I read RWS, should I ignore Thoth meanings

Hello Thoth experts,

I have been learning the Tarot for a couple of years and have always read with RWS decks. However, I do own the Thoth deck out of curiosity and have several Thoth based books such as Angeles Arrien's Tarot Handbook and other recommended Thoth books. I wanted to read/learn about the other school of thought in Tarot.

I haven't read a lot but what I have learned, is there are so many differences and some pretty extreme ones like the Courts and reversals/ill-dignified.

My question is:
Regarding only the card meanings - should Thoth meanings ever be considered when interpreting RWS cards or should they be ignored entirely?
Can they add a new dimension/layer or will it be too confusing, especially a newbie like me?

Thank you in advance,
Freyja

I tend to go the other way. I'm steeped in Thoth (4+ decades) and have only been reading RWS for the last 5 years (although most of the tarot books I've read have been RWS-based). I find the Thoth meanings to be rock-solid, and the RWS images - especially the scenic minors - to convey impressions that often seem strangely out-of-sync with the core meaning of the cards. (Some are real head-scratchers for me.) Both decks are based on the Golden Dawn system, but diverge widely, Thoth into the Thelemic paradigm and RWS into . . . what? Maybe Christianity or Waite's prior cartomancy work? When using the RWS, I tend to take cues from the scenes to feed my metaphorical sensibilities, but I almost never take the customary interpretations at face value. I much prefer Crowley's character sketches for the courts, and his astrological, numerical and Tree of Life underpinnings for the minors, aspects that Waite seems to have glossed over or completely dispensed with. In short, the Thoth meanings seem just a little more "universal" (at least within the Golden Dawn universe) and the RWS ones more bound to Waite's "vow of secrecy" and the stories in the illustrations (except where Waite and Smith apparently didn't see eye-to-eye - or perhaps Waite wasn't paying sufficient attention).

ETA: Oh, and you should probably toss Arriens; I don't know a single Thoth fan that thinks much of it. If the Book of Thoth is heavy going, stay with DuQuette and Banzhaf for the time being.

Barleywine said:

I tend to go the other way. I'm steeped in Thoth (4+ decades) and have only been reading RWS for the last 5 years (although most of the tarot books I've read have been RWS-based). I find the Thoth meanings to be rock-solid, and the RWS images - especially the scenic minors - to convey impressions that often seem strangely out-of-sync with the core meaning of the cards. (Some are real head-scratchers for me.) Both decks are based on the Golden Dawn system, but diverge widely, Thoth into the Thelemic paradigm and RWS into . . . what? Maybe Christianity or Waite's prior cartomancy work? When using the RWS, I tend to take cues from the scenes to feed my metaphorical sensibilities, but I almost never take the customary interpretations at face value. I much prefer Crowley's character sketches for the courts, and his astrological, numerical and Tree of Life underpinnings for the minors, aspects that Waite seems to have glossed over or completely dispensed with. In short, the Thoth meanings seem just a little more "universal" (at least within the Golden Dawn universe) and the RWS ones more bound to Waite's "vow of secrecy" and the stories in the illustrations (except where Waite and Smith apparently didn't see eye-to-eye - or perhaps Waite wasn't paying sufficient attention).

ETA: Oh, and you should probably toss Arriens; I don't know a single Thoth fan that thinks much of it. If the Book of Thoth is heavy going, stay with DuQuette and Banzhaf for the time being.

Click to expand...

Barleywine,
Thank you for response, I don't mean to offend, but I'm not quite sure what you are telling me especially when you began with saying that you tend to go the other way.

I didn't say that I went anyway. That is actually what I am wondering. I really don't know much about Thoth but I have felt drawn to the writing because of Waite's illusiveness.

I want more information to draw from and learn from, but I am comfortable with RWS. I enjoy the imagery and when I look at the Thoth deck I feel lost. But I'm sure it's because I don't know what I am doing with Thoth. I still don't know a thing about Kabbalah or astrology, so when I look at Thoth's imagery I don't recognize it. In fact, recently I was struggling with reconciling the Thoth's courts with Waite's ranking/element and you helped me with that, so thank you. In the end I decided to go with what the author/artist wanted although Waite is confusing on that thought too. Especially when he thinks Knights are older than Kings??!! Anyway...

