Lillie
Gregory says she will take thzt out tomorrow because it didn't work.
A Thoth Beginner's Library?
gregory
Indeed it didn't. Sob. A shame. On MY machine they were BEAUTIFUL. However, the font was free, and I can supply a link for anyone frantic to be able to print the symbols off !Lillie said:
teomat
I've was reading the BoT last night and was surprised at how lucid a lot of it is (but I appreciate that DuQuette has helped me a lot with this). I had geared myself up to being in over my head, but I actually found myself enjoying it. It is heavy-going, but I love the way Crowley drops the occasional humourous comment in amongst all the heavy esoteric stuff.
There are large bits which go totally over my head, but there are also little snippets that make me pause and think. For example, it never occurred to me to think of Jesus and his twelve disciples as the Sun and the zodiac. It's probably a well-known correlation (and Crowley just mentions it as almost a throwaway comment), but to me it was a real eye-opener.
I've so far gone through the chapters on the Fool, and as I'm doing a 78 week study, I'm just going to let it all sink in this week before I tackle the Magus next week. There's definitely enough on the Fool to keep me occupied for months (or years), but as this is my first trip through the deck I'm just going to get to know the cards on a surface level before delving deeper.
There are large bits which go totally over my head, but there are also little snippets that make me pause and think. For example, it never occurred to me to think of Jesus and his twelve disciples as the Sun and the zodiac. It's probably a well-known correlation (and Crowley just mentions it as almost a throwaway comment), but to me it was a real eye-opener.
I've so far gone through the chapters on the Fool, and as I'm doing a 78 week study, I'm just going to let it all sink in this week before I tackle the Magus next week. There's definitely enough on the Fool to keep me occupied for months (or years), but as this is my first trip through the deck I'm just going to get to know the cards on a surface level before delving deeper.
Le Fanu
Isn't it? Not at all the scary, indecipherable Crowley we have been led to believe!teomat said:
teomat
Absolutely! And especially compared to Waite's droning in the PKT.Le Fanu said:
I tried to study the RWS using the PKT, but just felt that Waite was continually sneering at my ignorance. I learnt that I can't study a deck when it's author is deliberately trying to fool me. What's the point?
Anyway, the Thoth may be just as hard to study, but at least it seems more 'honest'. Just my immediate opinion so far...
thorhammer
I do tooteomat said:
He has the most sardonic wit, and I love that. When you get a chance, seriously take the time to read Magick Without Tears - whether you're into Magick or not, it's a hilarious read.
He does a lot of that. And it's not just you - he just had a habit of assuming that everyone reading his work was and would be as ridiculously widely read as he was (we don't all have the luxury of being of the leisure class
). You get used to it, and learn to pick up when he's doing that and intuit where to search for what he's on about.
Wait till you get to Temperance.
And his comments on the Aeon card . . . chillingly humorous.\m/ Kat
inanna_tarot
Just as a thought..
What do people think of Crowleys books on astrology? Well, when I say that I mean the book put together under the idea of Crowley ghost writing for some american astrologer?
Would that not be a place to look into?Crowleys on astrological stuff?
What do people think of Crowleys books on astrology? Well, when I say that I mean the book put together under the idea of Crowley ghost writing for some american astrologer?
Would that not be a place to look into?Crowleys on astrological stuff?
princeofcups518
Le Fanu said:
I've had the same experience, and would agree that reading them in conjunction is very helpful. I would also be willing to brush up on your mythology. The Marriage of Cupid and Psyche stuck into Apuleius's Golden Ass is a wonderful explanation of the process of apotheosis which Crowley whole system is hubbed on.
Now, others have mentioned that going back to the Book of Thoth over time is really helpful. Absolutely. We must not forget that this is primary source for the deck, and not a secondary source. And having come from Crowley, it is safe to suggest that it is not entirely dogmatic. We know Crowley's distaste for religious rigidity, and I believe it is for that reason his works are so ambiguous. (The issue of He and Tzaddi and positioning on the Sephiroth comes to mind.) This is important, since Tarot truly is an individual's art.
