate, I have read people's minds, and a handful of paltry 'supernatural' phenomena pervades my daily existence by no direct intention of my own, I think it just comes with the territory. I have discarded systems that did not work, and have taken up systems that promised results and got them. The spiritual experiences I have had I count as separate from magical work, though some of it overlaps.

Granted, I'm not interested in moving needles or lighting candles, I don't have a farm, I've never needed to raise the dead, I don't have any armies at my borders, I may have enemies but I'm not worried enough to do anything about them if they are there, and so far few people have requested my sooth-saying (although I did a better job at that than a phone-line psychic!). Some of these things seem to come about miraculously, but they are rarely subtle and the timing and consistency is more than coincidence for my own life. I do basically no marketing at all, my business is entirely word-of-mouth, and the clinic I work for created a new title and position just so that they could promote me. I even got a car, which I paid 1/4 market value for.



Again, though, you're not working a book based on any other culture. It's not, for instance, a christian book (the followers are brutal at times, the religion is not, except for the hell and damnation. Sumerian religion promises suffering in THIS life, which is far more threatening.)

peace

Vagrant, when you put things that way I can understand why you feel as you do about the work, and I must admit to a degree it has given me pause despite my urge to work with the book. Not out of fear, but if you had all the proper tools and preparations and still had a bad experience it does make me wonder, why, you were rejected by the gods. Had I been in your shoes I can only imagine the disappointed of going through that effort only to be snubbed in a sense, whereas you hear of others using subpar preparation as I had intended to do and speaking mostly of good experiences.

Out of curiosity what system do you practice, or what advice would you give to someone looking for a system to use? I actually agree with you about the Golden Dawn and Chaos Magick, even though I went through my own chaos phase at a point. I worked with the golden dawn system for two years and it just didn't take hold with me, I never had the experiences many others seemed to have and at many points I admit I experienced absolutely nothing.

Don't be run off from doing what you feel urged to do just because I had a bad experience. It could have been any number of things. Maybe because I was baptized as a child, maybe because I swore and oath to another god in my earlier occult experience, maybe I just lacked some quality, or had some quality, that those entities didn't like. There's no way to know now, at least for me. I might have instead asked Inanna to show me how to be acceptable, but at the time I mostly just wanted to move on, that current wasn't working for me and no other magic had harmed me that way before (energy work is a different story). And maybe others working with subpar tools are getting favorable results that I just don't know about and they never mentioned. Either way, do what you feel, but at least feel respect and reverence for any magical endeavor - after all, ou're not making a cheese sandwich, you're tapping into the forces of creation!

My system is at this point entirely my own, although the symbol set I work with is mostly kabbalistic at this point. I am working with the Goetia currently, but complications have arisen, possibly due to my aforementioned oaths, which I am rectifying. I will say that the gatewalking experience worked the first time, whereas Goetia is requiring some serious examination. When looking for a system, I don't think that the system itself is so important as is the need to continually delve deeper into it and have something to find. The GD system is very deep - but dig deep enough and there are internal inconsistencies that are hard to get around and after you find the flaws the system becomes unwieldy even if it was working alright before. Chaos magic, by nature, has no internal inconsistencies, but neither is it internally consistent and tends to throw both of those concepts out the window. However, that means you have to figure out your own paradigm before you can work it effectively.

And there's a difference between effective, efficient magic, and magical effect. When I was first getting into magic as a practice, I got some kind of vague results about half the time, sometimes less. The more I progressed my understanding of magical principles and saw them applied in different ways in different systems, the more efficient and effective my magic became. I don't think you can go into almost any system and just pick it up and have it work the way it is 'supposed to' for you - I think it does take some degree of practice and understanding before it will bear real fruit, the question is when you get to that point, will the system still have enough integrity to continue to work better over time, or will it always be the equivalent of just praying and hoping and having 'positive thoughts'. The law of attraction works, but it doesn't work to the same powerful effect that a properly executed magical action works.

So dig around, and experiment, and practice, and dig yourself out of holes when you need to; but always continually study and make sense of the ancient cultures and their mythologies and symbols that you are using when you do. It's all good and well to use this material rather than that when you understand what it means to change it - if you don't know why the first material (as an example, could be names, symbols, etc.) was used to begin with then you are acting blindly and can't improve anything about the system as you go. Magic is an interaction between spirit, consciousness, and matter. Your spirit already knows the game, you body just needs to keep going and functioning well, but your consciousness relies on understanding to make the connection between the two.

peace

I think what I will do before starting is to basically ritually renounce all prior oaths before undertaking the work, it is possible the gods saw some of your previous alliances as less than tasteful, in any event I appreciate your words Vagrant.

