Aeclectic Tarot Forum

Aeclectic Tarot Forum (http://www.tarotforum.net/index.php)
-   Thoth Tarot (http://www.tarotforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=57)
-   -   Liber Theta (http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=156882)

brightcrazystar
06-05-2011 15:28
[QUOTE=RLG]Dwtw

The main evidence that the glyph in AL 1;57 is a Tzaddi is that AC translated it that way in the typescript redaction, couple with the fact that the Tarot, as he understood it in 1904, attributed the letter Tzaddi to the Star card. And since there is no argument that The Star is mentioned in the verse, the glyph can only be a tzaddi. it is truly a poorly drawn letter, actually being one letter drawn over another. to me it looks a lot like an ayin (which closely resembles a tzaddi) accidentally drawn, and then drawn over as much as possible to look like a tzaddi. Whatever it was, it was done in haste, and very poorly, but AC never wavered in saying that he felt it was a tzaddi, and so we must accept that that is the word he 'heard' during the dictation, and just wasn't able to draw it very well.[/quote]

It looks nothing like Crowley's Hebrew. If he was told Tzaddi, I am sure he would have drawn one, por written the word out. Look at his Tzaddi here, or in Liber Arcanorum. [url]http://www.the-equinox.org/vol1/no2/eqi02020f.html[/url]

But still, the Book of the Law does not say "Tzaddi is not Aquarius." It says "[Tzaddi] is the not the Star". If Tzaddi is still Aquarius, but not the star - then Aquarius is now The Emperor, and The Star is Aries, which is still Heh. The attribute changed is the Trump, not the zodiacal sign. This would be the proper switch indicated by "[Tzaddi] is not the star." Furthermore, there is more proof this might hold water. In fact I am still more inclined to think this holds more weight than just reassigning the celestial connections in the Sepher Yetzirah.

[quote]The alternative is that whatever letter it 'really' is, is being touted as the new letter-attribute of the Star card, whose name is officially 'Not the Star'. (e.g. all these old letters of my Book are aright, but [actually] ayin is not the Star)... but it stretches credulity to make such an interpretation. And it would still require two letters to be switched, so it does not make things any simpler.[/quote]

yah that is the kicker, every "switch" would indicate two are wrong in relation to Tarot.

Abrac
06-05-2011 15:58
Scratch that, I need to check something.

Abrac
06-05-2011 16:07
There's an article on tarot by one M. Le C. de M.*** (Comte de Mellet) that accompanied de Gébelin's own article in his [i]Monde Primitif[/i]. In it, de Mellet orders the trumps in reverse order, starting with the Universe and ending with the Fool. Following the list of trumps it says: "These twenty-two original Cards are not only hieroglyphics, which placed in their natural order tell the history of the first times, but they are also as many letters [the Hebrew alphabet is composed of 22 Letters]...." This article is noteworthy as one of the first sources (if the [i]the[/i] first) identifying a link between the tarot and the Hebrew alphabet.

An interesting aspect of de Mellet's arrangement is that if you assign the Hebrew alphabet in reverse order corresponding to his order: Universe=Aleph, Judgment=Beth, etc., Heh will correspond to the Star and Tzaddi to the Emperor.

So it would seem that the seeds for Crowley's reversal had existed for a long time. Whether or not this is where he got the idea will forever be a mystery, but it does raise questions.

[url=http://www.donaldtyson.com/gebelin.html]The Game of Tarots[/url] by Antoine Court de Gébelin with "Study on the Tarots" by by M. Le C. de M.*** (in English)

