Aeclectic Tarot
Tarot Cards & Reviews Free Tarot Readings Tarot Books Tarot Card Meanings Tarot Forum

GD Temple Tarot

  > Aeclectic Tarot Forum > Tarot Special Interest > Thoth Tarot


 
Poor Wandering One  Poor Wandering One is offline
Resident
 
Join Date: 07 Aug 2014
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 40
Poor Wandering One 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LRichard View Post
Thanks for the very informative link, PWO! However, I sort of hate to see that Farrell diverges from the opinions of Mathers, Crowley, and Case.
I haven't read what Case wrote, but I have his deck that I colored decades ago. I pulled them out the other day and his deck is very RWS--he has Knights on horses and Kings on thrones--nobody's in a chariot.

With the RWS and BOTA decks, the symbolism does seem to indicate that the horse riding Knight is the head of the courts while the throne seated king is where Crowley, Wang, and Cicero put Princes. It's easy enough to switch them. Nick Farrell's deck doesn't allow for any such switch due to all the other symbols put on the deck. He clearly intended chariot riding Kings to be associated with Yod and the horse riding Princes with Vau.
Top   #11
Zephyros's Avatar
Zephyros  Zephyros is offline
Jedi
 
Join Date: 31 Jan 2004
Location: Israel
Posts: 8,179
Zephyros 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Wandering One View Post
The impression I get is that Farrell says it's too complicated because he sees the more common attribution of putting the Knight on a horse at the head of the Court Cards and the Prince in the chariot as a rationalization for contradictions in Book T, rather than the simpler explanation that the ideas were revised over time but not completely corrected in Book T.].
I'm kind of at a loss as to this part of the essay. He says there are mistakes in Book T that haven't been corrected, but I don't know what mistakes he's referring to, especially in connection with the Courts. True, I've only skimmed the original, working mainly from the revised College of Thelema version, but still.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Wandering One View Post
Does the horse/chariot switch really change things that much? I don't think the fairy tale breaks down with Farrell's reasoning. The basic story of the Prince awakening his sleeping Princess to marry her and become King still works, doesn't it? I'm a new student to all of this, so I may be missing something that I just don't see.
It really depends on how much of a stickler to detail one actually is. To me, this changes a lot of things that I went into a little in my post, but there's an entire hornets nest of things a simple change like that affects. In my opinion it affects the balance and structure of the thing, and simply raises too many questions that don't seem to have answers. There may very well be answers, just that the essay doesn't seem to cover them adequately.

The story, such as it is, is the basis of, well, everything. The brash Knight wins the Princess, becomes ruler, mates with the Queen and of that union two children are born. He then goes to sleep (he "dies" like the sperm entering the egg, he is transformed into something else, he is lost in the Beloved). The Prince is the direct offspring of his parents, and shares their attributes. His chariot is the vessel of the mother while the Prince inside it is that phallus of the father. The Princess, on the other hand, is more of a "Princess and the Pea" type of person. She is very different from the rest of the family, and very removed from them. In fact, she is asleep, both physically and mentally. Only through the intervention of the Prince does she awake, but only after she is awake can the Prince, now become Knight, impress her by his deeds. And so on.

Having a horse as the Prince's steed is jarring not only because it is different, but because it doesn't work. If the Prince has attributes from both his parents, where are they? Certainly the horse could have come from his father, but what did he get from his mother? Nothing! And then he becomes unbalanced, lost and confused! It's madness I say, madness! Besides, as the Holy Guardian Angel, he does not simply go forth, inseminates and is done with it, like the Knight. He engages with the world, and so needs a chariot. The idea of duality is shown by the Lovers connecting Binah and Tiphareth. A chariot is something you sit in, that moves, and as the Lovers is the first card in which two figures are shown, we have the idea of force (Chochma) entering space (Binah), with their offspring being the Prince.

But seriously, there seems to be a missing link there that I'm just not getting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Wandering One View Post
I'm familiar with the Wang deck and the Cicero deck, so I understand this change can be seen as jarring. However, it looks like a great deal of research was put into the decision, so it wasn't just an arbitrary change merely to make RWS users comfortable.
Nick Farrell is a formidable scholar, and really knows his stuff. Like I said, I don't have to agree with him, but concede that there must have been a reason for what he did. Heck, I don't completely agree with Crowley on a few things, and that's nothing short of blasphemy! Don't get me started on his Lovers! Still, this is the kind of innovation I love, because it is a true innovation. It isn't "RWS with gnomes" that passes for occult innovation today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Wandering One View Post
I haven't read what Case wrote, but I have his deck that I colored decades ago. I pulled them out the other day and his deck is very RWS--he has Knights on horses and Kings on thrones--nobody's in a chariot.
It's the thrones, they fulfill the role of the chariot, albeit unsatisfactorily (in my opinion). This probably stems from the differences in Waite's view of the HGA in general, and the role of the initiate in achieving Knowledge and Conversation. In one instance, he seems to meet you halfway (with the chariot). In the other, you have to go to him (on the throne).
Top   #12
ravenest's Avatar
ravenest  ravenest is offline
ravenator
 
Join Date: 02 Feb 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 13,835
ravenest 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Wandering One View Post
This link explains why Farrell put the Kings in chariots and the Princes on horses:

http://www.jwmt.org/v2n17/farrell.html

Here is his quote from Farrell's essay:

"Let us look at the problem of the horse and the chariot. To get the answer to this we have to look at the symbols involved. The use of the horse made the chariot in warfare obsolete. Chariots were too slow, difficult to turn, and had limited fighting power. However its use as a ceremonial ride of emperors continued until the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1450AD. The Chariot is a symbol of the state with the King holding the reigns. It is a symbol which is repeated in the Tarot key the Chariot. So therefore the Kings have to be in Chariots and the Princes, as servants of the King, have to be on horses."

