About the OOTK and

[Nholdamek]

Originally Posted by thinbuddha

I don't remember exactly that passage in the BoT, however I seem to remember feeling that you could return to the question at another time. I even think I remember that it wasn't so much that the question shouldn't be addressed so much as the particular reading was flawed which leads me to believe that there would be nothing wrong with doing the same reading over and over until you got the sig showing up in the correct pile.

In the Book of Thoth, he doesn't say either way, just that the divination should be "abandoned," for all but the fifth operation.

He does say this:

It is quite impossible to obtain satisfactory results from this or any other system of divination unless the Art is perfectly required. It is the most sensitive, difficult and perilous branch of Magick. The necessary conditions, with a comprehensive comparative review of all important methods in use, are fully described and discussed in "Magick", Chapter XVII.

I find that quite an interesting point of view. I wonder what is considered "perfectly required." I've had great success with the Tarot even from the first reading.

Another small question related to this spread.

In the very beginning of the description of this spread, he writes:

2. Take the cards in your left hand. In the right hand hold the wand over them, and say: I invoke thee, I A O, that thou wilt send H R U, the great Angel that is set over the operations of this Secret Wisdom, to lay his hand invisibly upon these consecrated cards of art, that thereby we may obtain true knowledge of hidden things, to the glory of thine ineffable Name. Amen.

I'm curious what the significance of this is.

[Teheuti]

Not all members of the OOTK used the entire sequence of steps. For instance, W. B. Yeats and Annie Horniman usually just used the horseshoe layout. The stack in which the significator was found lent a particular emphasis to the interpretation as a whole, rather than signifying whether the reading should be abandoned or not - at least according to the way they did it.

I give an in-depth description and interpretation of one of Annie Horniman's readings in my book _Women of the Golden Dawn_. It helps to follow the examples very closely as given by Mathers in Book T.

Mary

[ravenest]

Originally Posted by Nholdamek

In the Book of Thoth, he doesn't say either way, just that the divination should be "abandoned," for all but the fifth operation.

Remember that in the A. A. and with G.D. influence, one cannot just declare that one is competent ... one must PROOVE it. Whether it's naming the cards when they are face down without looking to prove psychic ability or balancing the saucer on the head without spilling the water to proove yogic ability ... the same with divination. If one didnt get the first part of a Goetic evocation manifested (the spirit in the triangle) why go on to the next bit ... your've stuffed up or it's not working. Crowley's magic wasn't about fooling yourself.

Of course, as many have found out ... magick is an elusive beast and there are many ways to tame it.

Originally Posted by Nholdamek

Another small question related to this spread.

In the very beginning of the description of this spread, he writes:

Take the cards in your left hand. In the right hand hold the wand over them, and say: I invoke thee, I A O, that thou wilt send H R U, the great Angel that is set over the operations of this Secret Wisdom, to lay his hand invisibly upon these consecrated cards of art, that thereby we may obtain true knowledge of hidden things, to the glory of thine ineffable Name. Amen.

I'm curious what the significance of this is.

Crowley is trying to teach us that Tarot can be a serious operation of Magick (or approached as a serious operation of magick) and not a parlour game or something just done for the base purpose of fortune telling.

Left hand receptive, right hand active. Wand first elemental weapon/tool Tarot (as symbolising the disc - Great Wheel) the last (4th). IAO The universal forces of comos/evolution (or god if you like) Isis Aphosis Osiris - in the Old Aeon is invoked to send the Angel of the tarot HRU (or Heru - see BotL for varients) ... the rest speaks for itself .... doesn't it? If you do this properly and it works your significator will be in the right spot. If not, the hand of Hru has not guided the card and the operation has not been successful (on Ac's magical level ... however you still might be able to tell Auntie Maybel where her pussy-cat has run off to.).

[Nholdamek]

Originally Posted by ravenest

Remember that in the A. A. and with G.D. influence, one cannot just declare that one is competent ... one must PROOVE it. Whether it's naming the cards when they are face down without looking to prove psychic ability or balancing the saucer on the head without spilling the water to proove yogic ability ... the same with divination. If one didnt get the first part of a Goetic evocation manifested (the spirit in the triangle) why go on to the next bit ... your've stuffed up or it's not working. Crowley's magic wasn't about fooling yourself.

Interesting point. So then if it fails, would you just come back to that question later on?

Originally Posted by ravenest

Crowley is trying to teach us that Tarot can be a serious operation of Magick (or approached as a serious operation of magick) and not a parlour game or something just done for the base purpose of fortune telling.

Left hand receptive, right hand active. Wand first elemental weapon/tool Tarot (as symbolising the disc - Great Wheel) the last (4th). IAO The universal forces of comos/evolution (or god if you like) Isis Aphosis Osiris - in the Old Aeon is invoked to send the Angel of the tarot HRU (or Heru - see BotL for varients) ... the rest speaks for itself .... doesn't it? If you do this properly and it works your significator will be in the right spot. If not, the hand of Hru has not guided the card and the operation has not been successful (on Ac's magical level ... however you still might be able to tell Auntie Maybel where her pussy-cat has run off to.).