Aeon418
06-05-2011 20:57
[QUOTE=brightcrazystar]Also, NO version of the Sepher Yetzirah (Short, Long, Saaida, Gra, Gra-Ari) makes any changes to the Letters of the 12 Elementals, or Single Letters. The Changes are almost exclusively to the Double Letters and the Planets, none of which are fixed in Hebrew studies. This is searching for the unestablished.[/quote]And why not search for the unestablished? Why not go with something new? Particularly when the source purports to be a new dispensation. Or must we be restricted by the past? Just because something hasn't been done before, it doesn't mean it can't be done now.
[QUOTE=brightcrazystar]He is a Thelemite, and like many is biased toward the letter being a Tzadi. He is fairly dogmatic in his Thelemic mindset towards the works of Crowley.[/quote]You're quite possibly right. But then again you would really have to ask Jim for a difinitive answer.
[QUOTE=brightcrazystar]In fact, he comes from a time when most the copies of the Book of the Law did not include and could not include the original handwriting in facsimile manuscript.[/quote]Again, you would really have to ask Jim himself. But Jim has stated that he did not initially accept the Tzaddi switch, and argued with Soror Meral on this point. Plus Jim was able to examine the original manuscript, once it was found.
[QUOTE=brightcrazystar]The Glyph is unlike any Tzadi I have seen anywhere else. Crowley RESIGNED to make it Tzaddi and it was not a immediate change.[/quote]I agree. It does look like it has been re-written again later. But let me ask you something. How good is your written Hebrew? Personally I can write Hebrew script [i]at a certain pace[/i]. But I can't write it at anywhere near the same speed that I can English. If I were taking down dictation in haste and a Hebrew letter or word was suddenly thrown at me I would very likely just bodge it and carry on, or even write it in English.
[QUOTE=brightcrazystar]The problem is it says "all of these letters" BUT one... if it were a transposing, it should logically say "all but these two are aright, Heh and Tzaddi." A simple switch is not the solution, or TWO would not be aright.[/quote]OK, I'll try a bit of a tongue-in-cheek re-write of I:57.
"[i]All these old letters of my Book are aright; but [Tzaddi] is not the Star, and [Heh] is not the Emperor. This is not very secret, because I've just told you the answer. And my prophet does not have to reveal anything to anyone.[/i]" :laugh:

The fact remains that the only thing Crowley "revealed" was the the card switch. And even then he waited until the 1940's before going public. And his attitude seems to have been that most people wouldn't get it anyway. Even with the publication of MTP he was still using the old attributions, but calling them exoteric.
[quote]The letter He is the formula of Nuith, which makes possible the process described in the previous notes. But it is not permissible here to explain fully the exact matter or manner of this adjustment. I have preferred the exoteric attributions, which are sufficiently informative for the beginner.[/quote]There is no evidence that he tried to re-name the card or anything else. If a simple re-naming of the Star were required, as per RLG, why mention the letters at all? And what can any name change possibly reveal anyway? :confused:

Personally I've always been struck by, "my prophet shall reveal it." Heh is the letter of [i]revelation[/i].

brightcrazystar
07-05-2011 01:55
Abrac, that is amazing! Very cool to see. I might look more into this. I admit my knowledge of Qabala is greater than my academic knowledge of Tarot.

A418:

Searching for the unestablished is fine. Making redaction is also fine, if there is reason, or otherwise it just works, or works better. Innovation and tradition scratch each other's backs.

As for J.Eshelman, I have spoken to him about Crowley's writing and the Sepher Yetzirah, and many other topics. I know he did not originally accept the Heh-Tzaddi switch Crowley uses, but he does now. He knew it fit well, but could find no source for it like he does.

My written Hebrew is better than my written English. I am a Lefty, and honestly the best language I write is "Enochian." English is not my strong point people would be arguing over what those English words were around that fairly obvious [Tzadi]. "OK that is clearly a Tzadi. Does that say "Tzadi starts the car?", or "Tzadi is for her store?" No, silly! I says "Tzadi is not her work!" :)

As for a source for it, well that is sort of what Liber L vel Legis is, IF that is in fact what it says. That is my question, why doesn't it say "All these old signs of my stars are aright, but Tzadi is not Aquarius." It doesn't. It says "[Tzaddi] is not the Star." This implies that the incorrect attribution is with Aries to the Star, and Aquarius to the Emperor by ATBSh cipher. There are other ciphers to use. By ALBM cipher, the switch could be between Tzadi and Zain, for example. This would easily be just as eloquent as the ATBSh switch, and support the AL connection.

By ATBSh cipher, though, it says now that Tzadi (still Aquarius) is not the Star. It is the Emperor. The Star is Heh, that is to say Aries. Doesn't the make sense for the Lord of the Aeon changing, that the Nashir (Aquarius, as Bird of Prey) would become Emperor? This means Heh, as Aries, becomes the Star - the Scarlet Woman? Taleh (Aries) becomes the Star, and D'li (Aquarius) becomes the Emperor. This switches the focus of the Emperor from the Lamb (Taleh, or Aries) to the Bearer of the Gra'al. Neither of these signs are female. I still think the Major Arcanum should be Ordered to the Hebrew, and if that means changing the numbering of the Star and the Emperor, so be it.