Yet the algorithm has only one form? And everything else other magicians do yields "unexpected" or "unintended" or otherwise "unefficacious" results? Wow. Again, I'm sorry the rest of us can't possibly be doing magick that is relevant, true, or powerful as that form which you have declared sacrosanct and made your own. How sad for the rest of us!



To be brutal is to have the qualities of a "nonhuman beast" or "savage," so excuse my confusion here. I agree that the historical context of these places also appears to be brutal to many a Westerner, and that's exactly my point: The Necronomicon wields a great deal of its power because the "white man" projects his fantasies of what it means to be "savage" onto the meaning of its gods. Lovecraft's stories deeply play on our latent prejudices for the "other" continents of the world, places which he usually compared against a nice little town on the East Coast! He's not the first to have used it as a literary device either, though at least he did not make up a lot of detailed facts about it like Hegal! But to get back to the issue here, I still think you are confusing the objective with the subjective here a bit much; even if you use a perfect image of a god, you are still a Westerner seeing that image.

I take it you know magicians whose magick works effectively and every time, eh? In comparison to the G.D. magicians whose magick doesn't work every time?

Getting any effect at all out of chaos magick at all is a crapshoot? Wow. That isn't my battle, but sure.



I think this gets to the essence of what our argument here is about. I think you are separating yourself from an objective definition of "the gods" too much, and mistaking the image of the God and the techniques of painting him for the real thing. Our Western mind is very well trained to define the world and then to mistake that definition for the world--- you're in the company of many scientists and Nobel Lauretes here! But the mistake of pursuing magick as an objective science is that you're going to miss what magick is if the techniques themselves are confused with the results, and then the results with reality. I'm not saying magick is entirely subjective either, or that known methods don't tend to produce known results. But Magick is only a symphony. It doesn't matter whether there are a few wrong notes or whether you substitute a rock guitar for a cello so long as you reach the feeling beyond it. What I will accept is a statement that certain magicians do or don't use tools; what I won't accept is that there is necessarily any difference between the results, or even that there is one result.

Here's the thing, I really don't disagree with what you are suggesting in general, i.e. to use a method. But you codify the method and concertize the result too much. This is why I emphasize seeking an understanding of the method, and why the method works, more than the method itself.

This post has been edited by monkman418: Feb 4 2011, 07:21 PM

I take it that you've used the Necronomicon system with various substitutions to great effect? I don't know where the insecurity is coming from, but I never said that a system besides my own won't be "relevant, true, or powerful". My own system is a mishmash of principles, from an external point of view, but is internally consistent across the board. And, I'm speaking here specifically of previously codified systems, in which case, the algorithm does have one form, laid down clearly. Deviating from that algorithm isn't the same algorithm in a different form - that's counter to the definition of algorithm - it's a different algorithm all together. The above bit doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't know what system you use - I don't care, and I haven't said anything about what I think you or anyone else can do, and I'm not sure where your assumption is coming from. All I have pointed at is the Necronomicon system, and performing it according to the text, and given my reasons why I think that is the best way. I've cited the GD system and Chaos Magic as examples of other systems which are products of the same process of substitution.



I practiced Necronomicon before I read Lovecraft, although arguably his literature influenced literature throughout the western world. You seem to have a very tolerant view of human behavior, I have a less tolerant view, regardless of the cultural context - being a westerner has nothing to do with it. The measure of a culture's civility or brutality can be taken by how it treats its people, and it's neighbors. Not all cultures from that age were similarly brutal, though perhaps by necessity many were.

You have not a hint of a clue of what my lens is concerning the 'image' of a God. Spiritual innovation and adaptation of traditional magico-spiritual practices is the province of the western intellect, and our history proves it as the western world takes hold of and distorts, waters down, and otherwise makes those practices more 'digestible' - the evidence suggests that you have a more western paradigm-template than I do. If you consider that a positive, I don't particularly care. I have personally gained a great deal more by adhering to practices closer to the original form than I have from updated versions of those practices. Maybe your experience is the reverse - or maybe you have not tried it both ways and don't know. I don't know what your specific background is and again - I don't care.

