Book T and the Astrological Signs

Always Wondering

similia said:
Yay! I'm so glad to see someone playing with the ideas. I've also had my deck out recently and been laying it in a circle on my floor so I can see the progression. Laying it out visually like that is really useful I found.
Well shooooot. I didn't think of that. I am going to try it.

similia said:
A chart is a good way to see it. I just had a search and found this one online, where you can see each sign, divided into the decans with the associationed tarot card next to it. Its illustrated with the RWS. It will also be a good reference when we get up to talking about the planets.
This is a great chart.

AW
 

ravenest

Book T and the astrological signs

Sorry (You're going to hate me for this Similia :laugh: but I can't even get past the title of the first post).

I have bought this up many times, but never get a bite (or an answer or a comment)

1) A sign is an astrological construct. It is not a constellation. This has been pointed out (yelled out hammered out) time and time again on the astrological forum and I have been told adinfinitum that a sign IS NOT a constellation ( Of course I already realised this, I'll put it down to averse interpretation).

2) It is SOOO clear that the GD and AC Tarot uses constellations as some courts are attributed to constellations (e.g. Pegasus) - see the tables in the back of Thoth.

So what sort of astrology is present here? Are we looking at signs or at constellations?

My whole magical theory is that we use astrology in magic/k as the 'energy / force / 'ray' or whatever of a star group is focused on earth via differing and varient dynamics in the Solar System. Yet I am told this is virtually crazy and without precedent in the history of astrology ??? - The stars do not, never have and probably will never be used in astrology. This has been pointed out by the 'best' and 'most reputible' astrologers. on pages in this forum .... so I am still seeking the answer as to what type of astrology are we dealing with here ...

or do we just forget ravenests complications and treat the constallations the same as astrological signs (and if so how are we going to deal with the specific constellations that are attributed to some cards)?
 

Grigori

ravenest said:
Sorry (You're going to hate me for this Similia :laugh:

Yep. *glowers visciously at ravenest* })

ravenest said:
or do we just forget ravenests complications and treat the constallations the same as astrological signs (and if so how are we going to deal with the specific constellations that are attributed to some cards)?

Yep also ;) Everyone please ignore ravenest :p hehe

Truthfully, I personally don't think the difference between Signs and Constellations is important for me at this time, as I'm not applying the information in a way that relates to the actual sky. If we're drawing up astrology charts etc, that decisions becomes crucial, as it will change the results. When I draw a card that refers to Aries, I don't use that information in a way that makes a jot of difference if it refers to the Sign or the Constellation. To me it refers to the other cards also related to Aries, the cards related to Mars, the cards related to the Sun, the cards related to Venus etc..

However, you might be using the cards differently, in which case you might like to start a thread to tell us all about it :D Thanks for pointing out the charts at the back of Crowley, I've read them a dozen times and never noticed the reference to Pegasus and Hercules before. They do of course relate to the Courts and not specifically the minors, so for newbies following along with the minors discussion, I'd ignore that bit until a bit later down the track :)

Edit: You've peaked my curiosity ravenest. So I created a thread for you :)
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?p=1437351#post1437351
 

Aeon418

ravenest said:
2) It is SOOO clear that the GD and AC Tarot uses constellations as some courts are attributed to constellations (e.g. Pegasus) - see the tables in the back of Thoth.
Eh.....er.....what? Exactly which table in the Book of Thoth are you talking about? I've just taken a look and I can't find any reference to Pegasus or horny equine in general? :laugh:

Many a slip betwixt cup and lip?
 

Grigori

Aeon418 said:
Eh.....er.....what? Exactly which table in the Book of Thoth are you talking about? I've just taken a look and I can't find any reference to Pegasus or horny equine in general? :laugh:

Many a slip betwixt cup and lip?

Page 282 in my copy. "The Court Cards of the Tarot with the Spheres of Their Celestial Dominion". Under Knight of Wands and Knight of Cups.
 

Aeon418

similia said:
Page 282 in my copy. "The Court Cards of the Tarot with the Spheres of Their Celestial Dominion". Under Knight of Wands and Knight of Cups.
Ahhhh.... gothcha!!! :D

I note that it only says "most of", not all. Hmmmmm....
 

Grigori

ravenest said:
2) It is SOOO clear that the GD and AC Tarot uses constellations as some courts are attributed to constellations (e.g. Pegasus) - see the tables in the back of Thoth.

I remembered something! Hurray for me. And eventually found where I'd read it.

Yes, seems you are half right. The Golden Dawn teaches the Tropical Zodiac, i.e. the Signs and not the Constellations.

However once you progress through the GD to the R.R. et A.C (the second or inner order of the Golden Dawn where the practical work begins) you frequently use the Sidereal Zodiac, and hence the Constellations.

Which is why Book T lists the minors as starting from 0 degree Leo. The star Regulus (also known as Cor Leonis, the Heart of the Lion" is the starting point of the Zodiac, as as its a part of Leo, it means we're talking Sidereal astrology.

I take it all back, please everyone listen to Ravenest :D

Although maybe not yet if your still trying to get the core stuff under your belt. Which is more important for regular tarot-ing I reckon.
 

fluffy

Recap

So Similia just for my very sloooow brain, I would like to recap to make sure that i have got it clear...... (probably not :()

3 sets of three cards in each suit have the same "mode" and same "sign". ie. 2 wands is aries and cardinal, 3 wands is aries and cardinal and 4 wands is aries and cardinal?

Is that correct? I ask because I just assumed that every card would be different!

Love Fluffy
xx
 

fluffy

I am still considering your first post and not really thinking about constellations and stars just yet, or decans really till I get this clear. I hope I don't hold everyone up!

Fluff
 

Grigori

fluffy said:
3 sets of three cards in each suit have the same "mode" and same "sign". ie. 2 wands is aries and cardinal, 3 wands is aries and cardinal and 4 wands is aries and cardinal?

Is that correct? I ask because I just assumed that every card would be different!

Yep, that is it exactly. The 2, 3 and 4 of Wands are all Aries, and Aries is a Cardinal sign, so all 3 fit into that Cardinal Sign (or constellation, winks at Ravenest again). They are all the same, as they are all the same sign.

Each of those cards is a different Decan of Aries (i.e. 1/3 of it) but they are all Aries and Aries is always Cardinal.

In fact it may help to think to yourself, that the 2,3 and 4 of every suit are always Cardinal. The 5,6 and 7 are always Fixed, and the 8,9 and 10 are always Mutable. This affects their meaning, but also it allows you to work out the Sign when your unsure what it is. (e.g. "I am looking at the 7 of Wands... I can't remember what sign it is.... I know its a Fire sign since its Wands, and I know the 7's are always Fixed signs, so it must be Leo, the sign of Fixed Fire".) Once you get that formula under your belt, you can work out any card in a snap. :)

Fluffy said:
I am still considering your first post and not really thinking about constellations and stars just yet, or decans really till I get this clear. I hope I don't hold everyone up!

There really is no need to start thinking about the debate of constellations verses signs, as it exceedingly unlikely to make a different to tarot work for most people (IMO). If you want to start applying your tarot work to magic it might come up, but for the time being I'd suggest we blissfully ignore it.

And please don't worry about holding anyone up. I've been studying this for a little while now and have a reasonable grasp on the basics, but have learnt so much more from looking at it anew this way. Thats what is so exciting for me about this method. One little question or spanner in the works, and you can discover great new stuff trying to peg it down. Fun eh!? :D