Would you mind writing back and be more specific as to whether I should or shouldn't include Thoth's meaning when I am reading RWS?
Should I even try to mix the two, or keep them separate like I decided to do when it came to the Courts?

Thank you for your time,
Freyja

I simply meant that, when reading the RWS, I largely ignore the traditional RWS meanings and substitute those of the Thoth, which I find much more reliable for most situations. I don't buy into the RWS model to the exclusion of all others; in fact, I hardly buy into it at all, beyond taking some inspiration from the postures, gestures and "facing" of the figures, and perhaps a tiny amount from the narrative thrust of the scenes, which often come across as interpretive "training wheels." No offense meant there either, its just my personal objection to them. Also, except for the Major Arcana, I've found that much of the apparent disagreement between them is largely superficial; Waite just had a less unequivocal way of wording his opinions. So by all means, bring in Thoth meanings where they seem to make more sense than the more elusive (and sometimes sketchy) RWS ones. I don't think you'll regret it.

ETA: Regarding reversals and dignities, I use both with either deck, since I see them as two different tools with parallel but not identical objectives: dignities strengthen or weaken, reversals merely redirect in a variety of subtle ways.

Barleywine said:

I simply meant that, when reading the RWS, I largely ignore the traditional RWS meanings and substitute those of the Thoth, which I find much more reliable for most situations. I don't buy into the RWS model to the exclusion of all others; in fact, I hardly buy into it at all, beyond taking some inspiration from the postures, gestures and "facing" of the figures, and perhaps a tiny amount from the narrative thrust of the scenes, which often come across as interpretive "training wheels." No offense meant there either, its just my personal objection to them. Also, except for the Major Arcana, I've found that much of the apparent disagreement between them is largely superficial; Waite just had a less unequivocal way of wording his opinions. So by all means, bring in Thoth meanings where they seem to make more sense than the more elusive (and sometimes sketchy) RWS ones. I don't think you'll regret it.

ETA: Regarding reversals and dignities, I use both with either deck, since I see them as two different tools with parallel but not identical objectives: dignities strengthen or weaken, reversals merely redirect in a variety of subtle ways.

Click to expand...

That was not the answer I was expecting.

So, when you read with RWS decks, you strictly use Thoth meanings and don't really use Waite's at all? Hymn, interesting.

I am glad that you said that, because I always search the forum as well as the internet, when I have a question that I am sure is a popular one and I did find a thread here from a month ago. It wasn't the same, but similar.

A reader was going the other way. She learned and read Thoth but wanted to learn RWS and many members told her to 'forget' the Thoth meanings when reading Waite and I didn't buy into that. That is why I started this thread to get more opinions. So thank you.

By the way, I just got Arrien's book and haven't even gotten a chance to look at it. It's so highly recommended? So thank you for the head's up.
I do have DuQuette's Understanding...Crowley, Thoth Companion by Snuffin, and of course The Book of Thoth. I have a Scribd account and was considering renting Banzhaf's Keywords and now I probably will next month.

It's obvious you are not a fan of Waite.

I've read so many things about all the elders, as I call them. All the mysteries of who did what; Mathers, Crowley, Waite, Regardie, etc and I wish I knew what everyone was talking about. It sounds like there's a lot of history there besides the Tarot history. I've even heard things like 'Mather's lied" and I've read that Crowley inherited or was manipulative in getting some of his texts. Things like that.

And some readers seem to have very strong opinions about both Crowley and Waite. I have read that both are geniuses and I have reiterated that about Waite, without really knowing if it's even true, so I don't offend anyone. I am annoyed that all he really left us was the Pictorial Key. Really? That's all you got? But...then I read and have been told, that he kept the GD secrets unlike Crowley.

Could you recommend some reading so I may catch up on what seems to be a sort of soap opera of the Golden Dawn and Tarot of the 19th and 20th century?

Again, thank you for the advice. Now that I feel comfortable with the cards and I have obtained my own meanings without having to look them up, I really feel the need to add more, go deeper.

Astrology seems complicated, at least right now, and I don't even want to go near Kaballah because it is a mystical religion and I wouldn't want to treat as anything less. Although, I do feel that the Sephiroth spheres match the pip cards much more than the Pythagorian based numerology. In fact, I seem to remember you mentioning numerology in that other thread I asked about the Courts.