As far as I can tell, you assume my lens is a "western minded white man," due to the prejudices of your own Lens, whatever that may be.



Yes, and yes. I know both kinds, though only one genuine by-the-book GD magician. The others use some kind of adapted, (and again) watered down version. My own magic now works effectively, and every time, when I use my own system and do not deviate from the proven principles behind it. The only time I fail now - it wasn't always that way - and in terms of my initial intention and expectation - is when I try to adopt a new system. Those excursions inevitably enhance my personal tradition in some way, but take time to work with effectively on their own.





Concrete effects, as opposed to subconscious alterations, assuming you wish to take the quote in it's full context. But sure.



It becomes clear at this point that you're looking for opportunities to get on a soap box about the 'western mind' rather than actually reading and comprehending what I've wrote in context to the question at hand - which was, essentially, how to go about working the Necronomicon specifically. My only, basic, and specific comment to the ends of answering that question - from my own opinion, to be taken or discarded - was that the OP should follow the book's guidelines, and that the book should be approached seriously, like any other grimoire or tradition based on approaching a/the/the many God(s). I don't believe the 'Gods' of the necronomicon are gods at all, although in comparison with ourselves, they may as well be, and there's probably a reason they were worshiped. But if you're going to expect them to do things for you, well, there's an instruction manual for it, why not follow it?

You're now discussing magic on a general scale, which widens the issue far beyond the question of how to work the necronomicon. And, having a very, very broad experience with magical traditions and variations of approach to the subject and practice thereof, including traditions with and without tools, I can say from my own experience, and the anecdotal experiences of those around me, that it doesn't matter if you use tools or not - the difference in the results has nothing to do with the tools, but with the apprehension of the system being utilized. Magic may be a symphony, but if you don't learn to conduct, and what it means to be a conductor, and everything that goes into the relationship between an orchestra and it's conductor, your just waving your wand while the orchestra plays on like it practiced, and maybe they have some cohesion or maybe they don't, but the properly trained conductor does more than just direct their music - he infuses into their performance the kind of rolling and dynamic feeling that moves the audience to recognize a performance vs. merely a demonstration.



That is a 'method' that has for me been invaluable in actually doing the latter things - how are you supposed to learn to conduct an orchestra without getting in there and doing it using the standard cues? Do you imagine that reading a book about it is enough to give you the creativity to jump into it using your own personalized set of cues to the players, which they will then understand and follow along with? You're suggesting, here and above, that you can read this book, understand the method and why it works (this all assumes you're still pertinent to the topic at hand), without any deeper exploration than that, and then change things here and there to make it easier and go at it successfully, just as though you had followed the original guidelines. I do disagree with what you are suggesting if that is the case.

Here's the thing: you're mistaking understanding the method, with intellectual comprehension of the system. They aren't the same thing. Just because you can read, and form word strings, and figure out what it's actually saying, doesn't mean that you have any understanding at all, much less wisdom, and without those two things you have no Knowledge which which to bridge the gap from the system to the results. You get those things by using the system as it is and coming to apprehend it's nature internally.

Besides this, overall you seem to hold the view that objective elements in magical practice are essentially interchangeable and that as long as you know how the process actually works the materials are, well, immaterial. This assumes that there is not in fact any kind of inherent association between certain materials (agrippa would have said the 'virtues' of those materials), and the magical actions we employ those materials to execute. That's a broad assumption, and not borne out by any ancient tradition (and those people were not stupid).

Did you, for instance, know that (referencing the copper crown requisite from before), that women have more copper in their physiology than men? And The reverse is true for iron. Or that Anu is said to have taken Inanna as his lover? These associations don't crop up randomly, because someone looked at them and said, "You know, that kind of reminds me of Venus." There is an underlying harmony between things, a natural and inherent reflection from one part in the macro to a part in the micro, and these things show themselves in subtle and fascinating ways - and grant a great deal of insight into why so much has been done the way it was in the past. Yes, it is our spiritual consciousness that employs those harmonies to fulfill an intention, and yes, our spiritual consciousness can do without those harmonies; but the harmonics (of materials, geometries, sounds, colors, substances, gestures, etc.) establish undercurrents already there that we can navigate to achieve a results, vs. either hurling an intention into the torrent and hoping it gets to the target intact, or just navigating those harmonics haphazardly. Sure, it can be done. Why go around your butt to get to your elbow?

