Escaping from the Tree of Life?

Aeon418

However, I wonder if in your last post you actually meant to say that the qliphoth are a group of spirits (the opposites of the Mercurial spirits)? I thought the term is used only for the "broken" Sephiroth.
From your previous post I got the impression you were already familiar with Liber XXII (found within Liber 231) with it's 22 matching pairs of Mercurial and Qliphotic sigils.

Liber XXII Domarum Mercurii Cum Suis Geniis, "The Book of the Houses of Mercury with Their Own Spirits."

Liber XXII Carcerorum Qliphoth Cum Suis Geniis. "The Book of the Prisons of the Qlippoth, with Their Own Spirits."
 

Michael Sternbach

From your previous post I got the impression you were already familiar with Liber XXII (found within Liber 231) with it's 22 matching pairs of Mercurial and Qliphotic sigils.

Liber XXII Domarum Mercurii Cum Suis Geniis, "The Book of the Houses of Mercury with Their Own Spirits."

Liber XXII Carcerorum Qliphoth Cum Suis Geniis. "The Book of the Prisons of the Qlippoth, with Their Own Spirits."

Yes, I am familiar with them. What made me wonder though, was your use of "qliphoth" in reference to a certain kind of spirits. Since I thought that this word ("shells") is only used for the "shattered vessels" on the original ToL (the precursors of the sephiroth). But obviously, you are using "qliphot" synonymously with "qliphotic spirit".
 

Aeon418

Since I thought that this word ("shells") is only used for the "shattered vessels" on the original ToL (the precursors of the sephiroth).
The sigils in Liber XXII are unique to Crowley. They are part of the first wave of received texts that he penned during the winter months of 1907/08. Any historical provenance for the ideas and concepts presented in that particular liber begins and ends there.
But obviously, you are using "qliphot" synonymously with "qliphotic spirit".
Doesn't the translation of the Latin titles (which you quoted) make the distinction clear?
 

The Happy Squirrel

From what I've gathered reading most of the posts here (haven't had the chance to read all), and knowing not much at all about the Tree Of Life, the ToL is not a method, it is one element of a larger methodology. It is more of a framework. While OP here seemed to understand it as a method. This discussion is very informative. I watched Barlow as well in my early days trying to understand Tarot.
 

foolMoon

From what I've gathered reading most of the posts here (haven't had the chance to read all), and knowing not much at all about the Tree Of Life, the ToL is not a method, it is one element of a larger methodology. It is more of a framework. While OP here seemed to understand it as a method. This discussion is very informative. I watched Barlow as well in my early days trying to understand Tarot.

When ToL is used in conjunction with Tarot, it can be a method and also framework too.

For example, when I do ToL spread with Tarot, it instructs how to read the Tarot. I usually use 10 sephiroth + 2 more (Ayn Sof, Daath = they become sephiroths too), which gives total 12 sephiroths. Card on Ayn Sof position tells what the God wants, the Will of God. Card on Daath sephiroth tells about the solutions for the problems in the readings ... etc.

The 12 sephiroths sometimes also works with Astrological Houses, which deepens and widens the scope of the readings. ToL becomes dynamic methods for Tarot spreads, because it changes the principles of the readings depending on the type of the readings.

Frameworks don't change. They are a static way to see or interpret the anatomy or inner workings of the universe, life or system.

ToL works well for both purposes.