Tarot Card Games and Crypto Jews
catherine yronwode
http://www.cryptojews.com/card_playing_to_hide_jewish_iden.htm
comes an article that may shed light on the commonly held Hermetic
belief that tarot or tarocchi game cards contain hidden symbolism
relating to the Jewish Kabbalah.
The site from which this article is drawn is one that deals with
Ladino Crypto Jews, secret Jews living in Spanish and Portuguese
cultures who have hidden their Jewishness since the days of the
Catholic Inquisition.
CARD PLAYING TO HIDE JEWISH IDENTITY
by Art Benveniste
adapted from an articles in HaLapid, Summer 1999
In his presentation to the 1999 Society for Crypto Jewish Studies
Conference in Los Angeles, Seth Ward told of a woman from Northern New
Mexico whom he had interviewed. She was describing the Crypto Jewish
practices of her family and told about playing cards every September
with her Grandmother. Playing cards was an annual ritual of the family
that was somehow related to the Jewish High Holidays.
It reminded me of a story told by Rabbi Baruj Garzon of Spain:
Several years ago the Jewish community of Spain wanted to buy some
land in the Barcelona Area for a Jewish summer camp. Rabbi Garzon
drove there from Madrid to negotiate with the landowner. It was late
in September. A price was agreed on and the rabbi told the landowner
that he would go back to Madrid to talk with the Board of Directors
and they could sign the papers the following week.
Back in Madrid that evening, Garzon received a call from the man in
Barcelona. The landowner said that there were certain days the
following week when he could not sign the papers. The rabbi wrote down
the dates and went to bed. The next day he was about to put the dates
on his calendar when he noticed that they coincided with the Jewish
High Holidays. He called Barcelona and asked why the man could not
sign on those dates. He was told that the man's family had a "strange"
calendar and that there were some days each year when they did not
work or handle money. The rabbi asked what the family did on those
days. He was told that they played cards.
On checking the man's "strange" calendar for the next few years, he
found that the days always fell on the High Holidays. The man had no
explanation for the card playing.
Card Playing Disguises Prayer
The rabbi explained that during the time of the Inquisition, secret
Jews would gather for prayer by sitting around a table with cards on
the table and prayer books on their laps. When strangers came by they
would play cards and when they were alone they would turn to the
prayer books.
Last April I repeated this story at a talk I gave in Tucson,
Arizona. My presentation was reviewed in the Chronicle, and Emma Moya
of New Mexico got a copy of it. She writes:
"In Nuevo Mexico cards are called Barajas, [but] in other
southwestern areas the cards are called cartas. Our Academia Hebraica
in Albuquerque has researched and recorded the following information
that may or may not relate to Mr. Benveniste's statement in the
Chronicle: The word "baraja" alludes to the word "baraha", prayer in Hebrew."
In addition, recently I received an email from Judith Crystal
Pirkle, who described her family customs. She said:
"The stories passed down to me by my Mother and her family all
check out. Also the custom of playing cards on the Sabbath eve (Erev
Shabbat) was passed on through our family."
As the Mexican soldiers checked houses on Friday evening to make
sure no one was observing the Sabbath, the Crypto Jews played cards
and told Torah stories by using the cards. A heavy cloth was placed on
the table with a large candle burning; at bedtime the candle was
placed under the table so it could not be seen from the windows.
--------EOF--------
cat yronwode
John B
Thanks Catherine,
A lot of the articles on this site look like they may be of use to me
in my study of secrecy in religion. I have a friend who's studying the
conversos, and I'll ask her if she's familiar with the newsletter
these articles were reprinted from.
Anyway, thanks again,
JB
jk
> The site from which this article is drawn is one that deals with
> Ladino Crypto Jews, secret Jews living in Spanish and Portuguese
> cultures---
It is interesting that Jews would have used some kind of playing cards
to teach Torah, if that is in fact the case, but the tradition of
linking Tarot to Kabbalah began with the Egyptomaniacal theories of
French Freemasons:
http://jktarot.com/egyptomania.html
(jk)
************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
Tarot News:
http://www.jktarot.com/news.html
************************************
Joseph
jk wrote:
> catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message news:<3EBF0AD4...@luckymojo.com>...