Is it just me? I feel like numerological meanings don't fit/match all of the pips in all of the suits. In so many beginner books, they'll say to simply learn the meanings of 1-9 or 10, learn the suits, and voila, you'll have acquire the meanings of 1/2 the deck. I ignored this because I felt like some were being forced and I knew it wasn't going to be that easy. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about and need to learn more about it.

The only way I analyze the numbers in the cards, is as a stage

Am I wrong about this? About numerology?
I have been dying to ask someone about this and I guess 'you're it'. I hope you don't mind me bothering you about numerology now.
It seems to be a popular method and it makes me think that I must be wrong and I want to know what I'm missing.

Once again, thank you.
Freyja

I'm primarily a TdM reader, so regardless of which deck I'm using I go by a combination of TdM and whatever the pictures or the art spark for me.

There is no right nor wrong with Tarot - it's whatever works for you. That said, I don't see the point of using Thoth (or any other deck, really) if you're just going to see RWS decks in your head, which is why I like to rely on the pictures that I see in front of me.

AnemoneRosie said:

I'm primarily a TdM reader, so regardless of which deck I'm using I go by a combination of TdM and whatever the pictures or the art spark for me.

There is no right nor wrong with Tarot - it's whatever works for you. That said, I don't see the point of using Thoth (or any other deck, really) if you're just going to see RWS decks in your head, which is why I like to rely on the pictures that I see in front of me.

Click to expand...

I completely agree about relying on the pictures.

One of the best exercises I did, was to go through each card of the original RWS, pick out every symbol/sign/object in the image and I first, wrote down what they meant to me. I then looked up the traditional meaning for each in various books on symbolism as well as the Internet. It took a couple of weeks, but it was well worth it. And, it was surprising to see how many times I was correct about what these objects meant.

So, I do read the images intuitively, along with the meanings I have stored in my head. But, I also have no desire to read Thoth cards at the moment. So I am only reading RWS clones/inspired deck.

However, because some of the Thoth card meanings are so different than Waite's I wasn't sure if I should consider them at all. Then I saw that post, where people were saying not to combine the two; to literally 'forget' the Thoth meanings completely when reading RWS.

There seems to be some important information to be gained from Thoth and I don't think it would be in my best interest to just ignore them.

Speaking of the images, I do not know how anyone can read TdM pips. How do you do it?

Other than the Majors, I feel like there isn't enough imagery, to read them. Especially if you started with them. It seems like it would be very difficult and they are intimidating. Kudos to you.

Thanks for the input.
Freyja

I had this problem myself. Now I tend to look into the cards focusing under their elemental and positional dignities first, then think of which book meanings fits better into the reading whichever deck I use.

To decide which book meanings are more appropriate for the question in the reading seems to be also part of intuition.

So the readings become more energy oriented than the meanings. Seems work better and gets around the split meanings problems of different school of decks.

And after all, it doesn't matter, which book meaning it came from. What matters is what interprtation was right and true.

Freyja of V said:

That was not the answer I was expecting.

So, when you read with RWS decks, you strictly use Thoth meanings and don't really use Waite's at all? Hymn, interesting.

I am glad that you said that, because I always search the forum as well as the internet, when I have a question that I am sure is a popular one and I did find a thread here from a month ago. It wasn't the same, but similar.

A reader was going the other way. She learned and read Thoth but wanted to learn RWS and many members told her to 'forget' the Thoth meanings when reading Waite and I didn't buy into that. That is why I started this thread to get more opinions. So thank you.

The only way I analyze the numbers in the cards, is as a stage

Am I wrong about this? About numerology?
I have been dying to ask someone about this and I guess 'you're it'. I hope you don't mind me bothering you about numerology now.
It seems to be a popular method and it makes me think that I must be wrong and I want to know what I'm missing.

Once again, thank you.
Freyja

Click to expand...

"Strictly" is probably too strong a word; "predominantly," yes. Understanding the Thoth is what I've invested the most time and intellectual effort in; it brings a more esoteric perspective that frequently has to be "decoded" in order to make use of it in divination, which is "meat-and-potatoes" for me. There are far fewer of the "ready-made" snippets of interpretation that we find in the PKT. As I said elsewhere, I don't think that Crowley's intent was to provide a guidebook for divination. He was a complex and challenging thinker, and his tarot observations are no different. So I start from a Thoth base and then branch out from there if Crowley is too rarified for practical reading purposes.

