Zan and BC's Excellent Thoth Adventure: In the beginning....

[zan_chan]

There is so much to think about and process!

That much is definitely for certain!

I keep wondering about the inconsistencies, too. I feel like he can't seem to decide which tarot origin story he wants to believe. At one point he says that the Hierophant card had its name changed by the medievals to "The Pope" before being changed back. So there he would believe in some grand, ancient origin. But then he uses the chess metaphor, explaining how when tarot was developed as a card game, its developers built the Tree of Life into it without actually realizing it at the time.

So which is it?

Is the BoT a bit like a modern Christian reading the Bible, in that Leviticus is sort of quaint and weird, but you don't actually need to sacrifice a ram on the altar, or is it meant to be more literal than that?

 

[zan_chan]

How does one on the wrong side of the pond acquire and Greenie and/or Verlag?

Still in the opening chapter of the BoT. Lots of thoughts later this afternoon...

Hmm...well, in my ISO thread for the greenie, I got three responses: I took one from photokat, Nina got one from Seeker13, and Scion offered one which I'd assume is still out there. Try PMing him?

The Verlag aka Konigsfurt Urania I'm not quite sure. I wanted to get you one at the same time as I ordered mine, but Amazon Japan only had one copy left. Perhaps try one of the European Amazons - .de most likely...?

 

[Bat Chicken]

That much is definitely for certain!

I keep wondering about the inconsistencies, too. I feel like he can't seem to decide which tarot origin story he wants to believe. At one point he says that the Hierophant card had its name changed by the medievals to "The Pope" before being changed back. So there he would believe in some grand, ancient origin. But then he uses the chess metaphor, explaining how when tarot was developed as a card game, its developers built the Tree of Life into it without actually realizing it at the time.

OK - I might have read this differently, but, I thought he was simply pointing out that the value of what Tarot would become was unknown to those who originated it as it was for Chess in his example. The connection to the Tree of Life was a sort of deliberate coincidence on the part of these 'Secret Chiefs'. Again providing the answer before anyone had any idea what the question even was.

I think he thinks the origins of Tarot are irrelevant. The "Nothingness" is outside time, yes? So ancient is relative. He uses relativity a lot.

Is the BoT a bit like a modern Christian reading the Bible, in that Leviticus is sort of quaint and weird, but you don't actually need to sacrifice a ram on the altar, or is it meant to be more literal than that?

He even talks about the transformation of ritual over time... LOL! I have to say I am not sure exactly what you're asking. Do you mean is it supposed to be literal or metaphorical? Now or then?

 

[zan_chan]

I think he thinks the origins of Tarot are irrelevant. The "Nothingness" is outside time, yes? So ancient is relative. He uses relativity a lot.

I think so too, but that annoys me...

He even talks about the transformation of ritual over time... LOL! I have to say I am not sure exactly what you're asking. Do you mean is it supposed to be literal or metaphorical? Now or then?

It's 6am. I'm not a 100% sure myself I think I just mean whether or not Crowley's writings tend to be taken 100% literally or have room for modern interpretation...

 

[Bat Chicken]

LOL! You're so going to hate me....

I think so too, but that annoys me...

Without giving my opinion at this stage, can I ask why it annoys you? What exactly about it annoys you...?

It's 6am. I'm not a 100% sure myself I think I just mean whether or not Crowley's writings tend to be taken 100% literally or have room for modern interpretation...

He says himself that everything has room for interpretation. He also implies that there is ONLY interpretation.

My brain is cooked so I am just tossing these out - don't hurt me!
Grabbing a bite, I'll be back shortly...

 

[zan_chan]

Ok, actually you're right. I'm going to skip the "that annoys me" bit and not go into my usual "Why?!" rant. I suppose, if we're supposed to accept any of this Egypt stuff, we can't question the Whys too closely.

