Tarot of the Holy Light Revisited...

magicjack

I would !Ike to discuss this tarot deck. Let me say, I think this a very beautiful deck. The colors, the alchemy symbols , all very beautiful. I'm confused which addition I have, but I think it's the 3rd with the moon and stars blue and white backs. (which is fine with me). I have been told the 2nd addition collage didn't ( or forgot) to add a dove in the Temperance card. OK whatever. This deck has a very confusing astrological connection and I admit I have not studied the symbol of her astrological wheel she follows. ( http://noreah.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452a49969e201bb08742ff7970d-popup ) . I also do not have the book which was published 2 years after the deck came out. Ettellia was someone that obviously used reversals, which this deck spends a lot of information on and is really a highlight of this deck incorporating not only astrological but also angel correspondence’s as well. The meaningsl very close to Waite, give or take... emphasis on reversals (I'm not a big reversal guy, but I love angels). But I'm fine with her court cards, specifically with the zodiac and the seasons. her 10's that speak to the elements, the water and the earth are labeled trine's with the zodiac symbols. Wands and swords are labeled with only the zodiac signs and element. In other words, cups and disks say water and Earth trine. Wands and swords has no trine, just symbols and element. The Aces are 1 to 10’ of the zodiac. I'm sure I'm missing something.

So far I'm OK with all of this. The majors are more confusing. I'm sure the book may explain why Temperance is Scorpio. Or Justice is Cancer Or Strength as Mars. The Emperor is Jupiter. The Sun is Pisces, The Hermit is Leo? More and more...

OK! I'll try to live with that.

Now. The system is confusing. But, what makes’ it worse is the typos! First we have a review on “tarot university with Paul Hollman where Christine let's Paul know that there is a typo in the deck with the 7 and 8 of wands. This may be an earlier version. It maybe on the 1st addition, because it is not specific, bit she mentions the ruled by planet should be switched. My 3rd Addition may be right. 7 of wand = Mars in Sag, 8 of wands =Sun in Sag (I'm assuming you wouldn't know that unless you specifically read her website).

Let's get to the 2 of disks. My version has all 2's 11’ - 20’. “Except” the 2 of disks which says 10’ - 20’. The app says, 1- 20. OK . Typo...

OK! Now let's just get down to basics. My Hermit has no #9 on it. No big deal. Printing Problem I'm sure.

SO! My question is to Bennebell Wen and Mary K Greer and all the people that have reviewed this deck, and everyone else that loves this beautiful deck, why haven't you found this?

I have no problems with different systems and I don't really care what “system” there is, but I only need to know the reason of the system. And I know maybe I should have bought her book but I'm Not sure that would have cleared up the confusion.

My intentions of this thread was to examine a fact that if you believe in a system, and review a system, please get the fundamentals right. Proof read, whatever it takes.

I hold high regards for Christine-Payne Dowers and Michael Dowers for this most beautiful deck. But sometimes I feel I'm missing something out of it. If the owner of a deck can't get it right, how am I able to figure it out? I don't have to know everything, I just want to know what's going on… The structure...In my eyes this is the perfect deck, and it should be perfect in everyway. This is not a thread to dismiss this deck.
 

Rose Lalonde

I have no problems with different systems and I don't really care what “system” there is, but I only need to know the reason of the system. And I know maybe I should have bought her book but I'm Not sure that would have cleared up the confusion.

I don't have the deck, but if you haven't seen it, Payne-Towler did an interview here at AT, and in part 2, she talks about what a Continental deck (like Holy Light) is, as she defines it. In the absence of her book that may give you a general sense of where she's coming from. (It's a 4 part interview, if you want to catch it all.)
 

magicjack

I don't have the deck, but if you haven't seen it, Payne-Towler did an interview here at AT, and in part 2, she talks about what a Continental deck (like Holy Light) is, as she defines it. In the absence of her book that may give you a general sense of where she's coming from. (It's a 4 part interview, if you want to catch it all.)

I would love to see it. I'm reading alot on her website and tarot arkletters and essays on the subject. She even admits her theory:s are probably not understood by anyone. I will eventually use the my birth charts as suggested as a map to understanding part of this deck. I don't mind complicated theories or beliefs, but I have no direction of course if I don't have the book to go with it. After all of the research, where will I end up with it all? I will eventually get on the floor and figure out where everything goes in the zodiac circle. But I'm not sure if all the time wasted is worth it.
 