We obviously have different views. OP can decide for himself how to give it a try, and see for himself how it works. You may very well be a successful magician whose magic works effectively and consistently every time, and congratulations to you if you are. Double that if you do it with no tools, and are able to use dusty old manuals to useful effect without following the requisites. If so, you hold a paradigm more flexible than my own, and materials really are immaterial. But do the favor, to myself and others, of not pigeonholing the world-views of others based on your own suspicion of prejudice that you are, apparently, ready and willing to bring to bear at a moment's notice. It lessens your standing, and distracts you and the other from the discussion at hand.

peace

You identified a method and dismissed other methods as having less validity (different results) and reliability (probability of achieving the results consistently). If the results are different and the ability to repeat an operation is compromised then that method isn't true, it lacks power that it doesn't achieve to begin with, and practically it would be irrelevant to practice.

I have used Necronomicon, though much less than other texts that call to me, and have either followed the instructions to the letter or made substitutions. In some cases, the ritual has worked better with the substitution, and I certainly haven't noticed that the dominant outcomes drastically shift. Upon examination, it has been clear that the dominant factor, in response to the tools used, has been myself and my reaction to the ritual. This is why I emphasize the importance of the individual's perspective in performing a ritual.

Certainly, a given set of tools or procedures has power. But it is still the magician that uses those tools and procedures. And it is still dependent on the magician's perspective.



In other words, there is only one way to solve the problem. That solution is more reliable and valid than other methods. No other methods will achieve the same result. I feel like we're arguing over whether an artist can use paint or clay to portray a scene, and you are suggesting that there is only one established medium or technique. This isn't true in art, and it certainly isn't true in magick. It is obvious whether one changes the techniques of a manual or not, this isn't in dispute.



The reason people have a less tolerant view of other cultures is because they are not part of those cultures. You are measuring the behavior of other cultures based on your own viewpoint, which arguably you acquired in a Western environment. The reason you perceive this as an insult is because you still want your perspective on human behavior to be universal and not "simply western," which happens to be a very western-based bias and desire, and that just isn't a possible goal for any of us. We can keep expanding our viewpoint, but we haven't acquired another one entirely. This is confirmed both by theories of culture shock and theories of assimilation...one doesn't "become" something new, or even totally understand it, though there is a new synthesis that is much more understanding and adaptive.



I'm not saying to choose one or the other paradigm. But don't fool yourself that you're not taking (even antique western systems) from an objective point of view, as if you can experience these things and mesh with them as a tabula rossa. Many people make this mistake when they become interested in other cultures and traditions, they feel that they assimilate into those perspectives, but the truth is that it is impossible to approach these things with a mind divorced from all that they know already.



Don't take it as an insult that you are a westerner. And certainly don't remove yourself from whatever lens you have naturally acquired by growing up in a western culture. From everything you have written here, and elsewhere, I believe that you are much more open minded and exposed to different paradimes than the average joe. But that doesn't mean you have removed yourself from your worldview as you encounter new perspectives.



And this is all good advice. My specific disagreement is with the basis for which you make the argument.



It seems that the real contention we are having is more about magicial theory and practice in general than just the necronomicon, fair?



Nope. You're extrapolating on what I said here. Earlier I said: "Probably the best general rule on this is to understand the purpose of the various tools, gestures, and accessories going into a ritual; as long as the rituals remain intact, with all objects maintaining their purpose, there shouldn't be a problem. " On reflection, it seems that this approach is also sensitive to your overwhelming concern that the "algorithm" remain intact. I think an algorithm can remain intact if substitutions are made.



Powerful rituals and magical formula may be experienced by encountering the text. It may be less vivid than performing the ritual, but it is not inevitably intellectually removed. Otherwise, books such as the Gita and the Bible would have no impact on people, not to mention the volumes of emotive poetry that would be relegated to an intellectual exercise if not experienced in a deep way. Perhaps you have not had this type of experience by reading a book of ritual magick; I have wondered whether people have sealed magick books away as causing great and wondrous things to leap out and become inadvertently invoked because of the impact it has on the reader.



Materials do have a resonance with certain principals. It is beyond the scope of this discussion to hash out whether that is due to real material correspondences, or culture, or something beyond it, or perhaps all of these. My argument is not to dissuade you or anyone from using materials, either. I am simply stating that it is the magician that either perceives these resonances or not, that it is the magician that ultimately responds to what he or she inflames him or herself to perceive during a ritual, and that a ritual may retain its value in an altered form as long as this resonance is retained.



