Barleywine's Thoth 101 Beginner Class

[Saturn Celeste]

@Barleywine thank you so much for volunteering!  Students interested in  your class will sign-up on the thread here, be admitted into the group and join you on this thread.  Post your instructions and discussions here and they will reply.  This is new so I'll keep an eye on things and make sure this thread runs smoothly!

 

Update by Raggydoll, feb 2020: This class (and it’s teacher) is on hiatus and therefore no sign-ups are possible at the moment. All the previous lessons and discussions can be found in this thread. You are all still welcome to comment and keep sharing information here if you like 🙂

[Barleywine]

The focus of this thread will be on the Thoth deck as an extension of the Golden Dawn tarot material, Liber T, with alterations by Aleister Crowley to meet his own unique esoteric perspective. It will also touch on how the Thoth differs in significant ways from the Waite-Smith deck, even though both drew from the same occult well. I'm not planning on delving deeply into the intricacies of Thelema or the Book of the Law, although both underlie Crowley's vision. Once we're past the introductory examination of Crowley's tarot philosophy as captured in the first part of the Book of Thoth, our attention will be mainly on the cards. Although I spent many years studying the Thoth and its companion book from an esoteric viewpoint, my main interest in it now is divination. But any topic is fair game as long as it doesn't completely derail the thread for everyone else. If it threatens to, I'll kill the discussion or take it up privately outside this thread. Hopefully, you will come away with an appreciation for Crowley's scholarly expertise and Harris' artistic excellence.

 

You won't have to go out and buy the Book of Thoth; it's available free at the link below. Download it as soon as you can, since the next post will delve into it. (Note that it will automatically go to your downloads file.) Let me know when you have it so we can begin.

The Book of Toth - thule-italia.net

Edited July 2, 2019 by Barleywine

[Starlight]

Hi @Barleywine I got a threat alert at the link above but I found a couple of other sources - are these the same?

 

https://hermetic.com/crowley/book-of-thoth/index

 

http://www.tarot.org.il/Library/Crowley/Book of Thoth.pdf

 

 

[Barleywine]

7 hours ago, Starlight said:

Hi @Barleywine I got a threat alert at the link above but I found a couple of other sources - are these the same?

 

https://hermetic.com/crowley/book-of-thoth/index

 

http://www.tarot.org.il/Library/Crowley/Book of Thoth.pdf

 

 

Yes, and the Hermetic Library is a reliable site.

[Starlight]

Lovely - thank you! 🙂

 

ETA: I found another pdf copy to download from the internet archive (archive.org) here: https://archive.org/details/AleisterCrowleyTheBookOfThoth

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Starlight

[Barleywine]

The Book of Thoth, Part 1: The Theory of the Tarot

 

Before we get into the cards themselves, it's necessary to lay some philosophical groundwork. The Book of Thoth is undoubtedly the biggest single deterrent to anyone who seeks to learn the Thoth system. Crowley's erudition can be thoroughly intimidating as well as befuddling. But, while much of it is interesting and enlightening, the more involved historical and metaphysical observations aren't really germane to our purpose here (Crowley spared no intellectual capital in attempting to capture "the whole of his Magical Mind pictorially" in the cards, shored up by his often abstruse commentary). So I don't plan to cover them at any length unless asked particular questions about them.

 

But it is vital to understand a few fundamentals, such as:

 

Crowley's approach to number theory, especially as it relates to the Tree of Life and the "Descent of Spirit into Matter"

his conceptual grasp of the four classical elements and their association with the suits

his re-designation of the court cards and their elemental correspondences

the basis (but not much more than that) for his claimed "rectification" of the trump cards

his view of the cards of the tarot as living "intelligences"

 

A nodding acquaintance with the qabalistic Tree of Life is also desirable as it pertains to the ten "spheres of emanation" (sephiroth), to which the ten small cards and the four court cards of each suit are related. (The connection of the 22 trump cards to the 22 "paths" between the sephiroth is beyond the scope of what I intend here and, anyway, not everyone agrees about where they should go.

 

I'm going to break with convention and start with the last section of Part 1, "The Cards of the Tarot As Living Beings," since I think it conveys some of his most important thoughts on the tarot:

 

"Each card is, in a sense, a living being; and its relations with its neighbours are what one might call diplomatic. It is for the student to build these living stones into his living Temple."

