Barleywine's Thoth 101 Beginner Class

[Starlight]

21 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

The letter Shin in Hebrew meant both Fire and Spirit, so the two were interchangeable to Crowley in an esoteric sense. In practical terms he related Fire to work, business and ambition in general.

Ok. Any internal force that drives us, or compels us to move forward.

[Barleywine]

12 minutes ago, Starlight said:

And how did that happen? Are the suits almost like a forecast of what happens when you approach life from a particular perspective? Like a teacher of sorts?

If we follow Crowley's train of thought, the pristine spiritual energy that lies at the root of each suit (in the Ace) sacrifices its purity and becomes "tainted" as an inevitable result of its urge to manifest in concrete terms. It's a byproduct of applying the constraints of matter, and forms one of the principle differences between the Thoth and the RWS mindset. For example, even the 10 of Cups has a whiff of corruption in the Thoth, while we're hard-pressed to see anything negative in the RWS 10 of Cups (although it's definitely there).

[Barleywine]

22 minutes ago, Starlight said:

Ok. Any internal force that drives us, or compels us to move forward.

Yes. All of the suits compel us to move forward, but the Wands as Fire are the most insistent.

[Barleywine]

50 minutes ago, Starlight said:

I must apologise. I didn't mean my comment to be derogatory. I meant the genre of story these beings appear in. (Tolkien, Rothfuss, etc.) I know occultists and metaphysicians know these beings exist on a plane not visible to ordinary people.

My thought was that, if the four elements didn't advance in unison, we could have unevolved elemental beings running around the landscape rather than the complex entities we know ourselves to be.

[Starlight]

3 hours ago, Barleywine said:

My thought was that, if the four elements didn't advance in unison, we could have unevolved elemental beings running around the landscape rather than the complex entities we know ourselves to be.

It's interesting you mention this because it ties in with something I've been thinking about for a while now, and it relates to Jung's view of the human psyche.

People are not just one personality, I'm beginning to think. We're made up of multiple different energies/personas. Until now, I've always gone with the view they're "facets of character", but now I'm thinking they're more distinct energies in their own rights and have their own motivations and, sometimes, autonomy. It explains why someone might say something to someone and then feel shocked that they did.

What if those "elementals" are co-existing but not visibly?

(Am I straying from the topic with this?)

[Barleywine]

9 hours ago, Starlight said:

It's interesting you mention this because it ties in with something I've been thinking about for a while now, and it relates to Jung's view of the human psyche.

People are not just one personality, I'm beginning to think. We're made up of multiple different energies/personas. Until now, I've always gone with the view they're "facets of character", but now I'm thinking they're more distinct energies in their own rights and have their own motivations and, sometimes, autonomy. It explains why someone might say something to someone and then feel shocked that they did.

What if those "elementals" are co-existing but not visibly?

(Am I straying from the topic with this?)

Before there was psychological astrology, with its goal of synthesizing everything in a horoscope into one seamless whole, there was traditional astrology with its four temperaments: choleric (hot and dry); sanguine (temperate and dry); phlegmatic (temperate and moist) and melancholic (cold and dry). Everyone was a mixture of these qualities depending on where the planets lay, especially the Sun and Moon along with the Ascendant. In my case, I'm mostly phlegmatic, and the Major Arcana cards associated with my three main significators are the Chariot (Sun in Cancer, Water), the Devil (Moon in Capricorn, Earth) and Death (Ascendant in Scorpio, Water). Plus, I was born on the Summer solstice, which has its own esoteric significance.

 

Regarding elementals, they are said to coexist on the "next plane over," the Astral Plane, which is the realm of the Moon. Those who do any kind of spirit work are apt to encounter them, and they aren't necessarily friendly. I sometimes wonder whether instances of incubi and succubi are actually elemental intrusions, and also whether the Ouija board summons them.

[Starlight]

Wow  the Thoth draws on a lot of different areas, doesn't it? I imagine this system alone would take a lifetime of study. Do we need to know a bit more about the humours and astrology to work with the Thoth?