I see. Is it possible to use something else if you don't have a magickal tool such as a wand? I'm not sure where to get something like this yet.

[ravenest]

No! Don't go and 'get' one . Make one ... it's probably the easiest elemental tool to make!
(Unless you are partial to plastic new age wands ornamented in crystals that possibly came out of some Brazilian 'death mine' where kids slave their guts out, someone who knows nothing about wands or magic made it and the shop jacked up the price 250%)

Try Liber Amorum (I'd reccommend making the 4 elemental weapons its a balanced working) for instructions.

[Nholdamek]

Originally Posted by ravenest

No! Don't go and 'get' one . Make one ... it's probably the easiest elemental tool to make!
(Unless you are partial to plastic new age wands ornamented in crystals that possibly came out of some Brazilian 'death mine' where kids slave their guts out, someone who knows nothing about wands or magic made it and the shop jacked up the price 250%)

Try Liber Amorum (I'd reccommend making the 4 elemental weapons its a balanced working) for instructions.

Hi,

I've not heard of Liber Amorum, though I've heard of Liber 777, Liber 78, etc. It's impossible for me to read any print books unfortunately (I'm blind), so everything I research and study is from the Internet.

Are there any online resources about this, or recommendations for materials that could be used for making such a tool? I'd like to try to do it rather secretively I guess, if possible because those around me aren't very supportive of those things which I am studying.

[Voron]

Liber Armorum is also known as Liber 412:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib412.htm
The "Baculum" they mention is the wand...

[Nholdamek]

It's kinda vague:

Let the Philosophus take a rod of copper, of length eight inches and diameter half an inch.
Let him fashion about the top a triple flame of gold.
Let him by his understanding and ingenium devise a Deed to represent the Universe.
Let his Dominus Liminis approve thereof.
Let the Philosophus formform the same in such a way that the Baculum may be partaker therein.
Let it when finished be consecrated as he hath skill to formform, and kept wrapped in silk of fiery scarlet.

What is a triple flame of gold?

A lot of the descriptions for the other tools, it doesn't seem an average person would have those kind of things at their disposal.

[AbstractConcept]

Originally Posted by Nholdamek

It's kinda vague:



What is a triple flame of gold?

A lot of the descriptions for the other tools, it doesn't seem an average person would have those kind of things at their disposal.

Its using a nice evocative style of language. Three yellow flames perhaps? Tripple flame of gold sounds much nicer and elusive.

I started using the divination method found in the BOT a few months ago (interestingly after I bought Regardie's The Golden Dawn, A.C seems to have modified it slightly to suit the new Aeon). It was immediately more accurate and successful (I inculded the invocation, or slight varient). I've noticed if I leave the invocation out and just approach the divination with a 'come what may' attitude i've a success rate of less than 50%. I think this was the intention of Crowley (and other's) saying that if you don't have it right the first time abandon it and try again when you're more focused and actually going to do it correctly. One thing I'd love to know is if anyone has any tips of how to leave your personal bias and 'wishful thinking' at the door when divining with tarot? I did a spread to the person I'm closest to and let my own past insecurities about myself being in a situation reflect my interpretation of the spread (there was a 5 Disks and 5 Wands in there at the beginning and a positive outcome, but silly me seemed to focus more on the downers). It caused her to doubt herself.

Is this what The Master Therion meant by "It is the most sensitive, difficult and perilous branch of Magick" [Book of Thoth, p 253]?

[Aeon418]

From Magick in Theory and Practice, chp.17:

It is always essential for the diviner to obtain absolute magical control over the intelligences of the system which he adopts. He must not leave the smallest loop-hole for being tricked, befogged, or mocked. He must not allow them to use casuistry in the interpretation of his questions. It is a common knavery, especially in geomancy, to render an answer which is literally true, and yet deceives. For instance, one might ask whether some business transaction would be profitable, and find, after getting an affirmative answer, that it really referred to the other party to the affair!

There is, on the surface, no difficulty at all in getting replies. In fact, the process is mechanical; success is therefore assured, bar a stroke of apoplexy. But, even suppose we are safe from deceit, how can we know that the question has really been put to another mind, understood rightly, and answered from knowledge? It is obviously possible to check one's operations by clairvoyance, but this is rather like buying a safe to keep a brick in. Experience is the only teacher. One acquires what one may almost call a new sense. One feels in one's self whether one is right or not. The diviner must develop this sense. It resembles the exquisite sensibility of touch which is found in the great billiard player whose fingers can estimate infinitesimal degrees of force, or the similar phenomenon in the professional taster of tea or wine who can distinguish fantastically subtle differences of flavour.

It is a hard saying; but in the order to divine without error, one ought to be a Master of the Temple. Divination affords excellent practice for those who aspire to that exalted eminence, for the faintest breath of personal preference will deflect the needle from the pole of truth in the answer. Unless the diviner have banished utterly from his mind the minutest atom of interest in the answer to his question, he is almost certain to influence that answer in favour of his personal inclinations.