Aces as roots of the 4 elements

Richard

My apologizes for antagonizing, but I like to be really convinced. As a test I check the 5 of cups, geburah in briah, and Crowley writes: "but as Venus here rules Aquarius, weakness rather than excess of strength seems the cause of disaster. The intellect has been feebled by sentiment. The defeat is due to pacifism." I pick the first meaning I get from the internet:"Women with Venus in Aquarius tend to love new technologies, new ideas, new music and art."

Seems to me that the astrology tries to fit the meaning of the card.
I think you've gotten the cards mixed up. The Five of Cups is Geburah in Briah, but the Decan for this card is Mars in Scorpio. Aquarius is an Air sign (Swords), and Venus in Aquarius is the Five of Swords. Anyhow.....

1. Did you really expect an internet astrology site to be in agreement with Crowley's interpretation of Venus in Aquarius?

2. If Crowley is trying to fit the interpretation of the Decan to the meaning of the card, where do you think the meaning of the card came from? Is the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog?
 

kwaw

The decans are ruled* by their various planets. This is not the same as those planets being in the decan/sign of the decan (though it appears that Crowley often interprets them that way). The meanings of the decans are not derived from their planetary rulers being in the decans sign. For the meanings of the decans see for example Agrippa, Abano, Picatrix, et al. Remember Crowley's DM's are derived by and large from Mather's, Crowley's astrological explanations in which he appears to interpret as if the planet were in the sign is somewhat skew whiff, a correlation between Mather's DM's and traditional meanings of the decans (as per Agrippa) has been made by Uri Raz (with a few minor contributions from myself) here:

http://www.tarot.org.il/decans.html

Looking at astrological interpretations of Venus in Aquarius will NOT provide a meaning of the decan of Venus in Aquarius. They are different things.

Kwaw

*Not so much ruled to be accurate, more an accidental dignity.
 

yogiman

I think you've gotten the cards mixed up. The Five of Cups is Geburah in Briah, but the Decan for this card is Mars in Scorpio. Aquarius is an Air sign (Swords), and Venus in Aquarius is the Five of Swords. Anyhow.....

Yes, I was mistaken. It is 5 of Swords, Geburah in Yetzirah.

1. Did you really expect an internet astrology site to be in agreement with Crowley's interpretation of Venus in Aquarius?

I would like to call upon a real astrologer here. I beg Ravenest to be objective.

2. If Crowley is trying to fit the interpretation of the Decan to the meaning of the card, where do you think the meaning of the card came from? Is the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog?

Twenty years ago I had an entire bookshelf of GD related literature, which was discarded in anger after the Big Desillusion. One of the books was -the Jungian Tarot- by Robert Wang, the well reputed author of the -Qabalistic Tarot-, and creator of the GD deck together with Israel Regardie. He didn't do difficult about the astrological attributions to the pip cards: ones=kether=pluto, twos=chokhmah=uranus, threes=binah=neptune, etc. He gave new keywords to the cards, with the surprisive comment that the old traditional attributions were just arbitrary (or something alike). I hope readers here will be able to confirm this.
 

Richard

The decans are ruled* by their various planets. This is not the same as those planets being in the decan/sign of the decan (though it appears that Crowley often interprets them that way).........
Scorpio is ruled by Mars, and the fact that Mars in Scorpio is the Decan of the Five of Cups is a coincidence (sort of).

Saturn rules Aquarius, not Venus. The Five of Swords is the first Decan of Aquarius: Venus in Aquarius. The Crowley quote is from his analysis of the Five of Swords.
 

kwaw

Scorpio is ruled by Mars, and the fact that Mars in Scorpio is the Decan of the Five of Cups is a coincidence (sort of).

Saturn rules Aquarius, not Venus. The Five of Swords is the first Decan of Aquarius: Venus in Aquarius. The Crowley quote is from his analysis of the Five of Swords.

Yes, and Venus here (in the first decan of Aquarius) does not make it 'the ruler of Aquarius' (as Crowley states), it is just (weakly) dignified. I was speaking lazily of the 'rulers' of the decans - I did note it to state that rulership is not really the accurate term, they are dignities (nonetheless it is quite common practice to write/speak of the 'rulers' of the decans).

The point I was making is that looking at astrological interpretations of Venus in Aquarius will not give you the meaning of the decan of Venus in Aquarius, they are different things.
 

Richard

........The point I was making is that looking at astrological interpretations of Venus in Aquarius will not give you the meaning of the decan of Venus in Aquarius, they are different things.
That is true.
 

