using the thoth vs. knowing it

Barleywine

But you just sort of plod on and be inferior.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to hold Crowley in well-deserved awe while still making practical use of what he left us, in the spirit of tough-minded pragmatism and impertinence. I'm sure he was perfectly aware of the convoluted (and bemusing) legacy he was visiting upon his spiritual descendents. Looks to me like his mission was both a holy one and a mirthful one. I think he would have a good belly-laugh at this thread.
 

Richard

I think it's perfectly legitimate to hold Crowley in well-deserved awe while still making practical use of what he left us, in the spirit of tough-minded pragmatism and impertinence. I'm sure he was perfectly aware of the convoluted (and bemusing) legacy he was visiting upon his spiritual descendents. Looks to me like his mission was both a holy one and a mirthful one. I think he would have a good belly-laugh at this thread.
I agree, but his creation of the Thoth was a very serious matter to him, and I think we sense that. Frieda must have had the forbearance of a saint to stick with the project.
 

Zephyros

Is that really true? I was very surprised by this. Do you really believe that or did you type it without thinking? It doesn't seem to me the case at all. I don't find the Tree of Life difficult at all to internalize along with the Atús and small card connections for the Thoth but I really don't feel that this would be even remotely halfway to truly understanding the Thoth.

I think it is true, and I can prove it! Well, based on my own experience, anyway.

I think it would help if we broke it down a bit. The Thoth is two things at once. Firstly,it is a Golden Dawn deck and it has a GD structure and symbolic language and attributions as well as "general atmosphere." Secondly, it is a visual commentary on the Book of Law. The latter leans on the former in the way that the commentary is put forth and executed. So, in order to get the Thelemic stuff you have to understand the GD stuff, but not the other way round. The GD is our langauge while Thelema is what the deck says with that language. The RWS uses a similar "dialect" but says different things with it.

The actual structure and symbolism of the deck is itself divided into two parts, the kabbalistic and the astrological. On the kabbalistic front, what you chiefly need is to understand how the Tree of Life is built, the meanings of the Sephiroth and the four worlds. Most people dabbling in Tarot already have that assimilated, even if they don't know it, thanks to the RWS. The degradation of the element from Ace to Ten, the four suits symbolizing the four elements, etc. are common knowledge. Once you have that down in general terms, you can start understanding the Majors. Since you already have the Tree down, then you can use it to work them out, as they are the "energy" of one Sephirah on another, and share a bit of both. So, it does take a bit of work, but it's a learning curve, and one thing is built on the other. A very general knowledge of the Hebrew letters, especially what they mean, also helps a lot.

The GD used astrology both in the traditional sense of dates and charts but also to convey ideas, and this means that while the astrology in the Thoth can't be avoided, it can be "bypassed." Each Major is attributed a planet or sign, and although that, too, follows a structure it is also very easy to memorize. Now, some understanding of the attributes of the different signs and planets is necessary, but nothing close being an astrologer. You can take meanings from their stories from Greek and Roman mythology (what I ended up doing), or just astro.com. The important thing is to have a general grasp of what they mean in order to work with them.

Once you do, then the Majors open up dramatically, when taken piecemeal. The Empress, for example, goes from Chochma to Binah, is attributed to Venus and bears the letter Daled which means door (another way of saying womb, in this case, for a vaeiety of reasons we won't get in to). So you have the force of the male being visited on the female, the goddess of Love, the fertile womb, etc. So each Major is a composite, easy to reconstruct when you know the rules.

The Minors are again built upon everything that comes before them. Each Minor is attributed to a Sephirah, which we already know the meaning of. Also, each one is attributed to a decan, consisting of a planet and sign. Structural issues aside, the way that the decans work is to show how a planet acts in a certain sign, acting as if through a lens. We already learned the meanings of these attributions when we studied the Majors, all we have to do now is combine them. The Three of Wands, for example, is at Binah, the archetypal female influence, so we aren't talking about movement here. We have the Sun shining through Aries, which we know that is attributed to the Emperor. So since the Sun generall brings out the best energies of stuff, it expands, it gives life, we can conclude that we have the best qualities of the Emperor here, and so we have Virtue, purity of purpose. We can add the influence of the astrological attribution of the Sephirah if we wish, although it is implied in the Sephirah itself anyway. Binah is attributed to Saturn, which from our study of the Majors we know is attributed to the Universe, and implies solidification, etc. Solidification of what depends on whatever Three we are talking about.