And you're also very right that he says it's all open to interpretation. I quite liked the bit about how no one sees the same star. Yet I can't help but feel from his tone that he doesn't really mean any of that. He seems to call everything so clear and obvious and simple to understand (when it's obviously bit) that I can't help but think that he really wants us to see things his way. Am I just imagining that?

Anyhoo, about to set off on my morning commute so will be rereading part one...

 

[Bat Chicken]

Ok, actually you're right. I'm going to skip the "that annoys me" bit and not go into my usual "Why?!" rant. I suppose, if we're supposed to accept any of this Egypt stuff, we can't question the Whys too closely.

And you're also very right that he says it's all open to interpretation. I quite liked the bit about how no one sees the same star.

I was actually hoping to get you to do just that. Please ask your 'why's' in light of the ideas in part 1! I didn't intend to stop you, just force you to be specific. That is when we start to pull it apart and see exactly what each of us thinks is missing or is deliberately absent. I just want your questions to be specific... Helps me see what you are getting at.

He is very Blakean in his implication - always an implication! I read the "All Gods are One" in some of this. But I guess that is a very example of what he means by one of us sees 'the left side of the lobster'.... LOL!

Yet I can't help but feel from his tone that he doesn't really mean any of that. He seems to call everything so clear and obvious and simple to understand (when it's obviously bit) that I can't help but think that he really wants us to see things his way. Am I just imagining that?

It's funny because I am accused of that tone A LOT. I am apologizing in advance for that! LOL! I know I'll do it if I haven't already.

I am curious, though, can you give me an example of where you feel he is trying to sway you the most? He does, however, refer to himself (his initiate self) in the third person, so no doubt, there is definitely an ego in play!

 

[zan_chan]

Well I think 2 lines that stood out quite a bit as a I was reading were (do we have the same edition of the BoT? I'm on page 34)

The tarot...was designed as a practical instrument for Qabbalistic calculations and for divination. In it is little place for abstract ideas.

Grand couple of statements there, aren't they? So there is little room for abstract thought, but, "A's universe is not B's universe." Are those two ideas compatible? We all see things differently but we aren't to think abstractly.

Thoughts?

Also, does the requirement to not think abstractly dictate that we aren't meant to use the tarot for things other than "Qabbalstic calculations and divination"? I guess all that New-Agey self-reflection stuff is out the window, huh?

 

[Emily]

I've recently decided to take a closer look at the Thoth so I'll be following your thread with great interest.

 

[Grigori]

I may be mistaken because I am still digesting this but the 61 =0, etc., are the AIN, AIN SOPH, AIN SOPH AUR - the nothingness/limitless potential.... I assume that the assigned numbers are gematria, however, I haven't taken the time to understand the cause for each assignment of such. Not sure I want to go there quite yet.

It's pretty simple actually, and not that earth shattering. The Hebrew letters are also numbers, so you just add up the value of the letters that spell the word, and there is it's number. It's nothing more complex than "How do you spell that?"

AIN = 61 as mentioned before.
AIN SOPH = 61 + 146
AIN SOPH AUR = 61 + 146 + 207

This can be applied to any word, and is done BEFORE any special meaning is derived and not because of any special meaning.

So for example if we try it with "Bat Chicken" as below (I should say, since this is an English name it could be varied to be spelt a heap of different ways in Hebrew, especially when factoring in the absence of vowels in Hebrew. I've picked a random version that appeals to me, excluding the vowels, but keeping the I, since its often pronounce "chycken". There are other spellings that would get a different number, and letters may be given a different number if they end a word/sentence which I've ignored today also)

B = Beth = 2
T = Teth = 9
CH = Cheth = 8
I = Yod = 10
C = Cheth = 8
K = Kaph = 20
N = Nun = 50

BatChicken = 107. So now we look at other words that numerate to 107 and see what they tell us about their shared nature with BatChicken.

Wow, a very fortuitous number BC!

107 = Therion

THE BEAST HAS RETURNED TO AT

But we could now start to speculate as to what way BatChicken is similar to The Great Beast (i.e. Crowley)