Traps in the Thoth Deck?

ravenest

I really like discussion here and few posts made me sure to get Thoth deck and collect even more books. Thank you for the inspiration.

SNAP ! :laugh:
 

Richard

I don't plan to go anywhere near the Abyss in this lifetime. Too many horror stories. Besides, it might aggravate my arthritis.
 

La Force

I don't plan to go anywhere near the Abyss in this lifetime. Too many horror stories. Besides, it might aggravate my arthritis.

Okay thers no hope for me then, I ve been to the Abyss and back, Its not as bad, as they say it is, if you pass the test you well get a gift, I received a green butterfly, for passing my test.
 

Polydeuces

All great responses - thanks.

By trap, what I think was being proposed was the idea that what was depicted in the cards was not entirely authentic in terms of how Crowley saw the ideas they represent.

But now it seems clear that the people making such claims are actually idiots. Perhaps they were warning of the overwhelming symbolism or the propensity to misunderstand Crowley's message. The latter is certainly easy to do, as there are many books that have been published on the Thoth deck that throw Crowley's whole system under the bus.

In my own experience, I think the Thoth deck is an incredible tool & aid for studying Western esoteric tradition. However, I'll be honest and say that I don't really jive with Crowley's meanings insofar as how they are applied in readings. Maybe it says a lot about me, but I find the Ziegler book to be the most helpful in working with others through the Thoth deck.
 

Zephyros

I don't know if they're idiots, exactly, but perhaps misinformed due to the fact that many of his writings are meant to be understood experientially, rather than intellectually. He was, after all, writing from the point of view of a rather specific initiatory framework. While "the Law is for All," much of his doctrines are written for a certain informed target audience. On one hand this means that he both respected and created his "model reader" (as, indeed, do the best writers), since merely understanding him entails a whole bunch of ancillary study. Understanding what he says, on the other hand, is a whole other ballgame, except in the most cursory of intellectual capacities. Often in my studies I feel I understand him, yet get little "oomph" because of my lack of magickal background.

In addition, in the midst of all this, one cannot discuss Crowley without mentioning Sex Magick. Now, I am not the authority on the subject, but it doesn't, contrary to popular belief, consist of nothing but orgiastic practices, it's actually a good deal more complicated. On the other hand, one cannot deny that there are certain things having to do with it that, at the very least, raise an eyebrow. I have yet to come across anything actually shocking or immoral, although that may say more about me than popular attitudes toward sex, which remain puritanical, while in his own time it was much worse.

Lastly, I think some of his nomenclature really is a trap, but one meant to deter those who would misunderstand, misuse his meaning and generally be clouded by fears. Simply put, when you say that you venerate the Antichrist and the Whore of Babylon you will generally not be well received by "proper" society, while odd-jobs who sacrifice cats to Satan or those looking for easy sex will misunderstand your message just as much as those who say you are immoral. That's a trap I think he did knowingly use. He liked to push boundaries, and it's up to the student how far they'll be willing to push them and go along for the ride.
 

La Force

I don't know if they're idiots, exactly, but perhaps misinformed due to the fact that many of his writings are meant to be understood experientially, rather than intellectually. He was, after all, writing from the point of view of a rather specific initiatory framework. While "the Law is for All," much of his doctrines are written for a certain informed target audience. On one hand this means that he both respected and created his "model reader" (as, indeed, do the best writers), since merely understanding him entails a whole bunch of ancillary study. Understanding what he says, on the other hand, is a whole other ballgame, except in the most cursory of intellectual capacities. Often in my studies I feel I understand him, yet get little "oomph" because of my lack of magickal background.

In addition, in the midst of all this, one cannot discuss Crowley without mentioning Sex Magick. Now, I am not the authority on the subject, but it doesn't, contrary to popular belief, consist of nothing but orgiastic practices, it's actually a good deal more complicated. On the other hand, one cannot deny that there are certain things having to do with it that, at the very least, raise an eyebrow. I have yet to come across anything actually shocking or immoral, although that may say more about me than popular attitudes toward sex, which remain puritanical, while in his own time it was much worse.

Lastly, I think some of his nomenclature really is a trap, but one meant to deter those who would misunderstand, misuse his meaning and generally be clouded by fears. Simply put, when you say that you venerate the Antichrist and the Whore of Babylon you will generally not be well received by "proper" society, while odd-jobs who sacrifice cats to Satan or those looking for easy sex will misunderstand your message just as much as those who say you are immoral. That's a trap I think he did knowingly use. He liked to push boundaries, and it's up to the student how far they'll be willing to push them and go along for the ride.

Well said closrapexa

SEX! SEX! SOFT PORN, everywhere you look, magazines, TV, bill boards, internet, movies, everywhere. Think of Crowley in our times. He would fit in without a problem, people need to step back, you look at our society, really. Secret societies, freemasons, mystics, illuminatti, NWO, Chatholics, Christians, heck they all have their rituals, gosh you think Crowley was aweful, frig, read the bible, want to talk about rituals, sacrifices, the bible is full of them, my gosh read the ritual a man has to do if he touched a woman having her period, for pete sake. Thats worst than what Crowely did to a cat, omg, what about asians killing dogs and eating them, does that make them bad people, what about eastern indian mystics that eat dead peoples corpses, does that make them bad people, satanist?

Crowley, just say do want you want in your life, what you desire, he does say not to go and intentionally murder people, or harm them. Enjoy your life make your dreams come true, create your reality.

So with the Thoth deck, etc. There are no traps at all, the only trap is your mind, what you think. You have a choice live in a box, or live outside of the box.
 

Teheuti

Perhaps they were warning of the . . . propensity to misunderstand Crowley's message. The latter is certainly easy to do, as there are many books that have been published on the Thoth deck that throw Crowley's whole system under the bus.
That's what came to my mind when I read the question. The traps are not in Crowley but lie in people's own assumptions - including some who think they know Crowley better than he knew himself (no one here is like that, of course!).
 

Richard

That's what came to my mind when I read the question. The traps are not in Crowley but lie in people's own assumptions - including some who think they know Crowley better than he knew himself (no one here is like that, of course!).
Somewhere (maybe in Kaczinsky's Perdurabo) Crowley is quoted as saying something like "Christians know more about my destiny than is altogether pleasant."
 

La Force

That's what came to my mind when I read the question. The traps are not in Crowley but lie in people's own assumptions - including some who think they know Crowley better than he knew himself (no one here is like that, of course!).

That is completely correct, "peoples own assumptions". That is better said than what I put, "the only trap is your mind, what you think."