Patrick Booker

There is a second volume of the book:

https://www.amazon.com/Foundations-...777130&sr=8-9&keywords=christine+payne-towler

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundation...776430&sr=1-7&keywords=christine+payne-towler

Benebell Wen mentions it on her site:

https://benebellwen.com/2016/06/20/book-review-of-the-foundations-of-the-esoteric-traditions/

I would certainly have bought a copy, but by the the time I discovered it, it seemed to no longer be available. I think it goes into the background of the deck more.

Patrick
 

Barleywine

This is a deck that I've always been drawn to but I was forewarned a long time ago that her astrological reconfiguration is so far off from my usual (that is to say, Golden Dawn) understanding that I'm not likely to accept it. Is it possible to appreciate this deck for its other symbolism without delving into its astrological side?
 

Rhinemaiden

This is a deck that I've always been drawn to but I was forewarned a long time ago that her astrological reconfiguration is so far off from my usual (that is to say, Golden Dawn) understanding that I'm not likely to accept it. Is it possible to appreciate this deck for its other symbolism without delving into its astrological side?

I have the 1st edition of this deck and appreciate it mainly for the art...the symbolism that doesn't make sense to me I choose to ignore. If you're drawn to the art, buy it; if not, let it go. It IS a beautiful deck.
 

Barleywine

I have the 1st edition of this deck and appreciate it mainly for the art... and where it touches upon RWS, the rest of the symbolism I choose to overlook. If you're drawn to the art, buy it; if not, let it go. It IS a beautiful deck.

Thanks for the insight. I'm not a huge fan of the RWS model, except for its robust story-telling potential, so I would be looking for something else from the deck. I'm still nibbling around the edges of Paul Huson's Dame Fortune's Wheel, which is similarly non-RWS based.
 

Rhinemaiden

Thanks for the insight. I'm not a huge fan of the RWS model, except for its robust story-telling potential, so I would be looking for something else from the deck. I'm still nibbling around the edges of Paul Huson's Dame Fortune's Wheel, which is similarly non-RWS based.

I edited my post (at the time you were replying) to omit the RWS reference. I buy a deck 1) because I like the art, and 2) because it brings something to the reading table I don't already have. To me, no one deck is a burning bush.
 

Nemia

Is it possible to appreciate this deck for its other symbolism without delving into its astrological side?


I didn't manage it but you might. I'm pulled again towards this deck but when I had it, I didn't bond, and the book was unreadable for me - too many assertions, too much pontification for my finicky taste.

I downloaded the book again (Kindle Unlimited) and I'd say read the book first, and if you can go with her system, go for the deck. It's a beautiful and fascinating deck, and I'm sure her system deserves a real chance.

I'm still nibbling around the edges of Paul Huson's Dame Fortune's Wheel, which is similarly non-RWS based.

I find Huson's deck much easier to "get into" than the Holy Light. The book simply makes more sense to me even where I don't agree.

With decks that are outside the usual "camps" (TdM, Thoth, RWS) the book is crucial for me. If the book explains the underlying system well, the decks is workable. If not........ I swap it for Kitty Kahane ;-) (like I did with the Holy Light)
 

Mittkait

I have the deck and it is lovely.

Mostly I follow the alchemical symbolism which has always been a part of the deck since the Marseilles. I'm not big on the Astrology and Kabbalah layered on top. I think of that as a whole new modern system. The followers of this even fudged the cards to make it all fit (the numerical change between Justice and Strength). I'm not denigrating it, many people love it but I don't personally use it.

The cards have slightly changed meanings which you can take into account or just ignore. The companion book is helpful, but I believe it borrows heavily from C.C. Zain's The Sacred Tarot. Actually, I found Zain's book much clearer on the system then Towler's. Mainly because he explains the philosophy and symbol choices based on the esoteric systems used.

If you have reservations about the deck, I would advise not to buy it at this time. It's on the pricey side. I would do more research. Watch Sacred Seed's review on Youtube.