his birthday by decorating their homes and by the presentation of gifts to relatives and friends.
He was born of a virgin at the Winter Solstice. His birth was heralded by a star and singing angels. A wise man
visited him at his birth and prophesied greatness. His followers call him the “Key of Righteousness”.
Jesus? No - the Buddha, whose life greatly parallels Jesus’ life. Today, many Buddhists not only celebrate the
Buddha’s birthday, but their own, on January First, just eight days from the old Winter Solstice, and in Japanese
Buddhism, “Bodhi Day” is December 8th. Both Buddhism and Christianity have “overcome” obstacles in their paths
by absorbing them into their traditions, and today there are as many Buddhist sects as there are Christian
denominations [although Buddhists of one sect treat others with a respect totally lacking in Christianity].
“Unto us a child is born this day!” In pre-Christian Rome this song was commonly heard on the Winter Solstice,
December 25th, the birthday of the Sun. The festival was held during Saturnalia, and both were national festivals.
All work stopped, and all roles were reversed. Master became slave and slave became master, a mock king who
represented Saturn, god of sowing and husbandry, was elected.
In Egypt a Solar Nativity Ritual was celebrated on December 24th at midnight, when people walked through the
streets singing: “The Virgin has brought forth! The light is waxing!” Isis, the mother of Horus, is sometimes pictured
with the child Horus in her arms, wearing a crown circled with twelve stars, not too vaguely reminiscent of Christian
pictures of Mary.
The Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus is traditionally said to have wept before his crucifixion, was sacred to
the god Adonis, whose birthday was celebrated at the Winter Solstice in Jerusalem. Adonis was Astarte’s lover;
Astarte was the eastern Mediterranean Venus, or Morning Star. The word “Bethlehem” (the traditional birthplace of
Jesus) means “House of Bread”, and Adonis was also god of corn.
Many other gods, too numerous to be named, are reputed to have been born at the Winter Solstice. Nearly every
spiritual religion, major and minor, has had at least one god born at the Winter Solstice, when the “old Sun” died
and a “new Sun” was reborn.
The first Christians did not celebrate Christmas because they did not believe that Jesus was a god. He was not
deified until 325 CE, at which time his birth was celebrated on January 6th. Pope Julius I moved Jesus’ birthday to
December 25th in an attempt to assimilate non-Christians and to prevent Christians from participating in the older
festivals of the Solar birthday. Pope Leo the Great rebuked Christians for placing more emphasis on the birth of the
Sun than on “the one who created the Sun”.
Christians for centuries have accepted December 25th as the birth- day of Jesus on blind faith, although there is
no real evidence anywhere to support the claim that he was born on that day. Astronomical evidence indicates that
Jesus was not even born in 1 A.D.! Some authorities believe that the entire legend of Jesus’ birth is composed of
legends borrowed from other faiths combined with astrological computations - all of which have been fictionalized
and personified by theological writers. Christmas is observed on December 25th because of the shrewd observation
of the early Christian fathers that if Christianity were to conquer the world, it would have to relax some of its too-
rigid principles and accept at least the old holidays, turning them into Christian festivals with the same meanings.
Should Setians celebrate Christmas? To celebrate it as the birthday of Jesus would be pure hypocrisy for us, who
believe the birth of Jesus as god to be mere legend. But there is no reason for us not to celebrate the South (Winter)
Solstice. There is no reason for a Setian not to send greeting cards to relatives and friends at this time of year, or to
- 256 -
attend the office party, or even to have a “Solstice Tree”. In fact not doing these things would set us apart from the
rest of our community and make us look suspicious in the eyes of our neighbors.
This particular South Solstice we have something of our own to celebrate. The Æon of Set is six months old. This
may make our Temple sound like a mere babe-in-arms in comparison to the other religions of the world, but the
announcement of the Æon six months ago has far greater implications for the world than all of them combined. We
who are Setians are at last freed to Become.
- 257 -
A16: Set and the Creation of the Universe
- by Robert Ethel IV°
Scroll of Set #I-4, December 1975
In 1931 Carl Anderson, an American physicist, discovered the existence of positively-charged electrons. Until
this time electrons had been known only as negatively-charged “particles” [the purpose of the quotation marks will
become clear later] in orbit around a nucleus in an atom. Anderson was studying cosmic-ray electrons passing
through a strong magnetic field, and noticed that while one-half of the electrons were bent as would be expected
according to their charge, the other half were bent in an exactly opposite direction, indicating an opposite charge.
These positively charged electrons became known as “positrons” (sort of anti-electrons).
