Was Crowley a good tarot reader?

Lillie

I hear he made magnificent curry.
 

ravenest

Abstract Conflict's Uncle made magnificent curry? How did you find that out Lillie?
 

ravenest

Abrac said:
There is no doubt in my mind that most of the modern-day channelers are outright frauds. I do believe that Crowley was at least sincere.

And sincere enough to also state in Liber O:
"... In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist.

It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them.

... It is essential that he remain the master of all that he beholds, hears or conceives; otherwise he will be the slave of illusion, and the prey of madness.

There is little danger that any student, however idle or stupid, will fail to get some result; but there is great danger that he will be led astray, obsessed and overwhelmed by his results, even though it be by those which it is necessary that he should attain.

...It is desirable that the student should never attach to any result the importance which it at first seems to possess.

... These rituals need not be slavishly imitated; on the contrary the student should do nothing the object of which he does not understand; also, if he have any capacity whatever, he will find his own crude rituals more effective than the highly polished ones of other people.

... As to the possibility of producing results external to the mind of the seer ('objective,' in the ordinary common sense acceptation of the term) we are here silent."

Can't get much more honest than that.

I'm always sus' on people who are absolutly sure without a doubt about themselves and methods.
 

ravenest

Kwaw said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf
But as for crowley, he perverted many of the right and old ways.
He once stated that “I am an enemy to god, and am here to destroy his truth. As I have done over many life times"

Where did he state that, not disputing, just like a reference.

Kwaw

Hi Lonewolf, now there are 3 of us interested in that source, can you please supply reference?
 

ravenest

kwaw said:
I know, he keeps applying all these boring 'tests', phew! Not only was he unsure himself, but he warned others, don't take these 'entitities' on face value, can't have been a good diviner with such scepticism surely.

Like what, that entities may pull your leg [how ridiculous].

I find scepticism healthy, especially in a mode of subjecting magick to an analysise of scientific illuminism (using a scientific method), considering this how can one otherwise reasonibly approach such a subject.

Not sure what you mean in your second statement, I guess you are poo-pooing the idea of an entity being other than serious?

As far as entities pulling your leg, we have two possibilities;
1) An 'entity' is a projection of a part of your own psyche, therefore it is possible in such a subjective process that a part of the psyche that is not the absolute higest part (and even if it is why is it humour less?) is communicating, masquerading, joking, pulling your leg, tricking you or that your own perceptions are misleading (the thing was just a lower part of your ego but you chose - through hopes and beliefs or a whole lot of other mental tricks we play on ourselves - to see it otherwise).

2) That 'entities' are from outside our own psyche and in this case the above can also apply. How are you going to tell if an entity is a 'good' entity or one masquerading as good with a hidden agenda? Do we just suppose so becasue of some vague hope or trust in ourselves ... even when we have not undergone years of magical training?

The answer is supplied via the process with magical ritual and yourself, that's why certain rituals and evocations are done a certain way ... to forget all this and follow your 'instincts' or what feels good or right can result in delusion or fanatacism.

Are not the Gods Mercury and Loki reknown for their trickery?
 

ravenest

Lillie said:
Please don't start me with the drug thing.

You all know those comments get right up my snout.

What can one say about a comment like that! :laugh:
he's a story for you Lillie. (Sorry , forgotten source)

Crowley was at college and several young men decided he was a scoundrel and a blaggard and (all those other wonderfull words) not a gentleman and decided to teach him a lesson. So three of them hid in his room while he was out to 'teach him a lesson' by jumping him on his return and giving him a beating (they were not scounddrels it appears;) ).

When Crowley gets home another young man approaches Crowley saying that Crowley IS a scoundrel, but 3 on 1 in a surprise attack is just not the English manly way.(I say, by George, rather a cowadly act, old chap!) Crowley thanks the man, and according to him, Crowley took out a sniff box, sniffed a large amount of white powder, put the box away, brandished his walking stick and burst into the room like a deranged dervish, the three men quickly departed,scurring over themselves whilst being resoundedly thumbed by Crowleys walking stick.
 

Lillie

What a man!

They don't make blackguards and scoundrels like that anymore!
 

cheekyinchworm

Myrrha,

I've been wondering this same thing, lately. Not whether or not Crowley was a good Tarot reader. But, whether or not learning all the Tree of Life and Astrology and Enochia stuff in my study of the Thoth Tarot, and reading Crowley books and DuQuette books, and all that--whether or not it will hurt or hinder my ability (such as it is) to read the cards, intuitively, beyond rational, that kind of reading. To actually READ them. Because that's also one of the things I am working on right now. More so that the other stuff, actually.

And ultimately, it's more important, reading Tarot, rather than understanding all the underpinnings of the Thoth.

I suspect you can have them both, right?

But is there anyone who definitely is of the opinion that studying all the tree of life stuff and all that has HURT (long term) his or her ability to intuitively read Tarot spreads?
 

Alta

cheekyinchworm said:
But is there anyone who definitely is of the opinion that studying all the tree of life stuff and all that has HURT (long term) his or her ability to intuitively read Tarot spreads?
I cannot answer your question directly. But my answer is this: is it not the goal to read better, not just to intuitively read better?
 

cheekyinchworm

Marion said:
I cannot answer your question directly. But my answer is this: is it not the goal to read better, not just to intuitively read better?

Marion,

Yes. I suppose it is the goal to read better, overall, . . . at least for me anyway. And, I mean, there are other totally intuitive methods of divination such as scrying, so studying the Tarot is already a choice for a method that involves more than pure intuition.

So, anyway, if I understand you correctly you're implying that reading a tarot spread involves more than just intuition. Is this correct? And if so, I guess by extension, you might be saying that even if studying did impinge on an intuitive connection, it is necessary if a person wants to truly master the Tarot. And perhaps also that the interference of study with intuition is only temporary and will go away once the intellect has processed the information and concepts?

Anyway, thanks for your answer.