IMO it is a clear case of following that line of reasoning (just like Waite did) that 'imports' meaning into a system that isnt agreed with or isnt understood due to religious prejudices.

That is; thinking heraldry or (Waite's version of ) Roman Catholicism or the history of warfare has more significance than the GD teachings on Kabbalah and astrology.
Top   #13
ravenest's Avatar
ravenest  ravenest is offline
ravenator
 
Join Date: 02 Feb 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 13,835
ravenest 

One could say that now, the whole thing needs to be reversed again and that deck is already out of date (if they are going to claim stuff like that ! ); the Prince should be depicted on tarot cards in a tank

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/520...Ami1IoWy4Rk%3D

And the king on his horse;

http://www.postalheritage.org.uk/upl...horse001_0.jpg
Top   #14
ravenest's Avatar
ravenest  ravenest is offline
ravenator
 
Join Date: 02 Feb 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 13,835
ravenest 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Wandering One View Post
The impression I get is that Farrell says it's too complicated because he sees the more common attribution of putting the Knight on a horse at the head of the Court Cards and the Prince in the chariot as a rationalization for contradictions in Book T, rather than the simpler explanation that the ideas were revised over time but not completely corrected in Book T.

Does the horse/chariot switch really change things that much? I don't think the fairy tale breaks down with Farrell's reasoning. The basic story of the Prince awakening his sleeping Princess to marry her and become King still works, doesn't it? I'm a new student to all of this, so I may be missing something that I just don't see.

I'm familiar with the Wang deck and the Cicero deck, so I understand this change can be seen as jarring. However, it looks like a great deal of research was put into the decision, so it wasn't just an arbitrary change merely to make RWS users comfortable.
The issue is more the confusion it creates in tarot readers who dont understand the dynamics of the RW deck and use it as it is the 'best and most popular' (yes people DO say that).
Top   #15
ravenest's Avatar
ravenest  ravenest is offline
ravenator
 
Join Date: 02 Feb 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 13,835
ravenest 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Wandering One View Post
I haven't read what Case wrote, but I have his deck that I colored decades ago. I pulled them out the other day and his deck is very RWS--he has Knights on horses and Kings on thrones--nobody's in a chariot.
Well , a Chariot seems to be (in this deck) a type of mobile throne sitting at the back of the battle, issuing directions and maintaining a possible retreat vehicle for the King.

Unfortunately (for ' Neo GD style' tarot ) this is an exercise in G.D. system ... not an adjustment from input from the Society of Creative Anachronism (although I love their work )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Wandering One View Post
With the RWS and BOTA decks, the symbolism does seem to indicate that the horse riding Knight is the head of the courts while the throne seated king is where Crowley, Wang, and Cicero put Princes. It's easy enough to switch them. Nick Farrell's deck doesn't allow for any such switch due to all the other symbols put on the deck. He clearly intended chariot riding Kings to be associated with Yod and the horse riding Princes with Vau.
Even here one can see a better association with ~ horse : yod : first active free energy running about with little form : fire and ~ chariot : vau : further refined and modified energy (horse power) : air .
Top   #16
Poor Wandering One  Poor Wandering One is offline
Resident
 
Join Date: 07 Aug 2014
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 40
Poor Wandering One 

To go back to Nick's essay, he says that the Zalewski's put the King in a chariot (just like he himself did). That's true enough, but they put the King in a chariot and the Knight on the horse with the very clear intention that the horse riding Knight is associated with Fire/Yod and the King in his chariot represents Air/Vau. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

I agree with closrapexa that whatever you call the Court Card associated with Tiphareth (Prince or King), the Qabalistic symbolism of the fairy tale story makes much more sense if the Holy Guardian Angel is in a chariot. Force and form are balanced. I agree that putting him on the horse shows force from the father--but where is the form inherited from the mother?

All Disney fans sing along with me: "Some day my Prince will come." And since I've never been one to bet on the horses, I'll expect him in a chariot.
Top   #17
ravenest's Avatar
ravenest  ravenest is offline
ravenator
 
Join Date: 02 Feb 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 13,835
ravenest 

What ! people never bet on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v31sXoATz5Y
Top   #18
Poor Wandering One  Poor Wandering One is offline
Resident
 
Join Date: 07 Aug 2014
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 40
Poor Wandering One 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenest View Post
I ain't gettin' in that thing!
Top   #19
Richard's Avatar
Richard  Richard is offline
Le Mat
 
Join Date: 21 Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 6,587
Richard 

Thanks for all the opinions and whatnot. Since I habitually visualize John Wayne as Yod at Chokmah and the Ben-Hur as Vav at Tiphareth, I don't think I would be comfortable with this deck. This saves me 36 to waste on other goodies.
Top   #20




 


 


Tarot Cards & Reviews Free Tarot Readings Tarot Books Tarot Card Meanings Tarot Forum
Aeclectic Tarot Forum Links
· Tarot
· Tarot Special Interest
· Beyond Tarot
· Forum Library

Aeclectic Tarot Categories
· Angel Decks
· Dark & Gothic Decks
· Goddess Decks
· Fairy Decks
· Doreen Virtue Decks
· Beginner Decks
· Cat Decks
· Pagan & Wiccan Decks
· Ancient Egyptian Decks
· Celtic Decks
· Lenormand Decks
· Rider-Waite Decks
· Marseilles Decks
· Thoth Decks
· Oracle Decks
· List All Decks
· Popular Tarot Decks
· Available Decks
· Tarot Books
· What's New

Copyright © 1996 - 2019 Aeclectic Tarot. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Contact us.