This shed some light on Dirae’s “hole” theory in that these positrons were later shown to behave in the same
manner as the “holes” postulated by Dirae. Later experiments showed that positrons could be produced by
bombarding metal plates with gamma rays. Simply, a gamma ray striking the nucleus of an atom has all of its energy
converted into electrons (e-) and positrons (e+). Both of these particles are cast off from the atom to be eliminated
by other atoms. The electrons collide with other electrons and eventually find homes in other atomic structures. The
positrons collide with other electrons to produce gamma rays. One positron colliding with one electron produces
two gamma rays proceeding in opposite directions from one another. Considering the density of electrons
surrounding us, it is easy to see that positrons are annihilated or converted almost instantaneously.
In October 1965 Emilio Segre discovered negatively-charged protons, and later negative or anti-neutrons. It has
since been determined that all of the recently discovered particles have their opposites or anti’s.
Now, since anti-particles have been proven to exist, what about our Universe? First let us look at the “creation”
of the Universe in terms of “Genesis II” from the Cloven Hoof #IV-7. We will briefly restate the theory to serve as a
point of reference:
In the “beginning” the Universe was filled with radiation. This radiation became partially transformed into
equal amounts of matter and antimatter. The particles thus formed began to draw toward each other, and toward a
center. During this process, particles of matter met other particles of matter and fused yielding larger bodies of
matter. The same occurred with the antimatter. Matter met antimatter in some cases, and both were “annihilated”
forming radiation. Eventually, the radiation pressure became greater than the force of attraction between the
particles and bodies proceeding toward the common center, and caused them to retreat from each other. The “body”
formed by the proximity of the particles attracted to each other is basically what George Gamow termed an “ylem” in
his “big bang” theory of universal e
xpansion.
But is the Universe made up of both matter and antimatter? We do not know, and, to date, there does not
appear to be any way to prove it. We know that our solar system is composed entirely of matter; equally, we are
fairly certain that our entire galaxy is composed only of matter [if this were not the case, we would detect intense
gamma radiation from all parts of the galaxy - even considering the distances between atoms in inter-galactic
space]. Considering that there is more evidence to support the existence of proportional amounts of matter and
antimatter in the Universe, we shall adopt this for use in our theories.
In the beginning was the radiation, and the energy was without mass. And the energy came together to form
matter and antimatter.
[0=+1-1]
By way of explanation let us bring up the “law of the conservation of mass & energy” developed from the “law of
the conservation of mass” and the “law of the conservation of energy.” Briefly it states that mass and energy can
never be created or destroyed, but they can be converted from one to the other. Utilizing this Law we get:
E=m+a
where E = energy - in terms of mass, 0; m = matter or +1; and a = antimatter or -1. Hence:
0=+1-1
=The creation of the Universe from “nothing”.
In 1906 Albert Einstein developed his theory of the relationship between mass and energy:
E = mc2
where E = energy, m = mass, and c = velocity of light. Stated briefly, any appearance of energy is necessarily
accompanied by the disappearance of a small amount of mass.
A French physicist named Louis de Broglie suggested that electrons were not particles but rather waves. This
fouled up the entire system of thinking that had considered electrons to be little hard spheres.
Later a Viennese physicist named Schrodinger developed de Broglie’s idea into a system termed “wave
mechanics”. This system explained quantum phenomena by attributing the functions of waves to protons and
electrons. [What is quantum? I hear you cry. Quantum theory is the theory that energy does not flow smoothly in
- 258 -
arbitrarily small amounts from the radiating body, but flows in the form of particles or quanta. Quantum is the
singular of quanta.]
Thus electrons became viewed as undulating charges of electrical energy, and atoms as systems of waves. This
tends to simplify and explain the “law of the conservation of mass and energy” as stated earlier.
Now you are probably wondering where Set comes into all of this.
In the beginning was Set, and Set was without form. He came together in creation to give rise to HarWer, that
Set might define himself.
Set is the ageless intelligence - a form of energy. In the beginning Set equaled 0, nothing in terms of mass. In
creation he united with himself to give rise to mass and anti-mass - matter and antimatter (HarWer).
Set continues in the form of energy while he continues in the form of mass, and he continually converts from
one to the other [see the “law of the conservation of mass and energy” and E=mc2]. Hence, with the creation of the
Universe came the definition of Set (potentially), and this creation was from Set whose existence was as nothing.
I am the Ageless Intelligence of the Universe. I created HarWer that I might define my Self.
But HarWer, my opposite Self, is a strange and fitful presence. I, Set am my Self distinct from the order
of the cosmos, yet am ordered in and of my Self. HarWer I was when I was once part of the cosmos and
could achieve identity only by becoming what the cosmic order was not. By HarWer I cancelled the
imbalance, leaving a void in which true creation could take form as Set.
- Book of Coming Forth by Night
The first part of the above quote is explained in the preceding paragraph. The second part is, however, a bit
confusing. Set states that he is distinct from the order of the cosmos. This appears to contradict what we have stated
earlier (i.e. that Set continues in the form of energy while he continues in the form of mass).