 

He expanded on this in Appendix A, under "The Behaviour of the Tarot: Its Use in Divination:"

 

". . . in these designs is given an analysis of the general character of each card; but he cannot reach any true appreciation of them without observing their behaviour over a long period; he can only come to an understanding of the Tarot through experience. It will not be sufficient for him to intensify his studies of the cards as objective things; he must use them; he must live with them. They, too, must live with him. A card is not isolated from its fellows. The reactions of the cards, their interplay with each other, must be built into the very life of the student."

 

Here we see Crowley the Mystic talking rather than Crowley the Philosopher-Scientist. As I read it, he viewed the cards of the tarot as independent intelligences with which we can interact and that we can enlist in our cause. But it isn't enough to simply study them, and the preferred method - concentration or meditation - he considered to be beyond the reach of the average uninitiated student; that left divination as the best way to experience the cards in action. I've been involved in many debates about whether the cards have "personality," the consensus usually being that they really don't. But in working with the Thoth deck it's a good idea to keep Crowley's statements in mind. He considered his remarks a "thesis most necessary to the understanding of the Tarot." His arguments about the nature of and need for "measurement" in mystical matters, the belief of the alchemists in "living substance" that is seen by the layman as "dead matter," and the advisability of a "slow and temperate" approach to these pursuits are probably out-of-tune with our modern sensibilities, but it isn't necessary to debate them as long as the main tenets of Crowley's position are understood.

[Starlight]

Is there a reason Crowley considered the cards to be living beings, @Barleywine?Do you know how he came to that conclusion? And are they living beings in the sense that they reflect energies within the human psyche? I've heard that the Thoth system is more inward-focused than outward.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Starlight

[KaiNO]

Hi all!

 

I wrote a post in the sign-up thread, and suddenly I am here; highly motivated and looking forward to this 🙂

[Barleywine]

6 hours ago, Starlight said:

Is there a reason Crowley considered the cards to be living beings, @Barleywine?Do you know how he came to that conclusion? And are they living beings in the sense that they reflect energies within the human psyche? I've heard that the Thoth system is more inward-focused than outward.

I've never come across anything more than the sections I quoted. My assumption (completely unsubstantiated) is that he saw them as manifestations on the physical plane of life-forces originating at a more subtle level of existence. Obviously, the "elemental beings" (gnomes, undines, sylphs and salamanders) inhabit the Astral Plane and the small cards would be their extension into matter. The court cards could be facets of the "Elemental Kings." But the trump cards are an entirely different matter, occupying a more exalted niche on the Tree of Life. Crowley didn't call them "archetypes" since I think he was more mystical than psychological, but the same feeling permeates his observations.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Barleywine

[Barleywine]

2 hours ago, KaiNO said:

Hi all!

 

I wrote a post in the sign-up thread, and suddenly I am here; highly motivated and looking forward to this 🙂

Welcome! I think we'll have some fun with this.

[TheFeeLion]

27 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

I've never come across anything more than the sections I quoted. My assumption (completely unsubstantiated) is that he saw them as manifestations on the physical plane of life-forces originating at a more subtle level of existence. Obviously, the "elemental beings" (gnomes, undines, sylphs and salamanders) inhabit the Astral Plane and the small cards would be their extension into matter. The court cards could be facets of the "Elemental Kings." But the trump cards are an entirely different matter, occupying a more exalted niche on the Tree of Life. Crowley didn't call them "archetypes" since I think he was more mystical than psychological, but the same feeling permeates his observations.

*waves* I made it! 😄

 

I may be wrong here but I think by saying they were/are living beings was possibly Crowley's way of making the cards easier to understand. By personifying them we have to take the time to get to know them. You can't just study them from afar like you would plants and animals. I think he's saying the cards are individuals, you may be able to get an idea of their personality from books and such but to really get to know them and understand them better you have to spend time with them. 

 

Hmm I don't know if I explained that peoperly

[Barleywine]

13 minutes ago, TheFeeLion said:

*waves* I made it! 😄

 

I may be wrong here but I think by saying they were/are living beings was possibly Crowley's way of making the cards easier to understand. By personifying them we have to take the time to get to know them. You can't just study them from afar like you would plants and animals. I think he's saying the cards are individuals, you may be able to get an idea of their personality from books and such but to really get to know them and understand them better you have to spend time with them. 