I'm sorry you grew up in a culture and that you're incapable of claiming a universal point of view even with your wide breath of experiences, but that couldn't be avoided. You obviously don't like the fact that some of your viewpoints cried out for a little criticism from a sociological perspective, which is understandable because most people have this reaction to applied sociology. The first fact that this discipline charges us to know is that we come from a culture, and that our perspectives continually influence our takes on other cultures. Bias in innate, and there isn't a person on the planet that has grown beyond it. It lessens your standing to be unwilling to acknowledge this in yourself, especially when our biases are so relevant to this discussion.

This post has been edited by monkman418: Feb 5 2011, 03:28 AM

As far as the Necronomicon goes, in the original version you are told that the 50 Names of Marduk are available for conjuration once you have entered his gate.

That would require, at the very least, that you had conjured the Watcher and passed the five previous gates. Assuming you did nothing else and were simply zipping through the system, this would take several months, and the process is described as something to require substantially more time and effort so that you acquire spells, powers, knowledge etc from each of those spheres. By the time you get to the Names, you've done quite a bit and the service of those powers are a well-earned privilege.

Compare that to the follow-up book, the Necronomicon Spellbook, in which no such instruction is given at all. The 50 Names are presented in a format it would be hard to simplify further, and the whole book seems aimed at total beginners. The idea that you might be involved in a complicated occult system is an afterthought, and the "testimonies" of the original volume are treated as the ravings of a lunatic.

So do you need to do all that work to invoke those names? No.
Are you missing an important part of the system by not doing all of the work? Yes.
Would that omission affect your results in using the names? Probably.

If you want to determine whether a difference exists between the altered form of a ceremony (this one or any other) and that of the original, IMO it makes sense to first have some experience of the original. You might be doing "real magic" otherwise in a million different ways, and it might work out very well for you, but it's not going to be the Necronomicon or give you any direct appreciation for that work. The Necronomicon might be total crap or it might indeed be "the most dangerous black book of the western world," but there's no way to speak from experience on the matter if the whole process is chopped apart, no matter what the excuse.

Coca Cola continued using the "Can't beat the real thing!" slogan long after the formula dropped its unprocessed coca leaves in 1904 and then replaced sugar with HFCS in 1980. Sure it's still a bubbly black liquid of dubious nutritious value, but it's substantially different from the original and we are not in a position to make valid comparisons without experience of those originals. This may be a poor analogy, but I hope at least you will understand that by insistence on well-managed experiments that I am not intending to proclaim that magic must be drawn precisely from ancient literature in order to be effective.

This is an excellent argument, thank you Imperial Arts.



And here is the weak point (of Vilhjalmr's argument as well). If one called upon one of the names of Marduk and received precisely those material results that were asked for, how would you even measure those results against anything that would be achieved by the "proper background"?



If a person gets the results sought by using parts of a chopped-up Necronomicon, it still seems important for you to make an assertion that it is "not" the Necronomicon, or that those results pail in comparison to the original. Why? You can say that such a procedure uses only parts of the Necronomicon, or that the procedure deviates from the steps laid out in the Necronomicon. These statements would be factual and true. But it's still using Necronomicon. And if we are measuring success by material outcome, it seems that there would be other motivations involved in needing to tell others that any other procedures do not appreciate the system. Certainly, share the methods you use, but why make a point that other methods are lesser?

Careful and well-managed experiments depend on the proper documentation of the procedures, process notes, and outcomes of any given experiment. I think it is unfair to imply that all experiments that deviate from the text are not careful or well-managed so long as the procedures are properly noted. Perhaps the experiment will fail, or the magician will concoct an explosion, but the integrity of the operation itself is not compromised so long as everything that went into the experiment was documented.

The proper source of comparison is to a set of results, not to another method. This argument in general reminds me of how a certain group of Chinese Buddhists told myself and my Korean teacher that we were not practicing Buddhism, since the Korean Buddhists had deviated from the Chinese teaching centuries ago. Obviously I do not have the personal authority of persons who have devoted their lifetime to a set of spiritual practices, but hopefully you understand my analogy here. It's all Buddhism, and it's all Necronomicon, and I think there are other reasons (such as wanting to claim authority, though I don't know in your case) that make it important to assert that deviations aren't valid in some way. As long as the experiment is properly documented and the desired results are obtained, why not call it Necronomicon?