The Courts are again built on exactly the same base. On the kabbalistic front you have the "World of World" or element of element, and their placement on the Tree (Knights at Chochma, etc.). Astrologically, each Court is made out of three Minors, in themselves made out of two Majors each. Sure, it isn't as simple as that, since each Court has a dominant and recessive sign, and a few other things, but you can get along fine by keeping it simple. The Knight of Disks is at Chochma, and his Minors are the Seven of Wands, Eight and Nine of Disks. So, you can leave it at that "mini reading" or go deeper. You have Mars in Leo (Tower in Lust), Sun in Virgo (Sun in Hermit) and Venus in Virgo (Empress in Hermit), and the Knight's "personality" combines the attributes of these three cards/decans.

So far as basic structure goes, that's basically it, and it isn't difficult, especially not when approached gradually. You very quickly pick up the method, since you're using the same tools over and over. You can, of course, add to it, and it will only enrich your experience. You could go deeper into astrology and deal with exaltations and detriments and the like, but that's not strictly necessary.

Once you have your basic toolbox outlined above you can approach the Thelemic ideas. Now, I'm not going to say that's easy, since it isn't, but coming to understand those things are part of the process. When you understand the symbolic language, it does become much clearer. That's the actual Thoth, all of the above is just what you use to work with it, a means to an end. I mean, studying kabbalah is fascinating in its own right, don't get me wrong, but where the Thoth is concerned no more than a basic grasp of its general ideas is needed to get you started. This is also where things become important, since every card is geared toward Thelema and True Will, and you won't get any of that without understanding how it works out according to the "equations" outlined above. Lust is Lust because of Thelema, otherwise it's just a tarty looking female practicing bestiality. The key thing to remember is that the method serves just to get you started, where you go with it is up to you.

A lot of the Thelemic "angle" is expressed in the Book of Thoth, and I can also recommend reading the Book of Law and its commentaries. Both of these express themselves in much the same symbolic language outlined.
 

Richard

......The Thoth is two things at once. Firstly,it is a Golden Dawn deck and it has a GD structure and symbolic language and attributions as well as "general atmosphere." Secondly, it is a visual commentary on the Book of Law. The latter leans on the former in the way that the commentary is put forth and executed. So, in order to get the Thelemic stuff you have to understand the GD stuff, but not the other way round. The GD is our langauge while Thelema is what the deck says with that language. The RWS uses a similar "dialect" but says different things with it.......
Would you agree that the fundamental difference between GD and Thelema is that the former is primarily rooted in the Aeon of Osiris (with which most of us are familiar from our cultural immersion in the Abrahamic religions), and the latter in the Aeon of Horus? Structural similarities aside, there is a profound difference between the Thoth and the GD based decks. Qabalah, astrology, and alchemy are not the primary barriers to understanding the Thoth. The basic esoteric structure (mostly adapted from GD) is relatively easy to grasp. The difficult, more subtle part is that the Thoth is "a visual commentary on the Book of Law." (It is fascinating, somewhat amusing, and seemingly paradoxical that the title of Crowley's most influential work would be that of the common description of the Torah, which, at least superficially, is diametrically opposite to Thelema.)
 

Zephyros

That goes into Thelemic matters I purposefully left out, since that's where students diverge. Although the symbolism of the Thoth is indeed, rooted in the Aeon of Horus, understanding what that means for me came after studying the basic structure. The interpretation of Crowley's own slant on the different symbols has to come only after you understand what the hell he's talking about in the first place, otherwise it all reads like Chinese. No one can really teach you Thelema, only the language in which it is written. And that's the hard part, as you say, but I never said the Thoth was easy. :)

Of course it isn't cut and dried. The Duquette book is a good primer because it deals with both sides of the deck. Not enough, it still leaves you with holes that have to be filled, but it does explain about the Aeons and general Thelemic lore. Enough to get you in the door, at least. When I first started out I read Duquette first, got a general idea of what I was getting into, and then took a few months "off" to study kabbalah. Then when I came back to the deck the learning process continued in analysis of the Majors. So as you study the Thoth you're still studying kabbalah, and Thelema and all the rest. All this is is just to get people, as I said, in the door.

I suspect most aspiring students are blocked by thinking the structure is the part that is impenetrable, when it really isn't.

:livelong:
 

smw

Now look what ye done, got me thinking "Thoth strip poker" in three dimensions: bare your soul, bare your thoughts or . . . ;)

~laughing~ that is just naughty...tut tut

Eta... Though it does quite nicely bring all the elements together in a way- spiritual and physical - after all we are fortunate here (Malkuth) to be able to enjoy this. (Talking more generally, not specifically strip poker :joke: )
 

Richard

~laughing~ that is just naughty...tut tut

That is a relevant observation. :livelong: (Just using an excuse to try out the new Spock emoticon.)
 

