kosmonauta
"Tarot and The Magus" by Paul Hughes-Barlow.
Has someone read this book? How it is?
Has someone read this book? How it is?
Tarot and The Magus
Zephyros
I haven't read it, but it looks interesting, although I am a bit put off by any occult book describing itself as "safe."
Richard
Looks interesting. It reveals "previously hidden divination techniques." Wow! However, I don't think I'll buy it, at least not at this time.
Grigori
I think it's useful if you want to get into reading using Opened Of The Key methods. Otherwise, I didn't find it amazing. I disagree with him on a lot of issues and think there are some glaring errors in his perspective on history, so things in the book grated me occasionally. But its practically useful if you are into that style of spread.
cmarie
I have read this book and referred back to parts from time to time. I found it to be a bit disjointed and confusing. I had trouble learning the ootk spread, although I did finally get it. Personally I think the explanation in the Book of Thoth is much simpler!
One thing that bothered me about the book is that he groups the cards in such a way that departs from what I am used to.
For example The Priestess is grouped with the threes and the Sun and the queens. His logic is that the Priestess is the letter Gimel, which is three. Yes that is true, but it just adds confusion for me personally.
Also grouping the Priestess with the Sun, well they are almost like opposites in my mind. His logic is that the Priestess is the third card in the deck, and the Sun is the third from the end of the deck, which does make a certain sense I guess...but the Sun is fire and the Moon (Priestess) is water - the Sun is in the open, the Priestess is hidden. etc etc.
He also has a bit of Gematria in there, which flies right over my head - so I cannot say how accurate that part of the book is.
I did like it, I do refer back to the chapters where he states for example, what two or three of a kind in a spread refers to. I have not connected how he comes to these meanings, but it does interest me when I get three of a kind - so I go look sometimes.
Also having learned the ootk spread, I still have trouble with it. It is like information overload to me personally. I may go back to it, probably will - but I am just saying be prepared to take some time learning this one. I hope this helps!
One thing that bothered me about the book is that he groups the cards in such a way that departs from what I am used to.
For example The Priestess is grouped with the threes and the Sun and the queens. His logic is that the Priestess is the letter Gimel, which is three. Yes that is true, but it just adds confusion for me personally.
Also grouping the Priestess with the Sun, well they are almost like opposites in my mind. His logic is that the Priestess is the third card in the deck, and the Sun is the third from the end of the deck, which does make a certain sense I guess...but the Sun is fire and the Moon (Priestess) is water - the Sun is in the open, the Priestess is hidden. etc etc.
He also has a bit of Gematria in there, which flies right over my head - so I cannot say how accurate that part of the book is.
I did like it, I do refer back to the chapters where he states for example, what two or three of a kind in a spread refers to. I have not connected how he comes to these meanings, but it does interest me when I get three of a kind - so I go look sometimes.
Also having learned the ootk spread, I still have trouble with it. It is like information overload to me personally. I may go back to it, probably will - but I am just saying be prepared to take some time learning this one. I hope this helps!
kosmonauta
mmm, that sounds strange... i mean, the self-description of "safe"
yeah, i think i'll take the same decision...
thanks
I have read this book and referred back to parts from time to time. I found it to be a bit disjointed and confusing. I had trouble learning the ootk spread, although I did finally get it. Personally I think the explanation in the Book of Thoth is much simpler!
One thing that bothered me about the book is that he groups the cards in such a way that departs from what I am used to.
For example The Priestess is grouped with the threes and the Sun and the queens. His logic is that the Priestess is the letter Gimel, which is three. Yes that is true, but it just adds confusion for me personally.
Also grouping the Priestess with the Sun, well they are almost like opposites in my mind. His logic is that the Priestess is the third card in the deck, and the Sun is the third from the end of the deck, which does make a certain sense I guess...but the Sun is fire and the Moon (Priestess) is water - the Sun is in the open, the Priestess is hidden. etc etc.
He also has a bit of Gematria in there, which flies right over my head - so I cannot say how accurate that part of the book is.