This post has been edited by monkman418: Feb 6 2011, 03:23 PM

The off-topic portion of this thread was redirected here: http://www.sacred-magick.org/index.php?showtopic=8124&hl= For those who might have some interest in where it was going.

This was done to preserve the original content of this thread, which had already veered slightly off topic.

We're going to have different approaches then. I hold the magical journal as the most important and indispensable tool in ceremonial magick. It may not be necessary in order to practice magick, but if our bases of comparison are the procedures and results of an experiment then it seems only necessary to record these details.

It appears that you make the grimoire itself the basis of comparison, which is a fine method to use, but that method doesn't automatically dismiss other methods so long as they are properly documented.



I'm glad you picked up this thread, because you always have many good insights to share and express yourself well. In fact, I had hoped to prod you to respond with my prior comment. I think this is an extremely important discussion to have. The Necronomicon is not a book I work with even semi-regularly, but I think it is a good text to use as the basis of this discussion.



Then the argument is about who gets to hold the flag of tradition or not. As far as the Catholics and Orthodox Jews go, they want "real" Christianity or Judiasm to be synonymous with their organized tradition, and they find it important to denounce everything that deviates from the protocols of the group. I don't have a problem with Roman Catholics wanting to strictly define what practices Roman Catholics do and do not perform. But even beyond saying what "is or isn't" an authorized Catholic or Orthodox Jewish practice, they want to extend their purview of authority to other groups that are comfortable with the fact that they have split off from the endorsed practices. And the motivation, as far as I can tell, an attempt to try to define the boundaries of a group's entitivity in order to exclude others from claiming privilege through their own work. It's like the Chinese Buddhists claiming that the Korean Buddhists are not 'real' Buddhists because they deviated from the teaching, even if the Korean Buddhists reach nirvana it isn't good enough.

From what you have claimed in your introduction to this forum, you are the "sole legitimate heir" of the grimoires. Perhaps your tradition is to keep to the methods of the book itself, and that's a legitimate pursuit and point of view, all power to your desire to emulate magick according to your interpretation of the most authentic practice. But why claim that other magicians are not practicing Necronomicon so long as they are honest about how they are using the book?

Of course, I would welcome any specific criticisms on methods, especially since you tend to have such sharp insights on these matters...that would be something entirely different.



The basis of an experiment is the experiment itself and all of the conditions going into it. Without a willingness or interest to thoroughly document all experiments conducted, I would especially understand your insistence on adherence to the text of the grimoire itself as the basis of comparison. But without documenting an experiment, no one would be in a position to say what aspects of the Necronomicon were required or not, because nothing would be tested against a record. Especially as I have progressed in magick, I have found that I made mistakes that either deviated from my own error in reading the text or that were caused by my own misunderstanding of the practice, and the documentation of my past methods has proved essential. This given, it seems just as legitimate to me to practice magick by pulling it apart as it is by keeping it together.



I draw the authority of my work from the integrity of my experimental procedures, which are documented from beginning to end and not based on the afterthoughts of a personal experience or the safety of an automatic claim to legitimacy based on adherence to a text. Mimicking a set of instructions does not automatically convey true understanding or legitimacy, especially if the procedures and results of those experiments are not documented such as will give a clear record of what does and doesn't work. A series of experiments take place over the course of many years, and it is far fetched to expect anyone to keep the details of all the work conducted in their head. I do not know everything, but I know how to ask questions with my experiments and how to gauge results based on methods. My understanding changes based on my results, and is in a state of constant evolution, a hypothesis tested and retested.

You seem to think that I am calling for laziness and a willy-nilly approach, and this is hardly the case. It may be true in that most practitioners dismiss methods altogether, again this is not what I am seeking to promote here.

While I make an argument against the text as a source of authority, I think it is important to note that I'm not dismissing using the text. Part of the reason I find this discussion so humorous is for the reason that I tend to strictly perform the methods that I do take most seriously. That given, I do not hold texts as the standard of comparison in and of themselves.

Again, I hold the documentation of all procedures as essential. And this is my opinion...it isn't important for me to say who is or isn't doing the "most real" Necronomicon. What is important is whether or not people know what they are doing and what those results are. I applaud your willingness to invest time and energy in emulating the practices of the grimoires, especially since you obviously have gained a great deal of real knowledge and understanding, documentation or not. And I hope you continue in your willingness to share your experience of the grimories. But I think your priorities are a bit off if the text is your only source of authority.