 

Hmm I don't know if I explained that peoperly

The last thing I would accuse Crowley of would be trying to make things easier. I think he truly believed that they are reservoirs of consciousness that we can interact and communicate with, perhaps "nodes" of a higher form of being that have been projected into our reality.

[TheFeeLion]

46 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

The last thing I would accuse Crowley of would be trying to make things easier. I think he truly believed that they are reservoirs of consciousness that we can interact and communicate with, perhaps "nodes" of a higher form of being that have been projected into our reality.

Maybe I worded that wrong. I get the impression though that there were a few things/concepts he found difficult to put into words. And I guess, maybe in part, that is decision to describe the cards as... Actually never mind I think I've just sorted that information in my head properly now lol. If I've got this right the cards are mearly a physical representation of these higher energy beings and as such can only show a fraction/2 dimensional veiw (pun intended) of their personality? Which is why he basically says its up to the reader/user to find out for themselves what they're really like without him handing everything to us on a silver platter. 

[Barleywine]

4 minutes ago, TheFeeLion said:

Maybe I worded that wrong. I get the impression though that there were a few things/concepts he found difficult to put into words. And I guess, maybe in part, that is decision to describe the cards as... Actually never mind I think I've just sorted that information in my head properly now lol. If I've got this right the cards are mearly a physical representation of these higher energy beings and as such can only show a fraction/2 dimensional veiw (pun intended) of their personality? Which is why he basically says its up to the reader/user to find out for themselves what they're really like without him handing everything to us on a silver platter. 

I always had the impression he just got lazy! 😀 Crowley tied almost everything related to the tarot to the Tee of Life, so the cards "inhabit" the spheres and paths on the Tree, where we can meet them if we travel those avenues. It could be argued that we're just encountering objectified aspects of ourselves via the agency of Creative Visualization. I don't have any quarrel with that notion.

[TheFeeLion]

1 minute ago, Barleywine said:

I always had the impression he just got lazy! 😀 Crowley tied almost everything related to the tarot to the Tee of Life, so the cards "inhabit" the spheres and paths on the Tree, where we can meet them if we travel those avenues. It could be argued that we're just encountering objectified aspects of ourselves via the agency of Creative Visualization. I don't have any quarrel with that notion.

I did a bit of mentorship sometime last year (delving into Thoth) and while I was reading and making notes (i found it nearly impossible to read any of the Book T without taking notes lol) I got the impression that here was a man with a lot to say but not the language with which to say it. Because of this it became an exercise in similies; its like this and similar to that, but not entirely because its also like that and similar this. It must have been frustrating knowing exactly what you're talking about but seeing all of the confused looks on the faces of those around you. Anyone would get fed up after a while and say "oh go find out for yourself" 😂

[TheFeeLion]

I think also that tying almost everything into the Tree of Life was a convenient way for him to explain himself. It was language that was already known so he needed to explain himself less

[Starlight]

How important is it to adopt Crowley's views on cards as living energies on another plane of existence, @Barleywine? Is it enough to be aware of them? Can we adapt them to our own worldviews? Or is it important to see things as he saw them? Will our approach affect how well we learn the Thoth system?

Edited July 4, 2019 by Starlight
Clarity

[Barleywine]

4 hours ago, Starlight said:

How important is it to adopt Crowley's views on cards as living energies on another plane of existence, @Barleywine? Is it enough to be aware of them? Can we adapt them to our own worldviews? Or is it important to see things as he saw them? Will our approach affect how well we learn the Thoth system?

Good question! When I opened this thread, my only intent was that we be aware of his viewpoint, but we don't necessarily have to parrot it. The Thoth deck is still firmly entrenched in the Golden Dawn tradition, despite Crowley's imaginative assertions. His approach is useful but we still have to fit it into our own way of working. My goal is to smooth the way for that.

[Barleywine]

7 hours ago, TheFeeLion said:

I think also that tying almost everything into the Tree of Life was a convenient way for him to explain himself. It was language that was already known so he needed to explain himself less

Yes, I think you're absolutely right. He went on a "crash course" with his Golden Dawn initiation that got him promoted through the ranks in record time. The tarot was the Order's principal key for familiarizing with qabalistic ways of thinking. Also, when writing the BoT, he assumed that his readers are already familiar with these ideas, so he wasted no time elucidating them. I have to confess that when I picked up the Thoth deck, I already had a year of qabalistic studies under my belt, primarily Dion Fortune, William Gray and Israel Regardie, so the model wasn't foreign to me..