 

Also, does the Thoth have any ties to Thelema? I don't know much about Thelema other than it was a type of spiritual (religious?) belief system.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Starlight

[Barleywine]

On 7/17/2019 at 1:34 AM, Starlight said:

Wow  the Thoth draws on a lot of different areas, doesn't it? I imagine this system alone would take a lifetime of study. Do we need to know a bit more about the humours and astrology to work with the Thoth?

 

Also, does the Thoth have any ties to Thelema? I don't know much about Thelema other than it was a type of spiritual (religious?) belief system.

The Book of Thoth is definitely a lifetime study. I've read it four times now and I still find new insights in it. Regarding astrology, an understanding of the classical approach (not the modern psychological one with ten planets) is useful, especially the Chaldean decans as used by the Golden Dawn, which Crowley imposed on the Thoth deck.

 

The basic tenets of Crowley's Thelemic religion came from his psychic workings in Cairo in 1904, which were captured in The Book of the Law. (If you think the Book of Thoth is challenging, approach that one with caution; I think it has half-a-dozen nuggets of pure brilliance, and the rest is just sort of euphoric, faux-Egyptian window-dressing). There are numerous references to Book of the Law passages in the Book of Thoth (for example, in the the Lust card text) that tie it to Thelema. Personally, I avoid codified religions of any kind, so Thelema holds no interest for me.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Barleywine

[Barleywine]

The Book of Thoth, Part One, The Theory of the Tarot, Sub-Part II, The Tarot and the Formula of Tetragrammaton and The Tarot and the Elements

 

Now we're going to have some fun! This is where Crowley first broaches the subject of the tarot court. He presents it not in terms of a Medieval royal hierarchy, but as a coupling of the Father (King) and the Mother (Queen) to produce the Son (Knight) and the Daughter (Knave or Valet). But, as we shall see, he monkeyed around with the titles.

 

Macgregor Mathers, Chief Adept of the Golden Dawn, saw fit to assign the tarot court to the four letters of the ineffable and unpronounceable name of the Hebrew God (variously euphemized as Jehovah or Yahweh by the uninitiated layman). He was most likely standing on the shoulders of Continental occultism but, having not read Eliphas Levi in depth,  I can't cite specifics. The senior male archetype (Father as elemental Fire) was assigned to the Yod of the Name, reading from right to left. The senior female archetype (Mother as elemental Water) was given the initial Heh, the Vau went to the junior male archetype (Son as elemental Air), and the final Heh was allotted to the junior female archetype (Daughter as Earth, not really a discrete element but a mixture of the other three). But it wouldn't do to just press the traditional titles into service for this purpose. In his infinite wisdom, Mathers determined that the "alpha male" of the lot had to be virile and supremely active; the sedentary seated King just wasn't up to snuff. So the old King was given a mount to show his volatility (befitting Fire) and his new title of "Knight" was yanked from its former occupant, The erstwhile King sank to third place but his title was initially retained. Still, it wasn't right to have a stationary, seated figure as an expression of active Air, so the dethroned King was parked in a chariot to signify his relative mobility; eventually his title was changed to "Prince." The Queen was fine where she was, but the Knave (originally a male squire or herald) was renamed "Princess" to complete the familial picture.

 

When Aleister Crowley got his hands on it, he pretty much kept to Mathers' model, but, thinking he was clarifying things, he waxed mystical about the role of the Knight-as-King. Regarding the Prince, he actually muddied the waters by stating that, oh by the way, it could actually be titled "Emperor" and the Princess "Empress." Sometimes I think he should have just shut up. He then proceeds into a detailed explanation of the four "worlds" of the Tree of Life and its correspondence to the "analysis of Man" (which takes us back to a question that was asked in an earlier post). This discussion is well worth spending some quality time with.

 

I wrote a blog post some time ago that examined the "Knight-or-King" dilemma.