This post has been edited by monkman418: Feb 7 2011, 09:58 PM

When I began experiments with the Goetia, I was the only living person who had done such a thing, and I am the first person on record to have performed the actual Goetia ceremony. Correct me if I am in error, but it seems that my accounts are the only such records that exist in print, whereas every other version makes some alteration of the method and the overwhelming majority include no practical records whatsoever. The handful of people who have taken up that particular art in its full format have done so upon inspiration from my records, and so far as I am aware none have made nearly so much progress with it, hence my self-appointed (and somewhat tongue-in-cheek) title as its sole legitimate heir.

Yet for all that, there are many thousands of people who draw this and that element from the Goetia - the book itself, mind you, not "goetia" as some generic sort of occult practice - and then claim to have knowledge in the subject. What knowledge can they truly claim, having taken a sigil here and there, or a circle, or some other alteration for which they cannot account except with an excuse? They might be mighty magicians indeed, but they have no experience of the Goetia. I have heard by way of rumor alone (which is of course prone to error) that some others who have taken my example, the "by the book" approach, have found that such a method does indeed work in the way it is supposed to work and that there is a significant difference to be discovered only by experiment. If they exist, these folks can speak on the Goetia, and others must be content to speak about something else with several common elements.

There are also people who have followed the book, or apparently so, and found nothing as a result. Magic isn't science, but for what it was worth those folks have approached the subject in a scientific manner. They are in a position to evaluate the subject on their own terms, not on mine or upon the word of some paperback author or occult guru. A failed experiment is also a valid experiment!

As noted in my book of records (the results section, for Agares), the first experiments were not recorded at all. I wasn't seeking peer review, I was trying to find out if it worked. Discussion with my wife was my way of keeping a record at that time, and due to the complicated nature of the results she encouraged me to make a thorough written account thereafter. Among the magicians I do hold in high esteem, none are widely known as magicians and none keep records of their occult work.

Before anything else, I want to be clear that I am not denouncing anyone's occult work on account of failure to follow the rules. But I do say that without actually following the rules of a given system, they have no experience of the system. If their system has no rules, or they make it up on their own, that is wonderful! It is a delight to see people create something effective without needing to rip off sigils and conjuration formats from ancient literature. The world needs more magicians like that, and it is toward that end that I am probing the old literature, under the assumption that by thoroughly exploring the older methods we can get a clear idea of what magic can do and how it operates without having to make it up as we go along.

Whether you keep a record or not, the system described in the Necronomicon is essentially an experiment. Maybe it works, maybe not. Maybe it's all very necessary and there are dire consequences if you fail to follow it perfectly (it says giant demons will eat all the sheep in your country!), and maybe you can just scribble a seal on paper and say the magic word. No matter what you are able to manifest with the abbreviated approach, it gives no experience in the original system. I would caution this person "seeking a mentor" to understand that fact, and to recognize that when he finds a disciple of Enki to gauge whether or not that person meets his expectations of one who knows the system thoroughly, or whether it is one who had dismissed the majority of its teachings.

There are definitely places where interpretation of the text comes into play. Several of the pages appear to be out of order, especially in the Book of Calling and the two Watcher conjurations, and obviously "olieribos" and "aglaophotis" are obscure or nonexistent. The Copper Dagger of Inanna, by its usage, appears to be more like a wand than a dagger, and one would need to decide whether to make it flat and sharp or maybe three-sided and pointy with a ball on the end. Maybe the deities on the altar are Wiccan gods, and maybe they are Nuit and Hadit, and all of that is left to interpretation, but to omit them entirely is to fail to perform the experiment.

It might be a fine experiment. It might be scientific. It might be fifty meticulously performed double-blind tests including the full gamut of scientific processes, recorded in triplicate by seventeen qualified observers with a peer-review to follow, but unless the experiment is done with the Necronomicon itself, the results will not show what's up with the Necronomicon. They show the results of your own work. That might be fine for you, and fine for someone else, but for someone who wants to know about the Necronomicon, it's off the mark.

You'll never know what happens when you sacrifice eleven people to Hubur with a sword until you try!
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/blowup.gif)

This post has been edited by Imperial Arts: Feb 8 2011, 12:13 AM