>
> > The site from which this article is drawn is one that deals with
> > Ladino Crypto Jews, secret Jews living in Spanish and Portuguese
> > cultures---
>
> It is interesting that Jews would have used some kind of playing cards
> to teach Torah, if that is in fact the case, but the tradition of
> linking Tarot to Kabbalah began with the Egyptomaniacal theories of
> French Freemasons:
Are you deliberately squewing the meaning of the post or idid you just not read it all, the article
was about the use of the cards to hide or disguise or misdirect attention from an activity that had
nothing to do with tarot cards.
Joseph
Blazin' Tommy D.
"jk" <taro...@jktarot.com> wrote in message
news:ba8efff9.0305...@posting.google.com...
Lucky Mojo Curio Co.
>
> jk wrote:
>
> > catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The site from which this article is drawn is one that deals with
> > > Ladino Crypto Jews, secret Jews living in Spanish and Portuguese
> > > cultures---
> >
> > It is interesting that Jews would have used some kind of playing cards
> > to teach Torah, if that is in fact the case, but the tradition of
> > linking Tarot to Kabbalah began with the Egyptomaniacal theories of
>
> Are you deliberately skewing the meaning of the post or did you just not read
> it all? The article was about the use of the cards to hide or disguise or
> misdirect attention from an activity that had nothing to do with tarot cards.
The article was not written with specific respect to Tarot (tarocchi,
tarock) sets, but the TIMING is interesting. The Inquisition -- and
thus the Jewish use of playing cards to disguise Jewish prayer --
occurred BEFORE the Egyptomania craze. The expulsions and forced
conversions of Jews in Spanish-held lands dates to 1492, when tarocchi
was certainly in vogue. Also, note that the article in question
documents the practice of card-playing on both the Sabbath and the
Jewish High Holy Days as STILL occurring among Ladino Spanish Crypto
Jews at the present time, both in Madrid, Spain, and in New Mexico, USA.
Now consider your choices:
A) From 1492 down to the present day Ladino Crypto Jews have used
tarocchi (tarock) cards to hide their prayer and their Torah teachings
from Christians -- but the Hermetics, Freemasons, and/or Egyptophiles
did not have know this at all, and just fantasized or MADE UP the idea
that Jews used playing cards to disguise hidden spiritual lessons -- a
complete coincidence!
or
B) Some Hermetics, Freemasons, and/or Egyptophiles either knew Crypto
Jews or WERE Crypto Jews, and thus they told the truth when they said
that the Jews used tarocchi cards as guides to spiritual mysteries.
Choice (B) seems more logical to me than choice (A), simply because it
merely requires direct knowledge of something that would at that time
have been known to hundreds of thousands of Ladino Crypto Jews, while
choice (B) requires a very far-out yet highly accurate fantasy to have
been coincidentally true.
cat yronwode
Correspondence Course ------ http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocourse.html
jk
> jk wrote:
> > catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message news:<3EBF0AD4...@luckymojo.com>...
> > > The site from which this article is drawn is one that deals with
> > > Ladino Crypto Jews, secret Jews living in Spanish and Portuguese
> > > cultures---
> > It is interesting that Jews would have used some kind of playing cards
> > to teach Torah, if that is in fact the case, but the tradition of
> > linking Tarot to Kabbalah began with the Egyptomaniacal theories of
> > French Freemasons:
> Are you deliberately squewing---
You mean "skewing"? Or "squawing"? Anyway, no I'm not doing those
things, at least not in this particular instance.
> the meaning of the post or idid---
Or YOU did? That's sweet huh, the way your half-brain just freudianed
you in the ass without lube. Let's just hope that chunk of your
tumbling tower doesn't terminate any bystanders.