Zephyros

The astrology in Tarot isn't what you might call objective astrology, in the sense of maps and birth dates and things astrologers deal with. The GD used astrology in order to convey semantic ideas, which actually makes it easier to use the decans in the cards, to a a degree, without knowing astrology but only the basic attributes of the signs and planets.

Luxury, the Four of Cups, speaks much about stability of feeling, being in expansive Chesed attributed to Jupiter, and the card itself being attributed to Luna in Cancer (one could think of it as the Priestess sitting in the Chariot). However, as we are in Briah, the stability implied here is rather stale, taking feeling for granted, lack of fresh air, etc. Geburah, as the Sephira of disruption, fulfills its duty, and how it does so is explained through the decan. Mars in Scorpio denotes a certain harshness, both having warlike connotations in a fiery Sephira of Mars (although Scorpio, a water sign, creates an interesting juxtaposition here), but in the watery suit of Briah. After the stability, albeit relative ennui, of Chesed comes the inevitable end to the honeymoon and Disappointment.

I recommend you look at LRichard's cheat sheet in the Golden Dawn forum, it illustrates very well how the signs and planets are ordered, since they do in fact have an order and are not attributed haphazardly throughout the cards.

And... I feel strange saying this, you need to do a little homework. You seem to be reading a novel from the end and expecting to understand the entire plot and so to a great extent your questions cannot be answered since you don't speak the same esoteric language. What you said about Keter=Pluto, etc. has to do with the attributions of the Tree, which do not change, but interact with the attributions of the decans. Wang didn't say anything that contradicts what we're saying here. How the decans are ordered (or that they are ordered at all) is also pretty basic, assuming one has interest in such things. Implying the minors have nothing to do with the Tree of Life simply shows a lack of knowledge. In addition, expecting attributions to live up to divinatory meanings which are themselves simplistic, abridged and secondary will only get you into trouble. The purpose of all those attributions is that they be understood and then you can build the significance of the card using the tools at your disposal.

I recommend taking a step back, picking up Lon Milo DuQuette's book that explains the basic tools of the Thoth, maybe his book Chicken Qabalah, and taking it from there.
 

yogiman

Wang didn't say anything that contradicts what we're saying here.

I have put a thread at the -talking tarot- forum, and hope to get to know the exact phrasing today or tomorrow.

The purpose of all those attributions is that they be understood and then you can build the significance of the card using the tools at your disposal.

I have watched several tarot readers, Mathers, Horniman, Douglas Gibb (taroteon), Princeofcups518, and it is striking how much they stretch the meaning of every card. Douglas Gibb even advocates to forget about the meaning, and just look at the picture.


I recommend taking a step back, picking up Lon Milo DuQuette's book that explains the basic tools of the Thoth, maybe his book Chicken Qabalah, and taking it from there.

I have BoT and 777, plus studied some internet material. My intention is not to absorb all kinds of technical details and thelema philosophy, but to play with the tarot cards. I do appreciate your very knowledgeable contribution, but first I want to become a tarot reader, and when that goes well, eventually get into the theory.
 

Richard

..........I have BoT and 777, plus studied some internet material. My intention is not to absorb all kinds of technical details and thelema philosophy, but to play with the tarot cards. I do appreciate your very knowledgeable contribution, but first I want to become a tarot reader, and when that goes well, eventually get into the theory.
If you just want to 'play with the tarot cards', why then have you been asking technical, theoretical questions? A lot of knowledgeable people have spent time and effort trying to answer your questions, and now you say that you aren't currently interested in such things.

Maybe that Golden Dawn person (to whom you keep referring) got exasperated with your vicissitudes and fed you a bunch of nonsense in order to distract you while he made his escape.
 

yogiman

If you just want to 'play with the tarot cards', why then have you been asking technical, theoretical questions? A lot of knowledgeable people have spent time and effort trying to answer your questions, and now you say that you aren't currently interested in such things.

Maybe that Golden Dawn person (to whom you keep referring) got exasperated with your vicissitudes and fed you a bunch of nonsense in order to distract you while he made his escape.

My technical questions refer to the practical tarot divination.

Again I say: don't shoot the pianist. It is your country fellowwoman. Forget wishful thinking, I am for 200% sure. And don't lie in ambush for me. You are making yourself suspect.

In case I said something improper, I beg the secret chiefs or those bogey adepts of that dark criminal GD order to sent me a curse, so that I get an acute arthritis in my fingers, CHRONIC.

Till tomorrow.