Barleywine

I agree, but his creation of the Thoth was a very serious matter to him, and I think we sense that. Frieda must have had the forbearance of a saint to stick with the project.

Very true, the content leaves no doubt of that, it's the tone that sometimes makes me think there was another side to it. In much of what he wrote for more widespread consumption (the BoT seems to be one example; at the other extreme, what was later compiled as The Holy Books of Thelema, most certainly was not), he shows a wicked sense of humor, a "gimlet eye" for cluelessness posing as erudition, and what we would now describe as a "laser wit." His humor was exquisitely pointed and nicely finessed, almost never fatuous (well, he did seem to have a weakness for sarcastically lampooning Waite), even when he was intentionally being mean-spirited. As a cynic about the overall state of human evolution, I found that it rang loud bells for me when I first encountered it, and still does four decades later.
 

Barleywine

The Courts are again built on exactly the same base. On the kabbalistic front you have the "World of World" or element of element, and their placement on the Tree (Knights at Chochma, etc.). Astrologically, each Court is made out of three Minors, in themselves made out of two Majors each. Sure, it isn't as simple as that, since each Court has a dominant and recessive sign, and a few other things, but you can get along fine by keeping it simple. The Knight of Disks is at Chochma, and his Minors are the Seven of Wands, Eight and Nine of Disks. So, you can leave it at that "mini reading" or go deeper. You have Mars in Leo (Tower in Lust), Sun in Virgo (Sun in Hermit) and Venus in Virgo (Empress in Hermit), and the Knight's "personality" combines the attributes of these three cards/decans.

Aha! :lightbulb: I think you just gave me the key to why Crowley's version of Liber T is laid out the way it is. Every time I cracked it to look something up, I was bouncing around in it since you can't just go Ace-to-Ten to track down the Minors. The internal logic didn't jump out at me. Crystal-clear now. Thanks!

Your entire post describes with great precision my own path to understanding the Thoth. Besides re-reading it a few times and trying to unravel the wisdom in the BoT, I had a few other books that led me along the "right" road. I've mentioned them here before, but anyone who wants to wrap their head around the GD system (that is, without resorting to Regardie's monumental "brick," The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic) would benefit from owning them: "The Tarot - A Key to the Wisdom of the Ages" by Paul Foster Case (or the BOTA course material overall, but that's a major commitment and beyond the scope and spirit of what closrapexa is proposing); "The Qabalistic Tarot" by Robert Wang; "The Mystical Qabalah" by Dion Fortune; "Kabbalistic Aphorisms" by James Sturzaker; "The Kybalion" by "Three Initiates;" and "Tarot Divination" by Aleister Crowley (which looks like his "tweaked" version of Liber T). There were also a few "lesser lights" that I pursued: William Gray, Gareth Knight, Franz Bardon, Frater Achad (Crowley's "magickal son"), Israel Regardie's personal renderings; David Godwin's "Cabalistic Encyclopedia (useful for gematria), and probably a few I don't remember. The Hebrew scholars seem to be a gap in my library, and I don't have anything more recent (Lon Milo Duquette, for example) and no "Kabbalah for Dummies" stuff ("Kabbalistic Dummy" seems like an oxymoron).

After that lengthy education it was all about the Book of the Law, which I still get deep satisfaction out of exploring. It will repay study in connection with the Thoth - especially the Major Arcana - many times over.

ETA: I should add to that last sentence: Don't be put of by it's exalted, "faux-Egyptian" wrapper. At their simplest, the core tenets as I see them (the parens are mine) are "Love is the law, love under will," (Love is the cardinal virtue, but it must be consciously directed to reach perfection.) "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," (If will is inextricably bound to love, how can it go astray?) and "For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect" (Pure will is an absolute, not a means to an end.) So, Will + Love = Perfection. (Well, he did also say "The word of Sin is Restriction," but I think there's a mystery buried in that thought that's well worth contemplating.) Crowley himself didn't seem to wholly embody the idea of selfless compassion that Love implies, but I think it's because his profound understanding of Love operated in a more rarified atmosphere: "Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent."
 

smw

That is a relevant observation. :livelong: (Just using an excuse to try out the new Spock emoticon.)

I didn't know there was one of those...Live long and prosper! :)