thinbuddha
I still work with strings of cards- I only rarely do the full spread. I don't use any other kinds of spreads. Not many others use this kind of spread, I think- thus the lack of traffic on threads like this.
thorhammer said:I use the OOTK with the Thoth (and only the Thoth - seems strange with any other deck); but I only use the first operation. This is mostly because I'm not familiar enough with the astrological houses and signs or Qabalistic Sephiroth to effectively conduct the subsequent operations without having at least ten books surrounding me . . . and it already takes long enough.
I like the modification upon Crowley's (seemingly truncated?) method as espoused on SuperTarot, where the four packs are turned over after the initial cut, and the bottom cards are read as the first part of the operation.
I'm getting better at reading with this deck (it's been, till now, an inner-type deck) and with this spread. Dignities are still a bit much for me, and to date no one has been able to explain counting and pairing to my satisfaction, but I'm getting there.
I thought as much. As I explained in my PM, I came up to this all ass-backwards - started with the Thoth deck, then read BoT, then I'm working backwards towards GD stuff. Slowly. Unhappily, at times.rif said:That is actually a standard part of OOTK, at least as it appears in print.
Most emphatically, NO!!!! I mean that I can use the deck to help me sort out my own thoughts, and card-by-card it makes some sort of sense to me, but a full-blown reading, with a question and all, throws me into a tailspin.By inner-type do you mean intuitive?
Direction changes??? To date, I've bailed up at them and gleaned that basically, they're a later development and not in the "original" intent of the spread. Also, when I get the end of my horseshoe I behave as though it's a big circle and start back at the beginning, in the absence of any explicit direction (that I've found). Is this right?Counting is straightforward for me, because those are fixed rules. You have to know the rules, and you have to know the trump associations. Did you have a specific question on the counting operation?
Heh, I hear ya! Although I find it easier than reading the sequence of cards you get from counting! I've been pairing the cards on either side of the significator - if we nominate the sig. as 0, then 1 pairs with -1, 2 with -2 et cetera. Is this right? What happens when you get to the end of the horseshoe? Circle again? (I've been stopping there) What if the sig is the first card in the horseshoe (or the last, for that matter)?Pairing is straightforward too, I think, at least in terms of the mechanics. Turning the paired cards into a coherent story... that's the hard part.
V. helpful. Thanks for that - when I have time I'll be onto it!rif said:There is a book from Paul Foster Case which basically teaches the OOTK through a series of lessons. You may find it a helpful resource. If you go to http://tarotinstitute.com/free/bota/oracle.html, there is a link to the copyright-free PDF at the bottom of the page. Frankly, I wish I'd come across this book sooner in my tarot studies!
thorhammer said:I mean that I can use the deck to help me sort out my own thoughts, and card-by-card it makes some sort of sense to me, but a full-blown reading, with a question and all, throws me into a tailspin.
Direction changes??? To date, I've bailed up at them and gleaned that basically, they're a later development and not in the "original" intent of the spread.
Also, when I get the end of my horseshoe I behave as though it's a big circle and start back at the beginning, in the absence of any explicit direction (that I've found). Is this right?
Although I find it easier than reading the sequence of cards you get from counting! I've been pairing the cards on either side of the significator - if we nominate the sig. as 0, then 1 pairs with -1, 2 with -2 et cetera. Is this right? What happens when you get to the end of the horseshoe? Circle again? (I've been stopping there)
Now, I really like the system in principle, but since I use the Thoth deck for this method (it's the only time I really use a sig), I have a problem. In the Thoth, the seated guy is the Prince, the Airy part of Whatever. In mainstream GD-based decks, the seated guy is the King, the Fiery part of Whatever. But the Thoth deck has the horse-guy as the Fiery part of Whatever . . . eep, this is confusing even me Can someone clarify?MikeTheAltarboy said:Also, the court cards (according the GD) *do* have dates associated - but not sun signs:
Queen of Wands: 20d Pisces - 20d Aries (Mar. 11 - April 11)
Seated-guy of Coins: 20d Aries - 20d Taurus. (April 11-May 11)
Guy-on-a-horse of Swords: 20d Taurus- 20d Gemini (May 11-June 11)
Queen of Cups: 20d Gemini to 20d Cancer (June 11-July 11)
Seated-guy of Wands: 20d Cancer - 20d Leo (July 11-August 11)
Guy-on-a-horse of Coins: 20d Leo - 20d Virgo (August 11 - Sep. 11)
Queen of Swords: 20d Virgo to 20 Libra (Sep. 11- Oct. 11)
Seated-guy of Cups: 20d of Libra to 20d Scorpio (Oct. 11 - Nov 11)
Guy-on-a-horse of Wands: 20d Scorpio - 20d Sagattarius (Nov 11- Dec 11)
Queen of Coins: 20d Sagittarius to 20d Capricorn (Dec 11 - Jan 11)
Seated-guy of Swords: 20d Capricorn - 20d Aquarius (Jan 11- Feb 11)
Guy-on-a-hourse of Cups: 20d Aquarius-20d Pisces (Feb 11 - March 11)