Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!opentext.com!ia.mks.com!zephyr!info.ucla.edu!galaxy.ucr.edu!proton.llumc.edu!news.cerf.net!usc!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!pipeline!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!news.worldlink.com!usenet From: "Istvan Dragosani" Newsgroups: alt.tarot,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.divination,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.thelema,alt.thelema,alt.magick.order Subject: Re: Reading Crowley (Was Re: Zeigler's books on Thoth deck) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 10:50:18 -0800 Organization: FOI Services, Inc. Lines: 38 Sender: p01335@psilink.com Message-ID: <3026572591.2.p01335@psilink.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: worldlink.com In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.6.2) Xref: shell.portal.com alt.tarot:3527 alt.magick.tyagi:5049 alt.magick:59479 alt.divination:6117 talk.religion.misc:189309 alt.magick.order:719 >DATE: 26 Nov 1995 18:26:17 GMT >FROM: wizard > >My suggestions, therefore, is to get at least a beginning grounding in >basic Tarot ideas. Read a few of the books on the subject--especially >books by P.F. Case and _The Qabbalistic Tarot_ by Wang. I would also >suggest Buttler's odd book, _Dictionary of the Tarot_ . The three massive >Encyclopedia volumes by Kaplan are also excellent. I would also suggest >reading Crowley's autobiography, Regardie's _Eye in the Triangle_ and one >of Symmonds versions of his bio of Crowley. A good introduction to >Kabalistic theory would be helpful, too. I do think that the _Book of >Thoth_ is one of Crowley's better books (and the fact that it was also one >of his last disproves the lie that he had become a mindless, drug-addled >fool during his last days) and should be studied with or without the >cards. I read an interesting article recently by the late Alan Watts entitled "The Cross of Cards". While Watts actually is looking at a modern deck of cards (the kind used for poker), he does make reference to the Tarot. Then, what he does is take his deck of cards and lay them out in a cross, starting with the 2 and proceeding inwards to the Ace, each arm of the cross being a different suit. Then he goes through and starts developing a *very* interesting interpretation of the entire deck with this spread. He does say that this is his own personal ideas, and does not represent any standard or definitive interpretation other than just his own. It's quite fascinating, and, in the end, rather Thelemic, even though he does not use the standard terminology, but the spirit is definitely there. I found this article in a compendium of some of Watts early writings entitled "The Modern Mystic". I highly recommend his writings to all. Istvan Dragosani | There is only one difference bmccoy@capaccess.org | between myself and a madman, Disciple of the Eastern Mysteries of | and that is both Love and War | I am not mad