The triple trinity of the planets in the Thoth deck

La'al quiet fella

In using the appendices of the BoT, parts like the vital triads are beautiful arrangements offered by Al and quite straight forward in how to use them.

But I am really struggling with the triple trinity of the planets (page 285) and how they correspond to the deck, if they even do?

The deck does not have cards for Herschel or Neptune but Al says they rule 4 zodiac signs each (Kerubic, common and cardinal respectively).

777 gives 1 for primum mobile, but I could not find the other two.

As each sign has a ruling planet it is possible to assign cards by the planetary rulers within Herschel, Neptune or Primum Mobile.

As an example:
(page 285 BoT)
consciousness would have
Jupiter, Saturn and mercury as spiritual (all planetary rulers in the zodical signs of Neptune)
Sun as human
Moon as automatic

It seems a bit illogical to use a planet to assign zodiac signs to then assign planets, and only my pea brain has even suggested this.

Al says that Uranus and Neptune 'represent parts of man which are beyond time, or at least beyond the petty cycles which we usually mean by time' but doesn't give any card assignments for them.

Astrologically it makes sense as they are the further away, but it does not help in attributing cards to the triplicities he outlines.

Another option might be to use the cards representing the zodiac signs that the planet rules to identify the cards to represent Herschel, Neptune or Primum Mobile.

Keeping the same example, this gives:
The moon, the art card, the hermit as spiritual
Sun as human
Moon as automatic

Again, there is a logic to this but again, it seems convoluted as now we are using zodiac signs to identify planets. (again this is only thought up by my own pea brain).

Basically, what I was wandering was if anyone knows how the triplicates of the planets in the appendices of the BoT translate into the actual cards. (I am only assuming that they do because Al included this information in a book about the cards.)

But where the card attributions for the vital triads is self explanatory, I am struggling to assign cards for the triple trinity of the planets where Herschel and Neptune are listed.

I have very little knowledge of astrology outside of Al's writing on the subject, which he never completed, so I am sure I am just missing the obvious and was hoping someone more knowledgable here might be willing to unconfuse me?


thank you.
 

Barleywine

I have very little knowledge of astrology outside of Al's writing on the subject, which he never completed, so I am sure I am just missing the obvious and was hoping someone more knowledgable here might be willing to unconfuse me?

Before I look at your main question, I wanted to mention that the two Evangeline Adams astrology books, Astrology: Your Place in the Sun and Astrology: Your Place Under the Stars were largely ghost-written by Crowley. They were recently reissued under Crowley's name as The General Principles of Astrology. Reading it, I found it abundantly clear that it was written in his style. So - if he didn't actually get his entire astrological knowledge down on paper - he seems to have come pretty close.
 

La'al quiet fella

Before I look at your main question, I wanted to mention that the two Evangeline Adams astrology books, Astrology: Your Place in the Sun and Astrology: Your Place Under the Stars were largely ghost-written by Crowley. They were recently reissued under Crowley's name as The General Principles of Astrology. Reading it, I found it abundantly clear that it was written in his style. So - if he didn't actually get his entire astrological knowledge down on paper - he seems to have come pretty close.

That is really useful. I have only an old paperback titled the complete astrological writings which was written by Al and Evangeline Adams but apart from the general principles, Neptune and a start on Uranus it is unfinished, but the fact they collaborated backs up the ghost writing. I will definitely check out you recommendations, thank you!
 

Barleywine

It looks to me like Crowley was simply trying to relate all of the known planets to the sephiroth here - "completed the tenfold scheme of the Sephiroth," as he says in the text for Table 9 - and not to the individual cards of the deck. Since the Major Arcana are typically assigned to the paths on the Tree and not to the Sephiroth, it can be difficult to make that leap (not that it hasn't been attempted - Uranus as the Fool, Neptune as the Hanged Man and Pluto as Judgment, atttributions I'm not entirely comfortable with).

It's easy to see why Uranus was given to the Fool: Crowley called that card "an original, subtle, sudden impulse or impact, coming from a completely strange quarter," which agrees with the modern astrological descriptions of Uranus as "eccentric" and "unpredictable" (although modern "traditionalist" astrologers quibble with the validity of those definitions). But Pluto might make just as much sense due to its exaggeratedly eccentric orbit that sends it out of the solar system as a kind of "messenger to/from the Cosmos." Neptune as the Hanged Man plays on the "self-sacrificial" quality ascribed to Pisces, but quite a few writers have looked beyond the simple-minded idea of "sacrifice" and see in the HM a "novel perspective," which also has echoes of Uranian uniqueness about it. Crowley implied being "steeped in the Unconscious." Putting Pluto with Judgement always made the least sense to me (unless Pluto is being confused with Vulcan, the Roman god of fire), but I suppose it had to go somewhere and everthing else was taken; Uranus as a "wake-up call" from the Universe might just as easiliy fit there, leaving Pluto to the Fool. I kind of like Uranus there because it leads to Saturn (Cronus), the mythological son of Uranus, in the World card. Personally, though, I just go with the elemental attributions of Air, Water and Fire for these three cards since those seem perfectly serviceable for the purpose.

Where no planet has been directly assigned, I always use the ruling planet of the associated zodiacal sign for a major card in tandem with the astrological meaning of the sign, as a secondary layer of significance. But I only use the traditional 7 planets, just as I only use them for the most part in astrology now.
 

Barleywine

That is really useful. I have only an old paperback titled the complete astrological writings which was written by Al and Evangeline Adams but apart from the general principles, Neptune and a start on Uranus it is unfinished, but the fact they collaborated backs up the ghost writing. I will definitely check out you recommendations, thank you!

I believe those areas are still unfinished, but there are notes from the head of the O.T.O. (who did the editing) that piece things together some.
 

ravenest

It need not be that complex .

