Zephyros
Just be careful. One day you pick up an innocuous-seeming deck, and four years later you find yourself contemplating women having sex with donkeys. Just sayin'.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Connecting to Thoth deck
Quotidianlight
Just be careful. One day you pick up an innocuous-seeming deck, and four years later you find yourself contemplating women having sex with donkeys. Just sayin'.
You're assuming we aren't already lol
Lilianne
I believe in organizing things in charts and diagrams. Here's something I cooked up last year, mostly to clarify things for my own understanding.
Excuse me for enquiring. I made up the diagram myself. Unwilling to rest on others' work I listed the rulers of the decanates to enter into the second circle inward and the list that I could find is different from yours which suggests yours aren't the same rulers or perhaps not rulers at all. May I ask for a reference to how you assigned planets to the decanates as it's obviously important for the working of the diagram.
Thanks!
Barleywine
Excuse me for enquiring. I made up the diagram myself. Unwilling to rest on others' work I listed the rulers of the decanates to enter into the second circle inward and the list that I could find is different from yours which suggests yours aren't the same rulers or perhaps not rulers at all. May I ask for a reference to how you assigned planets to the decanates as it's obviously important for the working of the diagram.Thanks!
I'll jump in on this, if I may. Here is a quote from "On the Heavenly Spheres" by Helena Avelar and Luis Ribeiro, titled "Variations on the Assignment of the Faces." (FYI, decanates were also called "faces" by the classical astrologers):
"With respect to the western astrological tradition, there are no known variations on the assignment of the faces to the planets. Nevertheless, a variant based upon the Hindu astrological decanate system, which is very different from the western faces, is currently being widely published. In the HIndu system, the distribution of the planets is based upon the elements and the sign rulerships." The authors caution that the Hindu system is part of another tradition and should not be mixed with the system of the western tradition.
LRichard's diagram matches the classical western table of faces, which follows the "Chaldean" order of the planets. In this regard, it is identical to the diagram shown in Robert Wang's "The Qabalistic Tarot."
Richard
As Barleywine said, they are the classical planetary assignments of western astrology. You can find them in The Book of Thoth, Book T, Liber Theta, and numerous classical sources, a number of which are compiled in Scion's Guide to the Decans, which is my goto for decan information.Excuse me for enquiring. I made up the diagram myself. Unwilling to rest on others' work I listed the rulers of the decanates to enter into the second circle inward and the list that I could find is different from yours which suggests yours aren't the same rulers or perhaps not rulers at all. May I ask for a reference to how you assigned planets to the decanates as it's obviously important for the working of the diagram.
Thanks!
The structure is so simple that brute memorization is unnecessary. Starting with the first decan of Aries, the planets just cycle over and over through the order: Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, Saturn, Jupiter. (If you start with the first decan as Saturn in Leo, you have to watch out for the stutter at the vernal equinox, where Mars gets repeated.)
ravenest
I'll jump in on this, if I may. Here is a quote from "On the Heavenly Spheres" by Helena Avelar and Luis Ribeiro, titled "Variations on the Assignment of the Faces." (FYI, decanates were also called "faces" by the classical astrologers):
"With respect to the western astrological tradition, there are no known variations on the assignment of the faces to the planets. Nevertheless, a variant based upon the Hindu astrological decanate system, which is very different from the western faces, is currently being widely published. In the HIndu system, the distribution of the planets is based upon the elements and the sign rulerships." The authors caution that the Hindu system is part of another tradition and should not be mixed with the system of the western tradition.
LRichard's diagram matches the classical western table of faces, which follows the "Chaldean" order of the planets. In this regard, it is identical to the diagram shown in Robert Wang's "The Qabalistic Tarot."
I'm still 'confused' .
The 'Chaldean Order' is one system.
Another system is to assign the first decan of a sign to its ruling planet, the next decan of that sign to the ruling planet of the next sign of that element and the third decan of that sign to the ruling planet of the third sign of that element.
Going off the top of my head here ... is that right ? If so is this the 'Hindu system' ?
MasterJm
I find the Thoth's deck much more accurate and realistic than RW. Studying many years Astrology, i see that in RW deck, some cards, their interpretations and astrological corespondences are totally wrong. For example, Strength's card interpretation for Leo is for me totally incomprehensible. Leo is a Lust sign, has nothing to do with selfcontrol and passions control. Leo is very gracious, dazzling, demanding, living his passions. Τhat card is for me God's Dionysus personification, drunk with the wine. The christians inverted that wine to blood and invented Jesus to replace the greek Dionysus. In the ancient days, in greek and roman religions, Dionysus was represented in the same way with the Lust card, sitting on a lion, keeping that cup, and drunk, with ecstasy and passion. Only the christians zealotes in John's Apocalypse, that political manifest of that time, missheaped and demonized Dionysus. They hate life. The Devil card is also more positive in Thoth's deck. Devil is the greek God Pan and i can't see that satanic inverted pentagramm in his forehead in RW deck. He is really ugly and satanic in RWs deck.