> you just not read it all, the article
> was about---
How fascinating that here, after YEARS of your betters showing you
that your perception of what things are about is hopelessly "squawed",
you would still be scratching at the lady's scroll like the miscreant
hobbit that you are. All your postings murmur---"precious, my
precious"---which is particularly amusing given that you can't even
blame the ring of power, which you have never seen much less
possessed, but only your parent's DNA (which I suppose could be
suggested to be the same thing), for your demented and logorrheic
apocryphallicizing.
> the use of the cards to hide or disguise or misdirect attention from
> an activity that had nothing to do with tarot cards.
> Joseph
OK, now try to follow along with the rest of the class Joey.
Catherine indicated in her posting that the information at the link
she provided "may shed light on the commonly held Hermetic belief that
tarot or tarocchi game cards contain hidden symbolism relating to the
Jewish Kabbalah."
Now, I know that your religion (of worshipping jk) calls for a
knee-jerk hatred of all things standard and ruled, and certainly all
things true, but the words "tarot" and "tarocchi" appear in her
posting. And they appear in a sentence talking about how the supposed
"misdirecting" might shed light on how the connection came to be made
between Tarot and Kabbalah. So, why then should anyone (actually
acquainted with reading English) think that my posting, offering an
alternative explanation to this "mystery", indicates I didn't read
Catherine's posting, OR the article she referenced?
Be specific.
Joseph
jkkk wrote:
> <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > jkkk wrote:
>
> > > catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message news:<3EBF0AD4...@luckymojo.com>...
>
> > > > The site from which this article is drawn is one that deals with
> > > > Ladino Crypto Jews, secret Jews living in Spanish and Portuguese
> > > > cultures---
>
> > > It is interesting that Jews would have used some kind of playing cards
> > > to teach Torah, if that is in fact the case, but the tradition of
> > > linking Tarot to Kabbalah began with the Egyptomaniacal theories of
> > > French Freemasons:
>
> > Are you deliberately squewing---
>
> You mean "skewing"? Or "squawing"? Anyway, no I'm not doing those
> things, at least not in this particular instance.
>
> > the meaning of the post or idid---
>
> Or YOU did? That's sweet huh, the way your half-brain just freudianed
> you in the ass without lube. Let's just hope that chunk of your
> tumbling tower doesn't terminate any bystanders.
your obssession withtypos is no excuse for your diveant perso-anality you insist on demonstrating to the
world. if there was any reason to care what you think about any thing i would take more care with
editing my posts in responce to your babbeling but i am sympathetique enough to you plight to feel good
about leaving you something to complain about that has an actual measure of validity even if its
irrelevant of itself.
>
>
> > you just not read it all, the article
> > was about---
>
> How fascinating that here, after YEARS of your betters showing you
> that your perception of what things are about is hopelessly "squawed",
> you would still be scratching at the lady's scroll like the miscreant
> hobbit that you are.
Unimpressive, your inability to speak to the subject is not in question,
> All your postings murmur---"precious, my
> precious"---which is particularly amusing given that you can't even
> blame the ring of power, which you have never seen much less
> possessed, but only your parent's DNA (which I suppose could be
> suggested to be the same thing), for your demented and logorrheic
> apocryphallicizing.
Hmmmm...im beggining to wonder if your accustaions of adoration may be a subtle plea for help, are you
really that enamoured of me that you have to try to impress with lugubrious prose?
>
>
> > the use of the cards to hide or disguise or misdirect attention from
> > an activity that had nothing to do with tarot cards.
>
> > Joseph
>
> OK, now try to follow along with the rest of the class Joey.
>
> Catherine indicated in her posting that the information at the link
> she provided "may shed light on the commonly held Hermetic belief that
> tarot or tarocchi game cards contain hidden symbolism relating to the
> Jewish Kabbalah."
>
> Now, I know that your religion (of worshipping jk) calls for a
> knee-jerk hatred of all things standard and ruled, and certainly all
> things true, but the words "tarot" and "tarocchi" appear in her
> posting. And they appear in a sentence talking about how the supposed
> "misdirecting" might shed light on how the connection came to be made
> between Tarot and Kabbalah. So, why then should anyone (actually
> acquainted with reading English) think that my posting, offering an
> alternative explanation to this "mystery", indicates I didn't read
> Catherine's posting, OR the article she referenced?
because you stated that her post was about that and it was not, it was about using cards of whatever
sort to disquise the fact of reading their book, dont squirm so jkkk, it cheapens image of the evil
wicked fluff bunny of alt tarot that you try so mightly to uphold.
