I read RWS, should I ignore Thoth meanings

Freyja of V

I sit here stunned by all of your knowledge and eloquence.:)
 

Barleywine

:cool:

Huh...I have a LOT to learn. I knew I did but bloody hell.
It's all good. I really enjoy reading and learning about new things. So, I'm up for it, but it seem so overwhelming.

I do actually understand what you are saying about the descent of energy through the manifestation in the 10, but I was trying to say that the Swords don't seem to follow the same pattern as the other suits do. For instance, I can see the progression in the 2,3,4 and 5. But then the 6,7 seem misplaced. Does that make sense?

Anyway...

The next thing I was going to begin learning was Astrology, but now I am having second thoughts. In this thread, the Qabbalah was talked about the most.
If I were to start learning about the Qabbalah, where you recommend I begin?

Good question. I started with Dion Fortune's Mystical Qabalah. Some recommend Lon Milo DuQuette's Chicken Qabalah but I'm not familiar with it. He's a bit too "pop culture" for me, but he seems to know his stuff. I like the old ways.
 

Barleywine

I do actually understand what you are saying about the descent of energy through the manifestation in the 10, but I was trying to say that the Swords don't seem to follow the same pattern as the other suits do. For instance, I can see the progression in the 2,3,4 and 5. But then the 6,7 seem misplaced. Does that make sense?

I pulled out the PKT and was trying to follow your line of thought but couldn't quite get there. Care to explain more fully?
 

Richard

Good question. I started with Dion Fortune's Mystical Qabalah. Some recommend Lon Milo DuQuette's Chicken Qabalah but I'm not familiar with it. He's a bit too "pop culture" for me, but he seems to know his stuff. I like the old ways.

Chicken Qabalah is not a systematic study, but it is a great introduction for beginners, and it has enough depth to be of interest to those who are already familiar with the Tree. It is not Qabalah "dumbed down" (pardon the non-PC expression), but it does tend to be irreverent. There is even an excellent section on the Hebrew Alphabet, which he strongly recommends learning. The main thrust of the book is on the relation between Tarot and the Tree.
 

Zephyros

I learned Qabalah from three books, Wang, Fortune and Duquette. They're all more or less beginner books and cover much of the same material, each from their own angle. Duquette is excellent, and his modern, rather jocular writing style shouldn't deter anyone looking for a serious book. He has a great way of explaining complicated topics in a light but informative way that does not intimidate. But it certainly isn't "Qabalah made easy;" all the relevant material is there and when it's time to be serious he is and his colorful metaphors really drive points home. Really good stuff.

His book about the deck is also written in his funny style, but the difficult material (of which there is much) isn't spared. At some point you outgrow it, because it doesn't cover everything, but as an introduction book there's no better.
He also wrote a book I recommend although can't remember the name of about Thelemic magick. Altogether a less funny book, he's still a great teacher and makes a point of answering questions a student might have.
 

smw

Real symbols belong to the collective unconscious of Man. If they are elements of a coded language, they actually can no longer be called symbols, they become signs.

I found by chance this definition from Jung. What I think is interesting is that he does not appear to advocate a fixed 'either or' approach. What might be one person's symbol can be another's sign(or fact) - co-existing at the same time. The example of seeing the tree in the point event, discussed by Crowley (linked by Zephyros) seems to touch on similar ground with this complex relationship.

Jung said:
whether a thing is a symbol or not depends chiefly on the 'attitude' of the observing consciousness; for instance, on whether it regards a given fact not merely as such but also as an expression for something unknown.Hence, it is quite possible for a man to establish a fact which does not appear in the least symbolic to himself, but is profoundly so to another consciousness.The converse is also true[\QUOTE]


(I have just been away and my eyes are wobbling, so may have this wrong- my gist of what Crowley is saying is that organisation of symbolic ideas help with our differing perceptions,so that we can have more chance of being able to have a shared communication with each other
 

Michael Sternbach

There's a rather notorious past thread in which just these questions are dealt with here.

This was one of the first AT threads I read, before I even became a member. It is quite informative, but there is more to be said about these questions.

