Why should I use the thoth tarot for divination

There are a lot of people who like the -thoth deck-, but can't connect to Crowley or his philosophy. (As far as me concerns, I partly connect). Some of them take an intuitive stance with regard to "thoth" tarot reading, others shun away from using the deck.
What would the Crowley fans tell the latter in order to warm them up?

yogiman said:

There are a lot of people who like the -thoth deck-, but can't connect to Crowley or his philosophy. (As far as me concerns, I partly connect). Some of them take an intuitive stance with regard to "thoth" tarot reading, others shun away from using the deck.
What would the Crowley fans tell the latter in order to warm them up?

Click to expand...

That Crowley was not the man he is portrayed as, so don't believe everything you read - and that in any case, Frieda did the artwork. The philosophy - if you want to read using the philosophy behind a deck - well, the Waite deck would be off limits for me more than the Thoth...

yogiman said:

......What would the Crowley fans tell the latter in order to warm them up?

Click to expand...

Proselytization is foreign to the Thelemic mentality. An astute Crowley 'fan' might say, 'Do what thou wilt.'

I don't mean so much making enthusiastic for Crowley, but removing a threshold for using the deck.

He prided himself on developing a specific public persona.

By today's standards (read any newspaper, any day) he was a lamb.

AJ said:

He prided himself on developing a specific public persona.

By today's standards (read any newspaper, any day) he was a lamb.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I might also point out that I use it and I am not dead.

As far as I know....

And YES - do what thou wilt. I'd tell them just - if they don't want to - don't. As with any other deck. It's just a bunch of cards, when all's said and done.

Crowley was a brilliant occultist and one of the few people in the field who amassed and consolidated so much information over time. He was a scholar who carefully studied and compared sources and presented his findings in as logical a way as both occult philosophy and his personal convictions permitted. Crowley also threw open the doors on some of what Waite chose to shield in explaining his deck. He wanted the public to understand more fully what the mystery groups had kept secret. And as many people who just skim through one of his books can attest, the "open" knowledge is still kept secret by the nature of its complexity.

Only someone with patience, a willingness to do lots of supplementary reading and analysis, can truly understand the depths of what Crowley intended to do with Thoth. It is meant to be the culmination of years of academic-level study and criticism of magick and occult writing from hundreds of different sources. The man was one of the Western world's foremost authorities on the subject, not a casual writer. His book, and Freida's artwork, reflect this, layer upon layer of symbols visual and metaphorical that are waiting to be discovered to add so much more detail.

This, coupled with Crowley's outward persona, turns a lot of people off of Thoth. But the rewards of taking a deep breath and taking the plunge are enormous.

I started out using the Thoth deck - it was the only deck I used for at least 10 years. What was frustrating to me was that I couldn't understand why I couldn't memorize all the cards & their reversals, even after so many years. I even made a book for myself for quick reference. The images on the cards don't give a lot to pull from - it's kind of like the Ironwing (which - personally I think the Ironwing is a better deck) but it's that same thing where unless you're brilliant it's difficult to even know what card it is you're looking at half the time, and remembering the meaning of the card - well, it's just not as blunt, lets put it that way. When I finally switched to RWS I couldn't believe how much sense everything made just from looking at the image. That, to me, is what's missing with the Thoth - for me anyway it was impossible to be able to look at the graphic and just know what the card was all about. I wished I hadn't stayed with the Thoth for so long.

I don't mean that Thoth is the measure of a deck for snobs. Indeed, a long time devotee of Thoth would have to do as much research as the next person to use any other deck, and using Thoth extensively doesn't necessarily make learning another deck any easier.

But it can't be argued that if you want to really understand what Crowley was explaining through his deck, you have to do homework, and lots of it. You have to know the history of the Golden Dawn and its specific views of the universe and spirituality. In terms of subjects, you have to know something about Qabalah, and Thelema, and Hermeticism, and alchemy, and astrology. You have to know who Nuit, and Ra-Hoor-Khuit, and Heru-ra-ha and Hoor-pa-Kraat are, why they're not exact figures from Egyptian myth but modern syntheses. You have to know a lot about correspondences, colours, animals, signs. Each card is a painting chock full of specific symbols placed in very specific layers and positions, almost none by coincidence. If you want to know the why, you have to know the what. And we're talking the what of one of the world's leading figures.

Intuitive users of Thoth claim that they don't need to go to this level of study for the deck to work for them. And that's fine. It's not what Crowley intended, but few people are members of initiatory groups today where they were expected to ruthlessly follow their teacher's work to the letter to understand it and pass it down. The Mystery societies are fewer in number and membership, some of them gone, and much of their work is now public domain just in a bid to prevent it from dying out.

Crowley himself might have taken offense to this use of his deck, but the creator's work is out of his hands once it's in the public's, and the use to which they put it is their choice. The Book of Thoth is readily available should a person choose to take up the study.

I don't know if he was a lamb, exactly. That seems like going to the opposite extreme of calling him "The Wickedest Man," but an extreme just the same. However, it might be remarked that while Crowley was being called that, Oscar Wilde was being called for worse things while on trial for sodomy, which he lost. Although living in similar times, Crowley was never criminally charged; whether that means he was "better" or "worse" than Wilde is open to conjecture. I think that, although I myself have certain issues with him, if half the things written in the tabloids, then and now, were true, he would be put away. But he wasn't.

Coming to terms with such a figure is difficult, but perhaps one doesn't need to. "Coming to terms" implies diminishing a figure into something palatable, which leads to inaccuracies in perception. But the Law of Liberty, which I see at least some sense in, does not require from anyone emulation of the prophet, since that would be quite contrary to its spirit.

For the sake of argument, let's assume Crowley was a cult leader of the vilest kind, who took advantage of his victims, forcing them into the lewdest of acts. Ruthless, uncaring, unfeeling, a vampire of the weak, etc. His writings, however, push a message of liberty quite removed from his own life, stating again and again "don't do or say what I do or say, do your own Will." That isn't typical of a cult leader.

Besides, I find something quite "Thelemic" in his life, and I don't mean his doing of his Will. Thelema, influenced as it is by Hermeticism, makes a point of trying to afford direct spiritual experience, rather than following a written set of rules by which one is guaranteed salvation. His own life serving as a kind of "first ordeal," if one is able to go past Crowley's life and face some uncomfortable truths about his own life (such as what compels him, what hinders) one reaps rewards.