The outer planets are 'transpersonal' so they will be beyond 'parts of man' that are personal.

The thing with the Book of Thoth, its texts and tables and a lot of Thoth related materials, they were written and put together from older sources during the time of the discovery of some of the outer planets ... even 'Herschel ' is referred to at one stage. Some writings from one time are different to another within the Thoth texts.

There is an obvious connection to the lower triad of personal planets ; Mercury, Mars, Venus, with air, fire, water and Uranus, Pluto, Neptune also being a 'higher octave ' of the lower triad and hence also, air , fire, water. So it would seem sensible to attribute those planets to the cards that also represent those elements ; Uranus Air Fool, Pluto Fire Aeon, Neptune Water Hanged Man.
 

Barleywine

It need not be that complex .

The outer planets are 'transpersonal' so they will be beyond 'parts of man' that are personal.

The thing with the Book of Thoth, its texts and tables and a lot of Thoth related materials, they were written and put together from older sources during the time of the discovery of some of the outer planets ... even 'Herschel ' is referred to at one stage. Some writings from one time are different to another within the Thoth texts.

There is an obvious connection to the lower triad of personal planets ; Mercury, Mars, Venus, with air, fire, water and Uranus, Pluto, Neptune also being a 'higher octave ' of the lower triad and hence also, air , fire, water. So it would seem sensible to attribute those planets to the cards that also represent those elements ; Uranus Air Fool, Pluto Fire Aeon, Neptune Water Hanged Man.

You know I don't like anything simple :). I see a few problems here, though. Astrologically, Venus is both Earth (Taurus) and Air (Libra), and only Water by exaltation in Pisces. Mercury and Mars are rulers of Air and Fire signs, respectively, but also of Earth and Water signs traditionally. Mercury is exalted in an Earth sign, as is Mars. In modern terms, Uranus rules an Air sign (displacing Saturn), Pluto rules a Water sign (displacing Mars), and Neptune also rules a Water sign (displacing Jupiter), to get rid of the dual-rulership situation; their proper exaltations are still a matter of speculation. So the correspondences don't really "square up" elementally: what we have is Air-and-Earth/Fire-and-Water/Earth-and-Air, matched up against Air/Water/Water.

Also, I'm not sure how you're using the term "triad" here. I think of "triads" as being on the Tree of Life; one triad is Venus, Mercury and Moon, another is Jupiter, Mars and Sun, and a third is some combination of Saturn with Uranus, Neptune and/or Pluto depending on which model you like (and what you put in Da'ath). If you go by "pillars," it's Saturn, Mars, Mercury; "Something" (Primum Mobile?), Sun and Moon, and "Something" (Zodiac?), Jupiter and Venus. The "personal planets" in modern astrology are a "quinary" - Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus and Mars - followed by the "social" duo - Jupiter and Saturn - and ending with the "trans-personal" trinity - Uranus, Neptune and Pluto (oh, and that bunch of "space junk" called asteroids).

ETA: My Greek mythology really isn't up to scratch, but I don't recall that the Greeks who conceived of Pluto thought of the Underworld as an especially "fiery" place. (The Qabalists had the Qliphoth [but you really didn't "study" them], although I don't remember any "fiery-ness" in that model either.) It seems like something that sprang from Dante's fertile imagination (or maybe one of the Roman Church philosophers).
 

ravenest

No, you dont like it simple :)

Admittedly the arrangement I described is not Kabbalistic but more 'astro-psychology' . I was addressing the point of which cards relate to the outer planets.

The rest is probably best left for an 'astro-psychology discussion' . Interestingly, I thought it was a scheme I developed, but some astrologers looked at it and said I didnt develop anything, that it was just inherent in astrology. (I didnt outline the full scheme) .

You dont use the outer planets at at all ? You dont see the relationship between Venus:Neptune, Mercury:Uranus, Mars: Pluto ? Nor see an elemental attribution to planets other than through their relationship to the elements of their multiple signs ?

Anyway, as I said, it isnt Kabbalistic anyway (especially with Mars 'way down' there ) .
Its probably more of an astrological discussion , so I am off topic.
 

Aeon418

But I am really struggling with the triple trinity of the planets (page 285) and how they correspond to the deck, if they even do?

If they do correspond to any cards, it can only be the minor cards. The scheme presented on page 285 is based on the Sephiroth and the corresponding planets. The only exception is that Malkuth-Earth is not included.
 

Barleywine

No, you dont like it simple :)


You dont use the outer planets at at all ? You dont see the relationship between Venus:Neptune, Mercury:Uranus, Mars: Pluto ? Nor see an elemental attribution to planets other than through their relationship to the elements of their multiple signs ?

Its probably more of an astrological discussion , so I am off topic.

Just briefly, then, to answer your question. I use the outer planets in a limited way for "astro-psychology" purposes to augment the traditional ideas of "humours" and "temperaments." But I don't give them sign rulerships (or even co-rulerships), and I've read enough of the highly intelligent modern "traditonalist" writers to find the idea of "higher octave" planets suspect. Crowley had a unique perspective on them, but I don't think it caught on. I also don't find it crucial to assign them to Major Arcana cards, although the exercise is fun and instructive. I really like the idea of Uranus as the father of Cronus/Saturn linking Judgement to the World. And I've always felt more comfortable with Pluto as the Fool since it's kind of a "stranger" in the solar system due to its highly elliptical orbit: it "falls off a cliff" every so often. I'm OK with Neptune as the Hanged Man, although not for the usual "self-sacrifice" reasons, more along Crowley's view of "redemption" - rather than sacrifice - through submergence; it's a baptism or an initiation, not a punishment. Crowley even gives a nod to the "green" of Venus (which is harmonious with modern Neptune to some extent through its exaltation) signifying Grace.