I did like it, I do refer back to the chapters where he states for example, what two or three of a kind in a spread refers to. I have not connected how he comes to these meanings, but it does interest me when I get three of a kind - so I go look sometimes.
Also having learned the ootk spread, I still have trouble with it. It is like information overload to me personally. I may go back to it, probably will - but I am just saying be prepared to take some time learning this one. I hope this helps!
thanks, that was very insightful
Fianic
I have read this book and referred back to parts from time to time. I found it to be a bit disjointed and confusing. I had trouble learning the ootk spread, although I did finally get it. Personally I think the explanation in the Book of Thoth is much simpler!
One thing that bothered me about the book is that he groups the cards in such a way that departs from what I am used to.
For example The Priestess is grouped with the threes and the Sun and the queens. His logic is that the Priestess is the letter Gimel, which is three. Yes that is true, but it just adds confusion for me personally.
Also grouping the Priestess with the Sun, well they are almost like opposites in my mind. His logic is that the Priestess is the third card in the deck, and the Sun is the third from the end of the deck, which does make a certain sense I guess...but the Sun is fire and the Moon (Priestess) is water - the Sun is in the open, the Priestess is hidden. etc etc.
He also has a bit of Gematria in there, which flies right over my head - so I cannot say how accurate that part of the book is.
I did like it, I do refer back to the chapters where he states for example, what two or three of a kind in a spread refers to. I have not connected how he comes to these meanings, but it does interest me when I get three of a kind - so I go look sometimes.
Also having learned the ootk spread, I still have trouble with it. It is like information overload to me personally. I may go back to it, probably will - but I am just saying be prepared to take some time learning this one. I hope this helps!
He basically used the card pairing method on the Majors. You've mentioned the Sun and Priestess, those along with some of the others make interesting pairs as they happen to be the direct opposites in meaning. Also that the Priestess leads from Kether to Tiphareth which is the Sun. Although I have to agree that not all of them fit.
As to the meanings of having 3 and 4 of a kind he got them off Book T, the original Golden Dawn manuscript for the Tarot.
Comparing it to Book T which also contains instructions for the OOTK, IMO it presents it in a clearer format. But Paul's book has irregularities as well so I would use it as a supplement rather than a replacement of the original instructions.
Note that the OOTK in the book is Paul's own version of the OOTK, not exactly the Golden Dawn's or Crowleys.
Edit:
Just wondering, what were his errors?
cmarie
Yes! True the High Priestess does lead to the Sun, very interesting.
Thanks for the clarification.
Since writing this review I have been back in the book a few times and I really do like it. I use the card counting and pairing in other spreads, with fewer cards - which helps. I also enjoyed the other topics he discusses in the book, like shamanism.I enjoy his videos on you tube also.
Freddie
I come to feel that the 'Book of Thoth' is the most superior written source on the subject of Tarot overshadowing all other past or present authors. I have a few 'spiritual issues' with A.C., but nobody can touch him when it comes to 'Tarot, Astrology, Egyptian mysticism, Gnosticism, and Qabalah'. I feel he was a talented author and his books never put me to sleep the way most books on the metaphysical do.
I cannot keep myself from feeling compelled to get this Paul Hughes-Barlow book. I personally am sick of Tarot books and I found other books about 'Thoth' to be dull and almost scary in their take on A.C.'s motives on certain 'Thoth' images. It does look like a good read. It looks to contain information on HGA, so I think I might like this book.
Any more opinions of this work?
Freddie
I cannot keep myself from feeling compelled to get this Paul Hughes-Barlow book. I personally am sick of Tarot books and I found other books about 'Thoth' to be dull and almost scary in their take on A.C.'s motives on certain 'Thoth' images. It does look like a good read. It looks to contain information on HGA, so I think I might like this book.
Any more opinions of this work?
Freddie
Aeon418
Scary?! In what way?
I don't own the book anymore. But I do remember Barlow making some strange statements in the Hierophant(?) section. He says something about the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel and how it related to the Golden Dawn 5=6 grade. Huh?
Barlow is another one who seems to confuse apples and oranges on this point.