Before we get involved in this, let us start at the beginning of the second part of the quote: “But HarWer, my
Opposite Self, is a strange and fitful presence.” Set, in the form of energy, gave rise to HarWer (matter/antimatter).
HarWer’s purpose was [and is] to define Set, and this is accomplished by the use of opposites [i.e. day has no
meaning without the existence of night]. When Set is energy, HarWer is matter/antimatter, and vice versa.
The Universe is basically ordered, but there are certain things that disrupt this order [we will not even consider
mankind!]. The existence of antimatter (anti-particles) in a system composed entirely of matter is one such
disruption. Hence HarWer as a “strange and fitful presence”.
“I, Set, am my Self distinct from the order of the cosmos, yet am ordered in and of my Self.” Contradiction of our
above statements? No! By means of explanation let us define “order”. According to Funk and Wagnall’s Standard
Encyclopedic Dictionary, “order” is defined as “a condition in which there is a methodical, proper, or harmonious
arrangement of things”. We shall discount “methodical” and “proper” and concern ourselves with “harmonious”.
The same source defines “harmonious” as “made up of sounds, colors, or other elements that combine
agreeably ...” The key word here is “agreeably”. When matter and antimatter collide, they produce an explosion,
which we hardly find agreeable if we do not plan it.
Remember we are concerned with Set and the creation of the Universe; the “creation” of matter [and
antimatter], and - since we are matter [most of us are anyway] - we are ergo concerned with ourselves.
Since Set has communicated with us [through the Book of Coming Forth by Night], he is concerned with us.
Therefore our opinions count, and if we consider something disagreeable, it is disagreeable. Set as an Intelligence is
obviously able to think, in which case he must consider some things disagreeable. Hence Set is “distinct from the
and order].
Set is “ordered in and of himself” as man is ordered in and of himself. Any “Intelligence” is in a sense un-orderly
in that the intelligence gives it the ability to defy the order.
“HarWer I was when I was once part of the Cosmos ...” When Set was totally of the cosmos [”Cosmos” is
defined, again by Funk and Wagnall’s, as “the world or universe considered as an orderly system” (emphasis
mine)]. I.e. when Set was pre-intelligence, he was merely radiation which was partially converted to matter/
antimatter (HarWer) according to the above stated “law of the conservation of mass and energy”. Set was HarWer
(and Set) in the “beginning”.
“... and could achieve identity by becoming what the cosmic order was not.” The cosmic order was radiation. To
achieve identity [by utilizing HarWer] Set had to become matter/antimatter (HarWer) which the cosmic order at the
time was not.
“By HarWer I cancelled the imbalance, leaving a void in which true creation could take form as Set.” By
becoming HarWer, Set cancelled the imbalance by becoming mass, along with energy. [Back to the “law”.] This left a
“void” in the sense that “void” is defined as “a breach of surface or matter” [again Funk and Wagnall’s]. The
con
version of matter to energy leaves a “void”. Similarly the conversion of energy to matter leaves a “void”. [Sounds
a little like Dirac’s “hole” theory.]
By creating this “void” in such a manner, the way is established in which “true creation” can “take form as Set”.
We are now back at the beginning and the creation of the Universe.
Xepert! Behold: Everything is Set, and Set is everything!
- 259 -
Bibliography
Aquino, Michael, “Genesis II” in Cloven Hoof #IV-7. San Francisco: Church of Satan, Vll/1972.
Barnett, Lincoln, The Universe and Dr. Einstein. NY: Bantam Books, 1957
Brown, Theodore L., General Chemistry. Ohio: Charles L. Merrill Books Inc., 1963.
Einstein, Albert and Infeld, Leopold, The Evolution of Physics. NY: Simon and Schuster, 1938.
Gamow, George, Thirty Years That Shook Physics. NY: Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1966.
Quagliano, James V., Chemistry. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.,1963.
Set, The Book of Coming Forth by Night. Temple of Set, X.
- 260 -
A17: The Yoga from Yuggoth
- by A. Roland Holt III°
Scroll of Set #I-8, April 1976
Among the abilities necessary for the performance of successful ritual magic are two which are very infrequent:
mental concentration and vivid visualization.
In light of this fact it would seem that more magicians would actively seek to develop these abilities in
themselves than do. Why they do not is a mixture of three reasons: human inertia (i.e. it’s hard work), a
philosophical distaste for techniques by meditative Eastern religions, and - most infrequently - possession of inborn
talent so that artificial development is not necessary.
If you can already visualize whatever scene you desire at will with utmost vividness, then read no further. But if
you cannot, then you should know that there are exercises you can use to develop your mental imagery to greater
vividness.
In the Church of Satan yoga was avoided because of its linkage with philosophically-repugnant religions. And
indeed most of yoga is useless to the Black Magician. It should, however, be noted that yoga of all types played a
very major role in Crowley’s system.