How-to Conjure a Demon [free ebook]

[AIN666]

Hey guys. I wrote this for a friend who was having a problem causing a demon to visibly manifest. So I wrote a small manual on how to do just that and figured that some newer initiates might be having the same problem, so I'm sharing it here. This is a very basic introduction to Demonic Evocation and aimed at beginners. If you are a more experienced practitioner you may find a couple pieces of new information, but you will likely not benefit from the read.

You can downloaded The Book of Hórama for free at http://www.4shared.com/office/e0XPkMnL/Horama.html

[Ada27]

Hey guys. I wrote this for a friend who was having a problem causing a demon to visibly manifest. So I wrote a small manual on how to do just that and figured that some newer initiates might be having the same problem, so I'm sharing it here. This is a very basic introduction to Demonic Evocation and aimed at beginners. If you are a more experienced practitioner you may find a couple pieces of new information, but you will likely not benefit from the read.

You can downloaded The Book of Hórama for free at http://www.4shared.com/office/e0XPkMnL/Horama.html

Thank you for the book, to begin I´ve tried also dowsing, let hope for success! [thumbup]

[Asurendra]

I have taken a look at this work The Book of Horama by Nordenström. I do not know this person or what experiences he has had in his occult practices. I can only offer my opinion and it is given in that spirit of attempting to act in accord with what I believe to be ethical. I base this on my experiences as well as the study that I have undertaken. It will be for the reader to decide whether Nordenström or I am more credible.

Since I'm picky about these matters and it is does betray something of the background of the author, I have to make some points regarding the title of this work. The Greek verb 'horao' (όραω) means to see or to view. What is intended, since this is about evoking a demon to visible appearance, is to 'view' it so there is some rational in the choice of work. It also makes the work sound archaic. But, it is not correct. He should have used a middle voice participle in the title in the genitive case, 'horathou,' so the title in Greek would be given ό βιβλιος του όραθου: The Book of Seeing.

I do not recommend anyone to use this text as a basis for evocation. There are several reasons for this opinion.

First, he no where advices the use of a magick circle while still basing this on the sigils of the Goetia. What that means, is that this operation is more an exercise in spiritualism than Ceremonial Magick and it deprives the operator of a basic protection. Along the same lines, he no where advises that the entity evoked be contained within the Triangle of Art in any form but is instead 'at large' or in a black mirror. Perhaps the reason he is not concerned about this is that he writes “the nature of the demons and whether their substance is real or illusion is irrelevant.” It is actually very relevant and he contradicts himself on this point when he writes later “some demons will attack a Black Magician in the same manner they would any other ...” Given the possibility, why use a sigil to invite something into your space from which you have not taken basic precautions to defend one's self?

Second, there is no real Banishing. So, once you have it there then he advices, apparently only if you feel “overwhelmed” (whatever that might mean) but not as a general rule, to tell it politely, “Depart you in peace … Go back to your resting place … receive the graces of Satan.” The Etheric is only different from the Physical in its manifestation as a state of energy and the loosening of limitations: people and entities are still the same but only more of what they are. There are still criminals and it is no different than if a criminal is in one's house and he is expected to leave simply upon a polite request. It ain't gonna happen!

Third, when he writes about the timing of the operation I think this is simply absurd. If one wants to follow such a discipline I suppose that's fine but it is not necessary and . Given the spare and vague nature of the ritual given in this work this seems odd. Why Sunday and why the set of 3? These spirits are not all that hard to reach. But, there are still optimum times and in the case of Andrealphus this would be when the moon is in Aquarius in the hour of Mercury (after one has invoked the angel Pamasiah, whom he completely leaves out for ideological reasons alone). There is a rational behind this and a tradition, but not on his timing. It seems more like a facade to give the appearance of meaning rather than some real factor to consider.

Fourth, despite the claims of the title, there is nothing in this work that gives any technique to actually perceive or hear the demon. Using the sigil one can get a demon to enter one's space. But what then? How irresponsible to lead people to actions with real consequences for their lives by telling them they will 'see' it when the vast majority will not and will have this thing kicking around the house. It's false advertising.