Waite also wrote a book on cartomancy and other divinational methods, under a pseudonym, and although I haven't done a detailed comparison, it seems that some of that material made it over into the PKT; it seems largely "uncontaminated" by Golden Dawn persuasions.

https://archive.org/details/manualofcartoman00gran

I've had a partial reversal of my early dismissal of Waite, after recently re-reading the PKT; the material in the front seems more profound than I previously thought. His verbose evasions (must be an oxymoron in there somewhere ) always put me off. But the keyword material often seems like a jumble to me, and the illustrations and text don't always hang together well in comparison to the much more functionally and artistically integrated Thoth approach. Eden Gray made a couple of stabs at unscrambling it, and I tend to use her slightly more coherent version when I want a back-up or counterpoint to my Thoth perspective. As a "system" of divination, the RWS comes across more as a "snack table" than a full-course, sit-down meal like the Thoth. It's probably why so many newcomers agonize here on the forum about being unable to put things together in an intelligible way; Waite held back too much of the "connecting tissue" that ties things together.

Numerical correspondences (I tend not to call it "numerology" because that is a whole other animal - "lucky numbers" and such - that I prefer not to confuse with tarot) as I use them are both sephirotic - which seems to be Crowley's main source - and Pythagorean. But it strikes me that the latter begins to diverge from practical tarot usage after about the number 5, so I don't see it as a completely seamless association. (I tend to think of it as a process of ramification from the subtlest, most unified principle [One] to the grossest, most diversified expression [Ten] - although Nine is often seen as perfection, with Ten as a return to the unitary, or a "new beginning.") I've spent some time with Agrippa's material, and a good deal more with Joseph Maxwell's ideas (Maxwell is difficult in this regard but rewarding if you stay with it). There is another thread here that lists some better Pythagorean resources that I still need to explore. In summary, I find that a combination of the Tree of Life numerical correspondences, astrological symbolism, elemental (suit) signifiers, "energy-flow" concepts and color-theory insights that are central to the Thoth deck fill in many of the gaps that Waite seems to have purposely left in the RWS.

I've been talking mainly about the minor cards; the majors are on an entirely different level. I tend to stick to more traditional interpretations and take Crowley's Thelemic innovations "under advisement." There is much food for thought in them, but extracting it is a considerably more arduous task (although I did work through it in great detail in trying to remedy my long-standing difficulty with the Temperance card).

It is also worth noting that as different as the two decks seem to be, they have far more similarities than is readily apparent. In many, or even most, cases in the Minors the verbal interpretations given in the books may differ, but the gist is the same or else their basic "energy" can be gleaned. The "equation" of Kabbalistic and astrological correspondences connected with the numerical value is the same in both case (except for something like the Star/Emperor and a few others) but the differences are in how each interprets a given symbol. And this can vary widely.

For example, while Crowley's Lovers would seem to be a more "comprehensive" version of the card, and certainly the busier one, similar passages about it appear both in the PKT as well as the BoT.:

PKT said:

In the eighteenth century form, by which it first became known to the world of archaeological research, it is really a card of married life, shewing father and mother, with their child placed between them; and the pagan Cupid above, in the act of flying his shaft, is, of course, a misapplied emblem. The Cupid is of love beginning rather than of love in its fullness, guarding the fruit thereof. The card is said to have been entitled Simulacyum fidei, the symbol of conjugal faith, for which the rainbow as a sign of the covenant would have been a more appropriate concomitant. The figures are also held to have signified Truth, Honor and Love, but I suspect that this was, so to speak, the gloss of a commentator moralizing. It has these, but it has other and higher aspects.

Click to expand...

Book of Thoth said:

The symbolism of male and female is carried on still further by the weapons of the King and Queen; he bears the Sacred Lance, and she the Holy Grail; their other hands are joined, as consenting to the Marriage. Their weapons are supported by twin children, whose positions are counterchanged; for the white child not only holds the Cup, but carries roses, while the black child, holding his father’s Lance, carries also the club, an equivalent symbol. At the bottom of the whole is the result of the Marriage in primitive and pantomorphic form; it is the winged Orphic egg. This egg represents the essence of all that life which comes under this formula of male and female.

Click to expand...

True, the two cards are very different, but they both deal with the alchemical marriage, albeit in different ways. The essence is the same.