 

https://parsifalswheeldivination.com/2018/02/13/a-king-is-a-king-is-a-knight/

Edited July 19, 2019 by Barleywine

[Starlight]

23 hours ago, Barleywine said:

In his infinite wisdom, Mathers determined that the "alpha male" of the lot had to be virile and supremely active; the sedentary seated King just wasn't up to snuff. So the old King was given a mount to show his volatility (befitting Fire) and his new title of "Knight" was yanked from its former occupant, The erstwhile King sank to third place but his title was initially retained. Still, it wasn't right to have a stationary, seated figure as an expression of active Air, so the dethroned King was parked in a chariot to signify his relative mobility; eventually his title was changed to "Prince." The Queen was fine where she was, but the Knave (originally a male squire or herald) was renamed "Princess" to complete the familial picture.

Yowsa!

 

So the system had to be tweaked to make it fit with The Tree of Life? I wonder why Mathers felt that the four court cards had to reflect the name of G-d? I've yet to go through the chapter (hoping to get to it tomorrow), so maybe that question will be answered. We've gone from the Ain Sof to the point and the plane and the triangle and so on, but I'm not sure where G-d is placed in that. Or why the courts reflect the "four" syllables, when there's only really three because the second one is repeated.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Starlight

[Starlight]

I'm just reading your article, @Barleywine, and I got to this bit:

 

Quote

 

The Prince/King in his more stable chariot – as an exemplar of less volatile Air – picks up the slack of rulership neglected by the Knight/King.

 

This reminds me of King Richard the Lionheart and King John Lackland - Richard was off on crusade and John had to stay behind and rule the country and keep the nobles in order. While John was technically a prince (you can't have two concurrent kings), he was somehow known as King John. (Or is that just in the Robin Hood stories? I don't know very much about the ins and outs of English history at that time.)

 

I'm not sure it was at all necessary to rename the court cards. If Mathers was referring back to the more ancient idea of Kings-as-Warriors, it's no real mental gymnastics for anyone to understand. 

 

Quote

It seems that as long as we stick with Yod/horse-mounted, He/enthroned, Vau/”charioted” and He final/standing we will meet the spirit of the original no matter how we title them. 

A good way to remember them!

 

Quote

As long as we stay clear of Waite in all of this, we will be OK.

LOL.

 

Although, that's the thing that has me concerned a little bit as I now learn the Thoth; is what I already know going to seep in? I can already see how knowing the energies of the court cards could influence my readings with a RWS deck.

 

Quote

As an aside, if I were to create a deck, I think I would just title them “Lord,” “Lady,” Prince” and “Princess.”

So much simpler! I like it. 🙂

 

I've downloaded the Liber T you linked to on Benebell Wen's site, and I'll add that to my reading list. (Did you want to update the link in your post so people can go directly there? https://benebellwen.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/mathers-and-felkin-golden-dawn-book-t-the-tarot-1888.pdf)

 

Thanks, @Barleywine.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Starlight

[Barleywine]

The important thing to remember is that the Thoth Knight is not the same as the RWS Knight, but then neither is the Thoth Prince. (although it's c;loser in spirit) The Thoth Knight is also not identical to the RWS King, although it serves the same hierarchical purpose. Waite stayed with the Medieval court: Kings and Queens on their thrones, looking majestic; Knights on their horses, ready to smite their opponents; and Pages standing as befits a courier or messenger (although I did some research that showed they could also be squires, or knights-in-the-making). Crowley preferred the Father-Mother-Son-Daughter paradigm rather than the historical one. The Father is the fecundating principal, and Crowley was partial to thinking of the Yod as a stylized sperm.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Barleywine

[Starlight]

OK, I understand. The court cards in both systems are very different. Thanks, @Barleywine - I'll catch up on reading that chapter tomorrow. 🤞

[Barleywine]

2 hours ago, Starlight said:

Yowsa!