He advise “experimentation” but that is an activity best taken with care and responsibility or one may make the mistake of Peter Cushing in 'The Creeping Flesh' (1970) where disregard for folklore and a simple sponge bath on a skeleton's finger regenerate an ancient evil (I'm watching this on YouTube as I write so that's why I picked it).

[Klavier]

I have taken a look at this work The Book of Horama by Nordenström. I do not know this person or what experiences he has had in his occult practices. I can only offer my opinion and it is given in that spirit of attempting to act in accord with what I believe to be ethical. I base this on my experiences as well as the study that I have undertaken. It will be for the reader to decide whether Nordenström or I am more credible.

Since I'm picky about these matters and it is does betray something of the background of the author, I have to make some points regarding the title of this work. The Greek verb 'horao' (όραω) means to see or to view. What is intended, since this is about evoking a demon to visible appearance, is to 'view' it so there is some rational in the choice of work. It also makes the work sound archaic. But, it is not correct. He should have used a middle voice participle in the title in the genitive case, 'horathou,' so the title in Greek would be given ό βιβλιος του όραθου: The Book of Seeing.

First, when you use Greek words with English letters, you only use nominative case. So "The Book of Horama" is absolutely correct. It's like saying "The religion of Thelema". And, secondly, "Horama - Όραμα", the genitive being "του Οράματος", means "Vision". And, thirdly, in Greek, the "Book" is neuter, and the article "ο" is used only for masculine nouns. So, the right translation is, "Το Βιβλίον του Οράματος".

So, we have to consider you credible? Well, I'll take a look at the book and tell you my opinion about everything else.

[Klavier]

I'm sorry. The rest of your post was correct. In one way or another (Adonai or Satan) you'll have to be protected while conjuring a demon. And, in one way or another, you'll have to exorcise the demon in the end, or he'll just stay there even if you don't see him (not always at least, because it's also possible that you'll have nightmares), and he'll run around freely, messing up with your life.

I do not recommend anyone to use this text as a basis for evocation. There are several reasons for this opinion.

First, he no where advices the use of a magick circle while still basing this on the sigils of the Goetia. What that means, is that this operation is more an exercise in spiritualism than Ceremonial Magick and it deprives the operator of a basic protection. Along the same lines, he no where advises that the entity evoked be contained within the Triangle of Art in any form but is instead 'at large' or in a black mirror. Perhaps the reason he is not concerned about this is that he writes “the nature of the demons and whether their substance is real or illusion is irrelevant.” It is actually very relevant and he contradicts himself on this point when he writes later “some demons will attack a Black Magician in the same manner they would any other ...” Given the possibility, why use a sigil to invite something into your space from which you have not taken basic precautions to defend one's self?

Second, there is no real Banishing. So, once you have it there then he advices, apparently only if you feel “overwhelmed” (whatever that might mean) but not as a general rule, to tell it politely, “Depart you in peace … Go back to your resting place … receive the graces of Satan.” The Etheric is only different from the Physical in its manifestation as a state of energy and the loosening of limitations: people and entities are still the same but only more of what they are. There are still criminals and it is no different than if a criminal is in one's house and he is expected to leave simply upon a polite request. It ain't gonna happen!

Third, when he writes about the timing of the operation I think this is simply absurd. If one wants to follow such a discipline I suppose that's fine but it is not necessary and . Given the spare and vague nature of the ritual given in this work this seems odd. Why Sunday and why the set of 3? These spirits are not all that hard to reach. But, there are still optimum times and in the case of Andrealphus this would be when the moon is in Aquarius in the hour of Mercury (after one has invoked the angel Pamasiah, whom he completely leaves out for ideological reasons alone). There is a rational behind this and a tradition, but not on his timing. It seems more like a facade to give the appearance of meaning rather than some real factor to consider.