Barleywine
I'm still 'confused' .
The 'Chaldean Order' is one system.
Another system is to assign the first decan of a sign to its ruling planet, the next decan of that sign to the ruling planet of the next sign of that element and the third decan of that sign to the ruling planet of the third sign of that element.
Going off the top of my head here ... is that right ? If so is this the 'Hindu system' ?
This quote describes it as the "contemporary" method, as opposed to the "traditional." My understanding is that it's origin is in Hindu astrology, but I haven't found a definitive explanation yet.
DECANATE:
"Signs divided into three 10-degree divisions. In contemporary astrology the first decan of a sign is governed by its natural ruler. The second and third decans are governed by the rulers of the signs in the same element. Traditional rulership differs slightly, where each sign has three 10 degrees faces ruled by the seven classical planets in Chaldean order, starting with Mars ruling the first Face of Aries."
ETA: Here is a link to a Benjamin Dykes article on the decans. Following is a footnote to the discussion of the "triplicity" method of rulership.
http://www.bendykes.com/articles/decans.php
"Al-Biruni says this scheme comes from Hindu astrology (Al-Biruni, §451). It is also the basis of a system used for astrological physiognomy."
Zephyros
I find the Thoth's deck much more accurate and realistic than RW. Studying many years Astrology, i see that in RW deck, some cards, their interpretations and astrological corespondences are totally wrong. For example, Strength's card interpretation for Leo is for me totally incomprehensible. Leo is a Lust sign, has nothing to do with selfcontrol and passions control. Leo is very gracious, dazzling, demanding, living his passions. Τhat card is for me God's Dionysus personification, drunk with the wine. The christians inverted that wine to blood and invented Jesus to replace the greek Dionysus. In the ancient days, in greek and roman religions, Dionysus was represented in the same way with the Lust card, sitting on a lion, keeping that cup, and drunk, with ecstasy and passion. Only the christians zealotes in John's Apocalypse, that political manifest of that time, missheaped and demonized Dionysus. They hate life. The Devil card is also more positive in Thoth's deck. Devil is the greek God Pan and i can't see that satanic inverted pentagramm in his forehead in RW deck. He is really ugly and satanic in RWs deck.
I agree with the sentiment, not with the reasons for it. Leo may be "Lust," but it is a very specific kind of lust, and relates in a very specific way to its position on the Tree. This kind of Lust is only possible when directed, and the only viable direction is True Will. The ecstasy shown is K&C, only possible through rigorous discipline in performing one's Will, but only that and nothing else. The Book of Law mentions "strange drugs and wines that foam," but only in service of Will. Debauchery isn't what Lust is, since ecstasy must be directed, otherwise you're just a drunk junkie with STDs.
The difference is that in Strength, the Will is in service of some deity,according to old Aeon thinking, and so natural impulses are suppressed. Lust says that because "every man and every woman is a star," the "deity," if it can be called that, of each person is their own Will. It actually demands far more discipline and responsibility, because when worshipping a deity your personal responsibility is a moot point, and your reward for following the rules is assured.
Plus, the Christian penchant for self-sacrifice is quite a bit more complex than simply "hating life." Re-read Crowley's chapter about the Fool, as well as his essay Duty, as well as the passages on the Devil in Book T.
MasterJm
I agree with the sentiment, not with the reasons for it. Leo may be "Lust," but it is a very specific kind of lust, and relates in a very specific way to its position on the Tree. This kind of Lust is only possible when directed, and the only viable direction is True Will. The ecstasy shown is K&C, only possible through rigorous discipline in performing one's Will, but only that and nothing else. The Book of Law mentions "strange drugs and wines that foam," but only in service of Will. Debauchery isn't what Lust is, since ecstasy must be directed, otherwise you're just a drunk junkie with STDs.
The difference is that in Strength, the Will is in service of some deity,according to old Aeon thinking, and so natural impulses are suppressed. Lust says that because "every man and every woman is a star," the "deity," if it can be called that, of each person is their own Will. It actually demands far more discipline and responsibility, because when worshipping a deity your personal responsibility is a moot point, and your reward for following the rules is assured.
Plus, the Christian penchant for self-sacrifice is quite a bit more complex than simply "hating life." Re-read Crowley's chapter about the Fool, as well as his essay Duty, as well as the passages on the Devil in Book T.
Who spoke about Debauchery or junkies ? I agree. Will is Leo's basic point. "Father Your will must be done, not mine" says the christian script. Leo is also the Higher Self in that meaning, our inner solar child, but the Christianity as organised Church has nothing to do with Leo's solar quality, but with hate for life, repression and gulit. Lust (Dionysus) is ecstasy, healthy passion and hapiness. They made us to feel guilty for these healthy things.