But regardless, Crowley NEVER changed his own or any publication of 777 to reflect these values. In 777 - Heh is still Aries, so it is with most of the "practical" applications besides Tarot in magick, anyways. It is this way in MTP, Equinox, and many other tables of correspondence.

Personally, I favor the Emperor is Aquarius, in the Aeon of Horus - and Aries is the Star. It would at most require recoloring and reordering of the cards - and the Star would be red scale and the Emperor would be purple scale... but would make a far more interesting switch and not muck about with most every application of these in the Western Tradition as it currently exists.

As for the attribution of Tzadi to The Emperor, I can easily see this. I can however, see many others.

Aeon418
07-05-2011 04:02
[QUOTE=brightcrazystar]Searching for the unestablished is fine. Making redaction is also fine, if there is reason, or otherwise it just works, or works better. Innovation and tradition scratch each other's backs.[/quote]I come from an engineering background, so my primary focus is always, "does it work." Tradition and history have their place. But often when it comes to working with this stuff in a practical hands-on-way it does not matter so much.
[QUOTE=brightcrazystar]As for J.Eshelman, I have spoken to him about Crowley's writing and the Sepher Yetzirah, and many other topics. I know he did not originally accept the Heh-Tzaddi switch Crowley uses, but he does now. He knew it fit well, but could find no source for it like he does.[/quote]Fair enough. :) But it sounded like you were trying to paint Jim as some sort of dogmatic Tzaddi-funddie just because he [u]may[/u] not have had the opportunity to see the strange Tzaddi in the manuscript at an early enough date in his career. The implication being that if he had seen it early on he wouldn't be so sure of the switch today.

Just an observation. We're all a little guilty in this thread of refering to the notorious switch as the Tzaddi-Heh switch. When in actual fact Crowley never describes it in such terms. He only talks about counter-changing card positions. Crowley seems to have connected the zodiac signs to the cards first and foremost. The attributions to letters seem to come via the cards and not the other way around.
[QUOTE=brightcrazystar]But regardless, Crowley NEVER changed his own or any publication of 777 to reflect these values. In 777 - Heh is still Aries, so it is with most of the "practical" applications besides Tarot in magick, anyways. It is this way in MTP, Equinox, and many other tables of correspondence.[/quote]Like I already said, Crowley didn't go public with the switch until the 1940's with the publication of the Book of Thoth. Up until then it was a secret that was only communicated to initiates within Crowley's circle. In all publications up to that point he stayed with the Golden Dawn attributions, while dropping a hint here and there occasionally.

In the Book of Thoth Crowley did try to update the correspondence tables. We all know it wasn't a complete success. Whether Crowley simply made a hash of it, or was trying to communicate something indirectly through deliberate mistakes is an open question.

brightcrazystar
07-05-2011 05:12
[QUOTE=Aeon418]I come from an engineering background, so my primary focus is always, "does it work." Tradition and history have their place. But often when it comes to working with this stuff in a practical hands-on-way it does not matter so much.
Fair enough. :) But it sounded like you were trying to paint Jim as some sort of dogmatic Tzaddi-funddie just because he [u]may[/u] not have had the opportunity to see the strange Tzaddi in the manuscript at an early enough date in his career. The implication being that if he had seen it early on he wouldn't be so sure of the switch today. [/quote]

Well, look at this way, what EXACTLY in the functioning component of the The Star? As a rule, what would be the best, most integrated material for that component to be made of - heh or tzaddi, or some other?

One thing is clear, The Book of the Law, does not say "Tzadi is Aries" - I can find nowhere where this switch of these traditions needs to be made. It PERHAPS implies that "Aquarius" is not the Star. The ATBSh cipher would render this to Aries being the Star, and the Emperor being Aquarius. This would change the order number of the Trumps, which is PERSONALLY the way I would work with that. However, I am still not totally convinced it it is a Tzaddi. I generally think Crowely's switch is still up for debate in no less than five ways. I generally, however, do reject the interpretation as "Tzadi is Not, The Star" as simply too convenient, and in the context of the passage, redundant and obviously would not require any change but the name of the Trump.

As for Crowley wirting other languages, he was clearly not bothered by the switch to Greek for "Thelema" in the approriate verse detailing the "word of the Law."