[TheFeeLion]

No such luck over here lol I feel a bit like I'm going to be learning a whole new language!

[Barleywine]

7 hours ago, TheFeeLion said:

I did a bit of mentorship sometime last year (delving into Thoth) and while I was reading and making notes (i found it nearly impossible to read any of the Book T without taking notes lol) I got the impression that here was a man with a lot to say but not the language with which to say it. Because of this it became an exercise in similies; its like this and similar to that, but not entirely because its also like that and similar this. It must have been frustrating knowing exactly what you're talking about but seeing all of the confused looks on the faces of those around you. Anyone would get fed up after a while and say "oh go find out for yourself" 😂

That's an interesting observation. I always thought Crowley was loquacious and said exactly what he wanted to say, often with sardonic if not outright sarcastic intent (especially when talking about Waite). My understanding is that he deliberately avoided "talking down" to his readers, instead challenging them to come up to his level of thought. With some things he exhibited great patience when describing them, with others he breezed right through without much explanation of his bases. I think with his comparisons to other metaphysical systems, he was trying to offer handholds for people approaching his work from different esoteric cultures (either that or he was just categorically dumping "the whole of his Magical Mind" into his writing).

[Barleywine]

44 minutes ago, TheFeeLion said:

No such luck over here lol I feel a bit like I'm going to be learning a whole new language!

If we stick with the Tree of Life correspondences, which are basically numerical and follow an orderly progression, I think that will be enough to facilitate an understanding of Crowley's method. He combined esoteric number theory with suit qualities and wedded them to the nature of the sephiroth and the idea that Spirit becomes more constrained and less numinous the farther it penetrates into Matter. The Major Arcana he took in a different direction, which I think is why he resorted to comparisons to other systems of thought. Unlike, for example, Paul Foster Case, he didn't spend much time talking about the location of the trump cards on the paths of the Tree, or at least not in a systematic way. I think it will be enough to know the basic symbolism without getting into the arcane details. Unless, of course, everyone wants to, but it could take us far away from my original mentoring vision.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Barleywine

[fire cat pickles]

I'm here 🙂

 

 

I feel a little late coming into the conversation. These ideas feel a bit overwhelming at the moment, but I'm sure I'll process them in time.

 

What I sense is Crowley's need to synthesize emotion or mood into chemical or even three-dimensional, palpable ideas or cues in order to explain them (referring to the lesser keys here.) It's almost as if the minors are different individuals with their own personalities (angels and demons?) Don't each of us have aspects of these people in ourselves? If we come to a better understanding of these keys through studying them we may better understand ourselves then.

 

From what I understand of Crowley, he wasn't very interested in Tarot for divination, anyway, and was more interested in it for meditation and self-discovery. Is this true?

 

 

Edited July 4, 2019 by fire cat pickles

[Barleywine]

Beyond his statement that divination is the best way for the average person to "live with" the tarot in order to experience the cards as "living beings," I haven't found much in his writing regarding other uses for it. His first published document on the tarot, an unauthorized 1912 release of the Golden Dawn's Liber T tarot study material, was entirely given over to divination.  He considered it the single greatest component of (at least Hermetic) qabalistic doctrine, and an "admirable symbolic picture of the Universe." Much like Israel Regardie's attitude toward the Tree of Life as a "giant filing cabinet" capable of holding any idea whatsoever, Crowley's objective with the tarot seems to have been to have a place to "park" a vast miscellany of cross-cultural esoteric wisdom. It's probably safe to say that, as a mystic when he wasn't quoting Einstein, Crowley found much to meditate on in the cards; regarding self-discovery, my impression is that initiation into magic(k) was his preferred approach, of which tarot was only a small part. Although his descriptions of the court cards have psychological overtones, I'm not sure he saw the tarot as a whole as a roadmap to the human psyche, as many of us do today.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Barleywine

[Barleywine]

8 minutes ago, Ruby Jewel said:

Hi Barleywine.....I joined your class (yikes! you are probably saying. lol). I'm wondering if Crowley had any knowledge of Jung's concept of archetypes and the "unconscious."

Not that I've seen in his tarot material. He talked a lot about modern physics and about Einstein, and a little about Hegel and Leibniz, but I don't recall seeing Jung mentioned once. His descriptions of character traits for the court cards (he called them "moral characteristics") seem more functional than clinical.