 

So the system had to be tweaked to make it fit with The Tree of Life? I wonder why Mathers felt that the four court cards had to reflect the name of G-d? I've yet to go through the chapter (hoping to get to it tomorrow), so maybe that question will be answered. We've gone from the Ain Sof to the point and the plane and the triangle and so on, but I'm not sure where G-d is placed in that. Or why the courts reflect the "four" syllables, when there's only really three because the second one is repeated.

There are four separate letters when the Name is spelled out (aka the "expanded name"), which fits the court-card sequence. The King (Yod/Fire) was placed in the sephira Chokmah, the Supernal Father; the Queen (Heh/Water) was assigned to Binah, the Supernal Mother; the Knight/Prince (Vau/Air) signified Tiphareth, the Son (which is also the sphere of the Sun); and the Page/Princess (Heh Final/Earth) represented Malkuth, the Daughter. The Abrahamic God sits far above all this and sends forth his consciousness into manifestation via the structure of the Tree of Life. As far as "why" any of this is so, who knows? But it makes for a fascinating and convenient working model of the Universe.

[KaiNO]

18 hours ago, Barleywine said:

The important thing to remember is that the Thoth Knight is not the same as the RWS Knight, but then neither is the Thoth Prince. (although it's c;loser in spirit) The Thoth Knight is also not identical to the RWS King, although it serves the same hierarchical purpose. Waite stayed with the Medieval court: Kings and Queens on their thrones, looking majestic; Knights on their horses, ready to smite their opponents; and Pages standing as befits a courier or messenger (although I did some research that showed they could also be squires, or knights-in-the-making). Crowley preferred the Father-Mother-Son-Daughter paradigm rather than the historical one. The Father is the fecundating principal, and Crowley was partial to thinking of the Yod as a stylized sperm.

 

I am still not quite grasping the corresponding names/card-meanings between RWS and Thoth.

(Who is the Thoth Knight in RWS, and who is the Thoth Prince in RWS)

But the answer is that the two systems are not directly comparable?

 

I tried to google; found https://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=220812 that took me to

http://www.lelandra.com/tarotbook/courtcorres.htm but still, this is not clear to me. But presumably, I need some time to digest this and hopefully understand more along the way as I learn more ☺️

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by KaiNO

[Barleywine]

53 minutes ago, KaiNO said:

 

I am still not quite grasping the corresponding names/card-meanings between RWS and Thoth.

(Who is the Thoth Knight in RWS, and who is the Thoth Prince in RWS)

But the answer is that the two systems are not directly comparable?

 

I tried to google; found https://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=220812 that took me to

http://www.lelandra.com/tarotbook/courtcorres.htm but still, this is not clear to me. But presumably, I need some time to digest this and hopefully understand more along the way as I learn more ☺️

 

The Thoth Knight (and before that the Golden Dawn Knight) supplanted the RWS King, the idea being that the "top dog" in the hierarchy should be active (mounted) rather than sedentary (seated). The Thoth (and Golden Dawn) Prince took the place of the RWS Knight; he was placed in a chariot (a kind of mobile throne) rather than on a stationary seat to imply that he is still at least somewhat active. The only Thoth/GD court card that retains its throne is the Queen (showing that she is more patient and contemplative). Everyone else is on the move. Personally, I find this more compelling and dynamic than the old Medieval royal court model. For his own reasons, Waite chose to stay with the historical design rather than adopt the GD paradigm, although as an initiate of the Order he was certainly familiar with it.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Barleywine

[Starlight]

20 hours ago, Barleywine said:

The Thoth Knight (and before that the Golden Dawn Knight) supplanted the RWS King, the idea being that the "top dog" in the hierarchy should be active (mounted) rather than sedentary (seated). The Thoth (and Golden Dawn) Prince took the place of the RWS Knight; he was placed in a chariot (a kind of mobile throne) rather than on a stationary seat to imply that he is still at least somewhat active.

But all that being said, they still aren't the same as their RWS counterparts in terms of how they're interpreted, is that right? For instance, I can't think of the RWS King whenever I see the Thoth Knight.