Understanding the Book of Thoth I believe comes down to a few things. Primarily, one must read the Book of the Law, whether they come to accept it as truth or not. The reason for this is that the Book is quoted so often in the BoT, and the entire deck is based on the BotL, so it seems sort of roundabout to try to understand the philosophy of the Thoth deck through secondary sources. Secondly, one must at least understand the Sephiroth. Knowledge of this is crucial to understanding his divinatory meanings. Some will make little sense, particularly if you've been adhering to RWS definitions.
Thirdly, astrology is dreadfully important for this deck as well. You might consider learning the meanings of the signs and planets, while keeping in mind which planets rule which sign. Finally, alchemy is definitely not totally required, but it does round out the doctrine of apotheosis. I would advise learning what the different kinds of alchemical "marriages" are. This will help fill in your understanding of several of the trumps, as well as a few of the minors.
In short, I would praise Snuffin's book over DuQuette's in a heartbeat, at least for learning the deeper meanings of each card. DuQuette does an ok job of giving you the background information of the deck, but for actually relevant information in regards to divination and reflection, Snuffin does a better job. Even so, Crowley's book is the absolute best. There is zero competition.
People here have noted that learning this deck requires a lot of time and study. This is true. If you would like to learn this deck, I would suggest digging deep into your well of patience, and really committing to learning details honestly forever. I think you can learn new things eternally for any subject, and Tarot is certainly a fantastic example of that. However, I believe it is with Crowley's Thoth deck that we truly see this as fact. Its mysteries are profound and absolutely fascinating, and the work required to slowly unpack them is well worth it.
Best of luck to you! I'm glad you've chosen to work and learn with this deck!
Scion
inanna_tarot said:
The books are pretty worthless, I'm here to tell you. Crowley did write them, but not under his name and CERTAINLY not for his deck or own magickal orders. The truth is he didn't use Astrology or understand it as a topic enough to do so. General concepts yes, but not the nitty-gritty casting horary, getting results know-how. So his writings on the subject were primarily one big ghostwriting job for a woman who was squarely in the dumbed-down theosophical sunsign BS that Alan Leo (and others) foisted upon the world so they have almost nothing to do with the Thoth or the Golden Dawn material.
Moreover, Crowley admitted that he was a crappy astrologer. He loved the poetry and the symbolism, but never had the knack of actually working it. He was SUCH a scholar and the material available at that time was just not great. It's one of the reasons he focuses so much on Gnosticism, Egyptology, alchemy and QBLH: those are the big chunks he had to work with. It is very telling that there ISN'T a big astrology paper from Crowley on the Thoth or Book T; truth is, he didn't have access to the references to do it properly. I imagine he was well aware of that gap. The references hadn't been translated yet so the scholarship wasn't there.
If you want to look at the astrology in the Thoth then you're asking about Golden Dawn Astrology, which in turn is actually traditional astrology because (since most of them were QBLH obsessed and not practicing astrologers) means straight borrowing from traditional astrology by way of Agrippa et al: Seven planets, tropical zodiac, signs are geography, dignity and reception, practical info, hard predictions and Capital-F Fate. No sunsign horseshit, no feel-good affirmations, no doublespeak. So in point of fact 95% of the books on astrology after the 17th century are going to be next to worthless, thanks to the lobotomization that is now commonly understood as astrology. There are several threads about this in the Golden Dawn subforum with book recs etc. It's also why there are strange unremarked glitches in the GD's wholesale absorption of older material... they didn't actually understand the stuff they were syncretizing.
Short answer: feel free to read Crowley's astro writings if you're a completist, but caveat lector: they have almost nothing to do with his deck or the underlying system, outside of general terms (many of which the theosophists "repurposed" for E-Z consumption). You'd be much better off reading Al-Biruni or Mashallah or Lilly... at least they knew what they were talking about and how to put it into practice.
inanna_tarot
Scion, you answered my question brilliantly!
I thank you! Traditional astrology is where I want to go, but got side tracked by a pretty book and though 'oh Uncle Al eh?' lol.
Scion, your a star
x
I thank you! Traditional astrology is where I want to go, but got side tracked by a pretty book and though 'oh Uncle Al eh?' lol.
Scion, your a star
x