[quote]Just an observation. We're all a little guilty in this thread of refering to the notorious switch as the Tzaddi-Heh switch. When in actual fact Crowley never describes it in such terms. He only talks about counter-changing card positions. Crowley seems to have connected the zodiac signs to the cards first and foremost. The attributions to letters seem to come via the cards and not the other way around. [/quote]

Connecting the Letters to the Signs of the Zodiac is the Sepher Yetzirah.
Connecting the Letters to the Trumps is the revision of Eliphas Levi.

The verse corrects Levi, [Tzadi] and The Star, not Tzaddi and Aquarius. There is no cause, by the verse, to alter the association of Aries and Aquaruis to the traditional letters from the Sepher Yetzirah. The Card order could change, for every number is infinite; there is no difference. The Associations could change, from Trump to Letter, but the fact is "Tzadi as Aries" is not refuted in the Book of the Law.

If in fact, Heh is the Star, and Heh is STILL Aries - it reconciles easily. The Star is now Aries, and is attributed to Heh. The result is The Emperor is now Aquarius, and is STILL Tzadi. The transition to the Tarot does not mean it switches all attributes. It simply requires a reordering (and perhaps recoloring) of the Trumps in question.

As for the idea of Heh, and thus Aries, or Taleh, to The Star, this is quite sublime. Even moreso is the notion that Tzadi, and thus Aquarius or D'li, is now on the Throne of the Emperor. The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs, indeed. And look how it changes the linear tale of the Major Arcanum is these are switched. If it isn't enough to have the Star between The Empress and the Hierophant, then how about the fact that The Emperor emerges from the Fall of the Tower. Is this the real intent, I do not know. I wasnt' there.

The "open expanse" of the star, and the theme of Ganymedes as the bearer of he Grail is then brought to bear in the Emperor; as well as another Grail Bearer - Parzival. I personally REALLY like that idea, and implement it in my own deck, which is still under development - and REALLY needs to get underway. (At least my artist is almost free)

[quote]Like I already said, Crowley didn't go public with the switch until the 1940's with the publication of the Book of Thoth. Up until then it was a secret that was only communicated to initiates within Crowley's circle. In all publications up to that point he stayed with the Golden Dawn attributions, while dropping a hint here and there occasionally.[/quote]

Most of Crowley's Inner Circle, to hear tell, did not even focus on Tarot. It is clear We know it was not a passion of Lady Frieda Harris, Jane Wolfe, or Germer. Of all his inner circle, it seems the I Ching was FAR more favoured. Even Crowley preferred it. Tarot is not the largest component of any form of Magic I have ever seen, and certainly not even Crowley's own Qabala.

[quote]In the Book of Thoth Crowley did try to update the correspondence tables. We all know it wasn't a complete success. Whether Crowley simply made a hash of it, or was trying to communicate something indirectly through deliberate mistakes is an open question.[/QUOTE]

I sense that he simply is trying to still convince himself, so he is getting a bit mixed up in that. I think he created a different working assumtion, and all have their own merits. I just don't see any definable merit to the idea of changing Tzadi to Aries and Heh to Aquarius. I can rationalize it, but do not see how it changes much for the better. Do you?

Aeon418
09-05-2011 21:23
[quote=brightcrazystar]One thing is clear, The Book of the Law, does not say "Tzadi is Aries"[/quote]Of course not. It quite clearly says Tzaddi is not the Star. But why are they mentioned in conjunction with each other? Because they formed part of the symbolic framework of Crowley's mind. This same symbol set is used as a medium for the transmission of the Book of the Law. So don't you think it is important to understand how Crowley viewed these symbols?