Certainly one of the more fascinating threads, but for me the answer is that the Thoth Tarot is inseparable from the Book of Thoth, and Crowley himself said this many times. He feared that without the book the deck would deteriorate into "fortune telling" and the like. He was not talking only of the way people read, but prophetically pointing at things that have indeed happened. For example, in her book Angeles Arrien calls the pelican on the Empress a swan. Now, I could make up meanings for the Empress that included the swan, and justify them with all kinds of esoteric jargon but the fact is that it isn't one, and anyone receiving their introduction from Arrien wouldn't get simply an "alternative" approach, but a wrong one based on false assumptions.

Arrien did make some false assumptions, then again, I am hard pressed to believe Crowley that the two koi fish on the Two of Cups are actually dolphins. Certainly it was unwise of Arrien to piss off all the Crowley aficionados by downplaying his part in the creation of the deck and accrediting it all to Harris.

As far as the meanings of the cards are concerned, they may have been determined in more of an empirical manner than based on symbolism. Actually, I never consulted Arrien's book per say much, but I value some of its "spin-offs", such as Ziegler's Mirror of the Soul which, BTW, is rather a guide to internal work with the cards than simply a book on card meanings. Unlike Arrien, the author obviously did read the BoT, and the philosophy he advocates overlaps with Thelema in many ways. Despite Arrien's unquestionable influence, its take on the card has been confirmed in my practice, overall, and the same can be said of Tarantino's Tarot for the New Aeon, which would be odd, had Arrien really got it all wrong.

By the same token, I recall Ravenest sharing some positive experiences using the book New Age Tarot: Guide to the Thoth Deck by James Wanless, another Arrien follower, in seminars he held.

So, either we are poor readers, or there is more to the Arrien school than the Crowleyans are ready to admit.

But the Book of Thoth itself is only the "outer veil," the real essence of the deck is Thelema, which again many authors from Arrien to Zeigler just put aside as you would a bone in a fish. But Thelema is the fish, not some inconsequential byproduct. This, this, is what differentiates the deck from any other and makes it Aleister Crowley's Thoth Tarot, an illustrated commentary on the Book of Law. Take that away, and you've got a bunch of nice pictures.

Chapter III: Hieroglyphics: Life and Language Necessarily Symbolic

The fish to me is the metaphysical system of Tarot itself, GD Tarot to be more specific, intertwined with Thelemic symbolism, to be sure, but so much more than just an illustrated commentary on the Book of the Law.
 

Michael Sternbach

I have Bill Butler's Dictionary of the Tarot which takes a similar approach. But the best example of multiple-deck comparison, at least for the purpose here, is Robert Wang's Qabalistic Tarot. It compares the TdM, the RWS, the Thoth and the Regardie/Wang collaborative Golden Dawn deck. It's advantage is summed up in the title, especially if the intent is to pursue the more esoteric side of things. I highly recommend it.

Is it true that Butler's book focusses on the Thoth, as another poster suggested in this thread?
 

Barleywine

Is it true that Butler's book focusses on the Thoth, as another poster suggested in this thread?

Not true, at least for the 1975 edition I have. As far as deck design, for the small and court cards, it covers (mostly in text, not pictures) Marseille, Waite, Aquarian, Crowley and "New" (Cooke/Sharpe deck from 1969). The Trumps add Gringonneur, Bembo, Swiss, Insight, Italian, Wirth and B.O.T.A. For interpretation, it captues commentary from "BOTA," Case, Christian, Crowley, Douglas, "Golden Dawn," Gray, Grimaud, Huson, Kahn, Kaplan. Knight, Lind, Mathers, Mayananda, Papus, Sadhu, Thierens, Ussher, Waite and "Suggested" (looks like Butler's ideas). Not all of these writers are represented for every card; once again, the Trumps include a broader spectrum.
 

smw

Zephyros; said:
I do recommend buying the Book of Thoth even though you can find it online at Hermetic Texts. However, try not to gloss over anything. Sometimes he adds a note that more information can be found in such and such of his own books, other times he points you to some ritual or the other, or some vision he had. Even if you don't understand what he's talking about, make a go of it because it's important, these notes sometimes contain the real gist of what a card is all about.

For example there's this whole thing with Cain and Abel on the Lovers and the reason why and their interpretation is in The Vision and the Voice.

The Liber 418 study group on the Vision and the Voice was running here for a while. I must admit, I wondered why there wasn't more interest with the extra insights in to the Thoth cards from Crowley and the opportunity to have someone as knowledgeable as Aeon 418 at the helm.