 

And I've just seen this bit about the GD and the Thoth changing the King - was the RWS deck not a product of the Golden Dawn?

[Barleywine]

5 hours ago, Starlight said:

But all that being said, they still aren't the same as their RWS counterparts in terms of how they're interpreted, is that right? For instance, I can't think of the RWS King whenever I see the Thoth Knight.

 

And I've just seen this bit about the GD and the Thoth changing the King - was the RWS deck not a product of the Golden Dawn?

Waite was a product of the Golden Dawn (as was Smith), but the common understanding is that, when creating his tarot deck, he chose to hide much of his esoteric wisdom behind misleading "blinds" due to the vows of secrecy he had taken as an initiate. So very few of the usual correspondences are visible in the RWS deck, and Waite reinstated a layer of Christian symbolism that the GD had obviously downplayed when reinterpreting the older decks. Crowley himself was vehemently anti-Christian due to his strict upbringing, and he jettisoned his own initiatory vows early in his career.

 

Regarding the King, in the upcoming "The Tarot and the Elements" section, he contrasts the Qabalistic and the "Pagan" court-card systems, stating that in the former the old King is replaced by the wandering Knight (exemplified by the Fool), who assumes the throne by besting all competitors in combat, thus claiming the King's daughter and eventually taking the crown, while he implies that the Pagan succession is more orderly and hereditary. But the two wind up in the same place, at the top of the hierarchical pecking order, and both represent the Father (although one is fierce and the other more like Dick Van Patten).

Edited July 22, 2019 by Barleywine

[Barleywine]

I will be away until Friday afternoon, so my contributions to this thread will have to wait until I get back.

[Starlight]

I've read the sections from the Book of Thoth, and this is what I've (mis?)understood:

 

Zero, Nothing, was not simply an absence of anything; it was a something made up a positive (father) and a negative (mother) added together. (I am reminded of the Yin/Yang symbol which oddly enough is shaped like a zero. I know it's not the same thing, but it's a something that is intangible that is made of passive and active (positive and negative).)

 

The forward movement into matter of the union of Father and Mother produces Son and Daughter.

 

I did not really see how the next bit of that section applied to what we were learning because it was talking about perceptions and how no two people see things the exact same way. I am missing the connection to what went before, though.

 

Father, Mother, Son and Daughter correspond to the four elements, three of which are already present in the 7 being (fire), 8 knowledge (water) and 9 bliss (air). These three are pure energy, and when they interact together and act upon our sense they produce 10 Earth. (I think I have that right?)

 

There are four court cards which correspond to the four elements and are named Knight, Queen, Prince and Princess. The Knight is Fire (being); the Queen is Water (Knowledge, Understanding). The Prince is Air (bliss), and the Princess is Earth (the physical). The Princess is 10, the sephiroth at the bottom of the Tree of Life. (I think?)

 

The next bit of the text went a bit above my head. There are references to Hebrew letters (why is that significant?) and the difference between the pagan system and the Hebrew system. (Pagan sees the four court cards as being on the outer rim of a wheel, cycling around and around. The Hebrew system sees Father-Mother union culminating in Son and Daughter, The End.)

 

I'm not sure how it links to what went before though.

 

 

 

** I think I'm feeling slightly lost because this is all theory, if feels like it's all "in the head", like we're setting the idea of the foundation in place and this is the system we have to understand before we can start constructing anything concrete and tangible.

 

(Does it become concrete and tangible the further we go in???)

 

This is not a complaint, btw, just an observation on how I'm feeling as I study. I'm really very grateful for your time and expertise, @Barleywine, and for allowing me the opportunity to study the Thoth system with you. I suppose I'm being hard on myself because I feel I should have a better grasp of something written in English than the grasp I feel I actually have! lol

[Barleywine]

On 7/25/2019 at 10:29 AM, Starlight said:

I've read the sections from the Book of Thoth, and this is what I've (mis?)understood:

 

Zero, Nothing, was not simply an absence of anything; it was a something made up a positive (father) and a negative (mother) added together. (I am reminded of the Yin/Yang symbol which oddly enough is shaped like a zero. I know it's not the same thing, but it's a something that is intangible that is made of passive and active (positive and negative).)