Contrary to most of the discussion in this thread Crowley saw the Star as the card of Aquarius, and the Emperor as the card of Aries. It is this sign + card pairing that he attributed to the letters. Arguments that the signs go with the letters are irrelevant because Crowley did not see it that way. Now, putting aside all arguments about the nature of Aiwass, are we to assume that he was ignorant or ignored the specific way Crowley viewed these symbols? All the evidence indicates otherwise.
[quote=brightcrazystar]I can find nowhere where this switch of these traditions needs to be made.[/quote]So we're back to the chicken and the egg again. Because it does not already exist, it can't exist?
[quote=brightcrazystar]I generally think Crowely's switch is still up for debate in no less than five ways. I generally, however, do reject the interpretation as "Tzadi is Not, The Star" as simply too convenient, and in the context of the passage, redundant and obviously would not require any change but the name of the Trump.[/quote]In the context of how Crowley saw the Tarot+Zodiac pairings it seems far from redundant to me.
[quote=brightcrazystar]As for Crowley wirting other languages, he was clearly not bothered by the switch to Greek for "Thelema" in the approriate verse detailing the "word of the Law."[/quote]Crowley was taught elementary Greek as a child. Like Latin, it was part of "classical" education back then. Having learnt it in childhood, Greek would probably have been much easier for him to write in haste than Hebrew acquired as an adult. Hence the re-touched Tzaddi.
[quote=brightcrazystar]The verse corrects Levi, [Tzadi] and The Star, not Tzaddi and Aquarius. There is no cause, by the verse, to alter the association of Aries and Aquaruis to the traditional letters from the Sepher Yetzirah.[/quote]Again, this ignores how Crowley viewed these symbols. His mind, symbolic framework, and thought processes are the matrix Liber AL uses. To ignore this context in favour of tradition is a mistake in my opinion, when it is clear that Crowley was not working entirely within the confines of established traditon. Understanding how Crowley [u]was[/u] working is the important point, and to him the signs and the cards went together. It is these pairings that were attributed to the letters. Whether we (or tradition) agree or not is beside the point, because that is how Crowley did it. So when Crowley saw "Tzaddi is not the Star" he would most probably have only considered it in terms of a card+sign counter-change. And that is exactly what he revealed as per the rest of the verse.
[quote=brightcrazystar]Most of Crowley's Inner Circle, to hear tell, did not even focus on Tarot.[/quote]Favoured divination methods have nothing to do with revealing secret correspondences. In all of Crowley's publications up to the 1940's he used the Golden Dawn scheme. But he had already figured it out, and was using the swap decades before then. His diaries are evidence of this fact. It was only with the publication of the Book of Thoth that he decided to go public. And, had he lived long enough, he would have done it again in Liber Aleph.
[quote=brightcrazystar]I sense that he simply is trying to still convince himself, so he is getting a bit mixed up in that.[/quote]Personally I see simple editorial mistakes that weren't caught before publishing. Crowley was playing around with both the old and new attributions over 20 years earlier.

Grigori
09-05-2011 23:29
I find Gunther's presentation on the doctrine of the Thelemic Messiah the most compelling argument supporting the switch, based on much of Crowley work outside of only Liber Al. To me it is primarily tzaddi that is not the Star (rather than heh is not the emperor) for the many reasons he presents.

This is not to say that tzaddi was not the Star. To argue that Crowley was trying to correct an error in previous attributions seems to miss the point entirely. To me, it makes undeniable and stunning sense that tzaddi was the Star, but is no longer.

I don't consider any system of attributions correct, nor would consider any system incorrect for being contradictory to my own. But tzaddi is not the Thelemic Star, that I am certain of. For details I can only recommend chapter 5 of Gunther's book, as to do his description justice I would have to copy the whole thing here, so shall not try.

RLG
10-05-2011 02:31
[QUOTE=Aeon418]
Contrary to most of the discussion in this thread Crowley saw the Star as the card of Aquarius, and the Emperor as the card of Aries. It is this sign + card pairing that he attributed to the letters. Arguments that the signs go with the letters are irrelevant because Crowley did not see it that way. ... and to him the signs and the cards went together. It is these pairings that were attributed to the letters. Whether we (or tradition) agree or not is beside the point, because that is how Crowley did it. So when Crowley saw "Tzaddi is not the Star" he would most probably have only considered it in terms of a card+sign counter-change. And that is exactly what he revealed as per the rest of the verse[/QUOTE]

Dwtw

I have to disagree somewhat with this. The reason that the signs are paired with certain cards is because of the Hebrew Alef-bet order, and for no other reason. The GD even switched the order of Strength and Justice specifically so that the letter order would stay linear, and the symbols on the cards would be aligned with the zodiac signs of the letters.

The Hebrew letters are the fundamental symbol, then the zodiac, then the Tarot; in that order.

So to say that AC did not see the signs going with the letters is not entirely accurate; he knew why each sign was aligned with a Tarot trump; but when he did his swap, he certainly did not switch the signs as well, (which a SY 'purist' would insist on). This is evidence that although he knew the letter-sign connection, he was only interested in the letter-trump connection, as you noted. But this is also exactly why so many people have trouble accepting the change; because it is partial and not necessarily justified by Liber AL.


Litlluw


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 21:32.