Book of Thoth Study Group: Part 1 - Section 2

valeria said:

Does that makes sense or am I way off base?

Click to expand...

You've got it.

This idea of "relativism" applies to the Tarot as well. We all look at the same cards but each one of us has our own unique interpretations. Our interpretations may agree on many points, but there are areas of interpretation that are unique to us alone as individuals. No single interpretation is the correct interpretation because everything is just a point of view. "Every man and every woman is a star"

Interesting Thelemic trivia:

In many of Crowley's books he included a Thelemic date of publication. For example in The Book of Thoth the date is An Ixviii. This dating system is based on how many 22 year periods have passed since 20th March 1904. The first big letter (the I) indicates one 22 year period. The next set is the roman numeral for 18. Add them together, 22 + 18 = 40. The Book of Thoth was published in 1944, 40 years after 1904.

The current Thelemic year is IVxiv. Some people like to use the corresponding Major Arcana. The current 22 year period is ruled by IV The Emperor. And until the 20th March next year we are also under the influence of XIV Art.

That is interesting. I can't quite wrap my mind around the date system, but that it can correlate with an Atu is rather cool. *proud Sagitarian*

Its an interesting system.
As well has having a great cycle (where we go through a circuit of all the Gods / Signs - a great cycle astrologicaly) we have a smaller cycle where we go through one, ie, an Aeon.
Then, with the above dating system, we have a larger cycle of 22 years that is ruled by one Tarot trump (and shown by higher case numerals) and each individual year within that trump cycle is ruled by one Tarot trump (shown by lower case numerals).

I'm kindda suprised I'd not noticed this system before.
The old brain must've switchedoff when it hit strings of roman numerals. hehe

"Therefore you can have an infinite number of gods, individual and equal though diverse, each one supreme and utterly indestructible. This is also the only explanation of how a Being could create a world in which War, Evil, etc., exist. Evil is only an appearance, because (like "Good") it cannot affect the substance itself, but only multiply its combinations. this is something the same Mystic Monotheism; but the objection to that theory is that God has to which are all parts of Himself, so that their interplay is false. If we presuppose many elements, their interplay is natural."

I was wondering what different views people have on this passage. I personally glean a lot from it. Their are so many vastly different powers at work in our world, it would seem contradictory for one being to create them. However if they were all manifestations of different beings, it would be totally understandable why these different powers are always at odds. Especially if they were ALL indestructable, it would be an odd sort of balance. "Wreak all the havoc you want, but in the end it will be like it always has." type of thinking. I can relate a lot of the things I see in the world to that.

Just a thought..

Ven

Ventrue said:

"I was wondering what different views people have on this passage. I personally glean a lot from it.

Click to expand...

I think Crowley's use of the word "gods" is slightly misleading. If you want to see the "gods" that Crowley is talking about look in a mirror or look at the person next to you.

In the passages just prior to the section you quoted, Crowley gives a qabalistic description of the development of consciousness. But that leaves the question of why? Crowley's subsequent quote from The Book of the Great Auk is his theory of incarnation.

I can try to explain it but it does run counter to main-stream religion and many peoples ideas about the nature of God and life.

Most of what we are discussing runs counter to main-stream religion does it not?

Yes! And thank god it does!

Going back a bit - two points:
Tarot and Formulae of Tetragrammaton (p.16) the daughter as seen as light and heat given off by explosion of gases (from male and female) and the substance resulted is the Son.
Is this not a very different idea than usual? I have always thought of the daughter as some continued result coming via the son. The above seems to be a process at the same time or even before the Son is formed. P.18 says “(the daughter) has been explained above as the spiritual ingredient in the result … but this is only one interpretation.”
Any others?

In the Naples arrangement 7,8,& 9 are compared to Sat, Chit, Ananda. Yet the 3 elements are compared to the 3 Gunas; Satvas, Rajas and Tamas. If these three are known as the Gunas what are the other three known as?
I think I have had these two groups of 3 mixed up with each other.
Any ideas or further explanations?