<3 for "Simon"
JDRage Wrote:The Simon Necronomicon
Yep I know about Lovecraft’s fictional book , however the Simon Necronomicon , well it’s a long story , the book has as many debunkers as it has fans , it “doesn’t” ( got that ? , it does not ) claim to be the book from Lovecraft’s fiction , and surprisingly according to many who practice magic …it contains sound Magical practice and theory .
Its an odd situation , for all it doesn’t claim to be the book from Lovecraft’s fiction and it even pay’s homage to Aleister Crowley…
Its critics slam it …because “they” claim it’s the book from Lovecraft’s fiction ….well that’s just daft .
I was just wondering if anybody has had any experience with this book ?
I've worked with it for a while. Mainly the basics stuff. I've considered applying myself to the full practice of working through the Gates, but frankly it's a lot of work, and not enough results. The experiences I've had, have been interesting, but nothing ground shaking compared to other magickal workings I've done. I'll reply to more stuff, then I'll lecture (in the school sense, not the angry mom sense).
JDRage Wrote:I’m not sure how Lovecraft did it …even though he fully admitted his work was fictional , but he seems to have renamed a whole bunch of ancient gods …
He wasn't a dumb man. Sometimes people make that mistake (I'm not saying you are), but he knew the basics of world history, and various mythologies. He also had some very loose ties to occultists. I'm not saying he was one, or was really friends with (some evidence he was) occultists, but they did have passing links. He names a black magician after Arthur Edward Waite (designer of the Rider Waite Smith Tarot, Golden Dawn member, and occult drama queen), and in one of his stories...dammit, I refuse to be the person who uses vague references...one moment (yes I'm narrating this, rather than just stating it)...okay back. In The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, Lovecraft makes use of some butchered Qabalistic rituals of naming, showing at least a passing familiarity there.
On the other hand, I won't deny some of his stuff just strikes me as "he's onto something", not saying that he's kin, or magickian, or Cthulhu is/was objectively real but he does seem to strike some of the right chords.
Quote:I have to admit it’s a hard read , I’m assuming the original manuscript doesn’t read like it was written by a professional writer , or even someone who’s used to writing , but its still remarkably interesting .
Actually that is the original.
Quote:The book itself has its own mythology , some state that its cursed and speak of the dangers associated with the spells and incantations ….but who knows , its probably just hype .
Any book of magick dealing with well, magick, especially external entities, does care some danger, but the paranoia over books like the Necronomicon or the Goetia are just a bit silly. It's not like just reading the evocation will get Malphas in a puff of sulphur.
House Hesson Wrote:A sound approach, and one that doesn't require technical correctness in the source material. Or even objective truth - see also Storm Constantine's books on magic, which are based on her fictional Wraeththu series. We've been tempted to pick those up ourselves but probably have enough things to integrate in our paradigm stew as it is. >.>
I really liked Constantine's Dehara Grimoire. But being herm, and loving Wraeththu, it appealed to me, even though it is really basic level magick, and very neo-pagan influenced, it was nice to work with a Pantheon who weren't male or female.
Okay, onto the lecture bit.
The Necronomicon (Simon) is not, what the book claims to be. Yes, a book heist happened at the right time, but the book didn't come from there. It isn't an age old book of magick from Sumer/Akkad/Babylon. It's entirely "made-up" by an occultist from New York city in the 1970s...actually, that's a bit misleading on two fronts. First off, it wasn't just one. Simon (Peter, ironically, for Biblical scholars), was the mastermind of the project, but he had help from...I think it was three others if I remember right (Khem Set, being the most notable). The other misleading part is saying he made it up.
The Necronomicon was based on occult texts, you see smatterings of Artabel, Honorius, and the like in it. It loosely linked existing magickal theory, with Babylonian entities and Lovecraftian names. It wasn't written to be the (or a) real Necronomicon, it really was part joke, part experiment it seems. Made with magickal intent, but no pre-existing reality. Peter wasn't looking to channel the Old Ones, and rain insanity upon the lands, he was someone who wanted to write a book, liked Lovecraft, liked Babylonian mythology.
Now, just because it's made up, doesn't mean anything, for several reasons. Babylonian figures, once held power (or still do, depending on your paradigm), so tapping into them, adds some reality of strength. Lovecraftian figures are part of the social consciousness, they hold enough sway to be strong egregores, enough people have read and got swallowed by the tales to add their power. Then you can just believe that anything done with strong intent gets results.
That being said, the Necronomicon can be used to achieve results...my issue is just that it's really impractical magick, in regards to what you do, and what you get as results. I was told the spellbook had more practical stuff, but I haven't read it yet.
Arg, now I can't find the tracing links, but Peter is tied legally to the text, and his name does appear as a "translator".
If you enjoy the notion of Lovecraftian entities, I also recommend Liber Nasty (in Prime Chaos, by Phil Hine) and the Pseudonomicon by Phil Hine. The Pseudonomicon explores with with Lovecraftian entities as states of consciousness.
Now, that I've spent too much time...summing it up. Simon Necronomicon, made up by an occultist, can work if you apply it, but really it is an impractical and paranoia inducing system.