Fourth, despite the claims of the title, there is nothing in this work that gives any technique to actually perceive or hear the demon. Using the sigil one can get a demon to enter one's space. But what then? How irresponsible to lead people to actions with real consequences for their lives by telling them they will 'see' it when the vast majority will not and will have this thing kicking around the house. It's false advertising.

He advise “experimentation” but that is an activity best taken with care and responsibility or one may make the mistake of Peter Cushing in 'The Creeping Flesh' (1970) where disregard for folklore and a simple sponge bath on a skeleton's finger regenerate an ancient evil (I'm watching this on YouTube as I write so that's why I picked it).

[Klavier]

Greek is a very difficult language. Even Crowley, who spoke Greek and wrote several spells using it, made many mistakes. But I've studied Greek through the Bible and I've visited Greece as well (I'm in Greece right now actually), so I can speak Greek as much as I can speak English, or even better. I don't know if it's because of the Bible, but I'm really attracted to the Greek language and wish to master it completely.

So, I do understand your confusion.

[Asurendra]

You are correct I did make one mistake, but, ironically, you repeated it in the same way. The word βίβλος is not neuter, as you say, but feminine. The word that you used is diminutive in Classical Greek. That's what Liddel & Scott say, anyway.

A word about the genitive; you wrote "του Οράματος," which is correct in itself, but failed to notice that I used a genitive form of the middle participle, which is correct for communicating the concept of 'seeing,' since it is the book of what is being seen. The way that you are using the noun does not really convey the meaning since it would be saying 'the vision's book' and that just ain't right: one must use a participle here. So, again, you are wrong.

Speaking modern Greek has next to nothing to do with Koine and Classical Greek grammatically so the truth of this statement has no bearing on the subject and I won't concern myself with it.

[Klavier]

In fact, I don't speak modern Greek, so I have a little problem communicating with uneducated modern Greeks. And, even modern Greek, has too much connection with Hellenistic Greek, because it is way too similar with Old Greek, and it is even more similar to Koine Greek...


The word "Βίβλος" (literaly meaning, "Bible") is a feminine noun. Nothing made clear that you would use the word "Bible" instead of "Book" ("'biblion" in Greek) on this post. Of course it's always stupid to use the word "Bible" ("Biblos") instead of Book ("Biblion), for whatever the fuck you come up with as a conjuration to a demon.

"Bible - Βίβλος" is not neuter. It is feminine. So it goes "Η Βίβλος" in nominative case. I thought he was using the word "book", instead of the word "Bible", that's why I said the above, "Book" is neuter. Well, "Bible" is feminine, so it goes, "Η Βίβλος του Οράματος." ("The Bible of Horama". What I said in the first post was "The book of Horama - Το Βιβλίον του Οράματος". I didn't make any mistake at all, I assure you. You just claim we should use the word "Bible" instead of "book" in Greek, so I make clear to you what's the right translation for both of them.)

I think the text describes itself as "Book", however, not "Bible".

Don't try to correct me, I don't speak modern Greek (I'm still trying to understand it's difference from Koine Greek, but its a bit hard, because I haven't found any real difference, they are just cutting some words, as far as I can see), although I'm trying to, but I think I can speak Koine Greek better than English.

[lupenthewolf]

Honestly I don't think the greek matters that much. no offense, but it's what's inside the book that's any kind of important here.

I've read some of it and I think I can safely say I wouldn't use it as is, but it might be possible to extract something useful from it nonetheless. As with many books on magick and religion I'm going to take what I will and leave the rest.

[Klavier]

I'm not a Greek to be offended. I don't like modern Greek either. But Crowley, in his time, in his long book "Magick in Theory and Practice" said it is a language a magician should be familiar with, because it is extremely strong and wise.

This was confirmed later, when it was discovered that the computers, in programming, ancient Greek was the language they "understood" the most, because it is one of the wisest languages in the world.

Now, about modern greeks, the uneducated ones look at me and say, "These are too intelligent for me," while, with others, I can speak normally.

[RoseRed]

You're really into Crowley, huh?

[Klavier]

You're really into Crowley, huh?

I do admire him, and I'm trying to collect as much as a Satanist could from his writings.