 

The forward movement into matter of the union of Father and Mother produces Son and Daughter.

 

I did not really see how the next bit of that section applied to what we were learning because it was talking about perceptions and how no two people see things the exact same way. I am missing the connection to what went before, though.

 

Father, Mother, Son and Daughter correspond to the four elements, three of which are already present in the 7 being (fire), 8 knowledge (water) and 9 bliss (air). These three are pure energy, and when they interact together and act upon our sense they produce 10 Earth. (I think I have that right?)

 

There are four court cards which correspond to the four elements and are named Knight, Queen, Prince and Princess. The Knight is Fire (being); the Queen is Water (Knowledge, Understanding). The Prince is Air (bliss), and the Princess is Earth (the physical). The Princess is 10, the sephiroth at the bottom of the Tree of Life. (I think?)

 

The next bit of the text went a bit above my head. There are references to Hebrew letters (why is that significant?) and the difference between the pagan system and the Hebrew system. (Pagan sees the four court cards as being on the outer rim of a wheel, cycling around and around. The Hebrew system sees Father-Mother union culminating in Son and Daughter, The End.)

 

I'm not sure how it links to what went before though.

 

 

 

** I think I'm feeling slightly lost because this is all theory, if feels like it's all "in the head", like we're setting the idea of the foundation in place and this is the system we have to understand before we can start constructing anything concrete and tangible.

 

(Does it become concrete and tangible the further we go in???)

 

This is not a complaint, btw, just an observation on how I'm feeling as I study. I'm really very grateful for your time and expertise, @Barleywine, and for allowing me the opportunity to study the Thoth system with you. I suppose I'm being hard on myself because I feel I should have a better grasp of something written in English than the grasp I feel I actually have! lol

Part One of the Book of Thoth mainly sets the stage for the more practical material that comes later. I've been trying to lay out the key points in each sub-part so you don't have to spend a lot of time puzzling through all of the arcane minutiae. If I don't highlight it, you don't really have to go too deeply into it. But it's good that you're tackling it head-on, and you seem to have a reasonable grasp of Crowley's thrust. The Hebrew letters were assigned to the Major Arcana cards as a way to tie them into the paths on the Tree of Life. These correspondences won't be essential to our more focused work, although Crowley brings them up again briefly in the individual card essays. We will discuss them if they add value to our understanding.

[Starlight]

6 hours ago, Barleywine said:

The Hebrew letters were assigned to the Major Arcana cards as a way to tie them into the paths on the Tree of Life.

I must have missed this, or haven't grasped what I've read, but why have Hebrew letters attached to them? Do the letters mean something other than just the letternames?

Edited July 28, 2019 by Starlight

[Barleywine]

2 hours ago, Starlight said:

I must have missed this, or haven't grasped what I've read, but why have Hebrew letters attached to them? Do the letters mean something other than just the letternames?

The best place to go to understand the connection of the Hebrew letters to the Major Arcana is Paul Foster Case's book The Tarot, Key to the Wisdom of the Ages. The assumption that the letters and the cards have a common root is most likely fanciful and based simply on the fact that there 22 of each, which some scholars believe is coincidental. There is deep Golden-Dawn-based symbolism behind the connection that Case does a good job of explaining, but Crowley as usual assumes his readers are already somewhat versed in the subjects he's presenting.

[Starlight]

On 7/28/2019 at 6:40 PM, Barleywine said:

The assumption that the letters and the cards have a common root is most likely fanciful and based simply on the fact that there 22 of each, which some scholars believe is coincidental.

Thanks, @Barleywine. I'd forgotten that about the 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. I'll put Paul Foster Case's book into my to be read wishlist. 🙂

[Starlight]

Hi @Barleywine - is there anything you'd like us to discuss further to the section we last read?