>
J.
jk
> The article was not written with specific respect to Tarot (tarocchi,
> tarock) sets---
> , but the TIMING is interesting. The Inquisition -- and
> thus the Jewish use of playing cards to disguise Jewish prayer --
> occurred BEFORE the Egyptomania craze.
You mean before the documentary evidence of Egyptomania influencing
Tarot is established as a fact. But that doesn't by any means indicate
it is likely that this Jewish use of playing cards contributed to the
occultist interpretation of Tarot involving Kabbalah. I do think it is
interesting, and contributes to a small body of evidence I've been
gathering and considering for some time, for example:
http://jktarot.com/tarmag16.html
---which evidence points to some kind of mystical-magickal use or
interpretation of playing cards much earlier than the 18th-century
origin of occult Tarot.
But the interpretation of the data you wish to supply has a serious
problem---
> The expulsions and forced conversions of Jews in
> Spanish-held lands dates to 1492, when tarocchi
> was certainly in vogue.
But not in Spain. Spain didn't have much (or any) Tarot tradition of
game play for centuries and only in the last 100 years or so did they
start producing Spanish Tarots and these chiefly as fortune-telling
decks.
So it's almost a certainty that the decks these Spanish Crypto-Jews
were using were not Tarots.
Given that, the rest of your conjecture needs much more connective
tissue than you can supply.
> Now consider your choices:
There are more choices than you offer, or dictate.
> A) From 1492 down to the present day Ladino Crypto Jews have used
> tarocchi (tarock) cards---
Nowhere in the article is this stated. Unless you know for a fact that
this is true, why are you suddenly affirming something as a fact which
can only be a very thin conjecture on your part?
> to hide their prayer and their Torah teachings
> from Christians -- but the Hermetics, Freemasons, and/or Egyptophiles
> did not have know this at all---
Isn't it true that you also don't know "this" at all?
> , and just fantasized or MADE UP the idea that Jews used
> playing cards to disguise hidden spiritual lessons -- a
> complete coincidence!
No, a perfectly understandable development, happily apart from the
conjecture you offer, as I explain here:
http://jktarot.com/tegyptomania.html
> or
> B) Some Hermetics, Freemasons, and/or Egyptophiles either
> knew Crypto Jews or WERE Crypto Jews, and thus they told
> the truth when they said that the Jews used tarocchi cards
> as guides to spiritual mysteries.
What occultists said that?
> Choice (B) seems more logical to me than choice (A)---
No doubt since you've been in charge (in your postings anyway) of
characterizing and doling out the choices.
> simply because it merely requires direct knowledge of something
> that would at that time have been known to hundreds of thousands
> of Ladino Crypto Jews---
You have not established this. You can not then claim your conclusion
or reasoning is based in logic.
jk
---------
> , and just fantasized or MADE UP the idea that Jews used
> playing cards to disguise hidden spiritual lessons -- a
> complete coincidence!
No, a perfectly understandable development, happily apart from the
conjecture you offer, as I explain here:
---------
Should read:
Catherine Yronwode
> > It is interesting that Jews would have used some kind of playing cards
> > to teach Torah, if that is in fact the case, but the tradition of
> > linking Tarot to Kabbalah began with the Egyptomaniacal theories of
> > French Freemasons:
I used to believe as you do about this, Jess: I took a rationalist
viewpoint, that i since i could see no logical reason why the Kabbalah
was linked to playing cards (tarocchi or tarock decks), it was logical
to assume that any such claimed the linkage was a fantasy on the part
of Hermetic Egyptomaniacs.
The article cited at the beginning of this discussion is the very
first link i have seen between Jewish religious teaching and playing
cards.
The article dates to 1999. The research is fairly recent.
The mention of this linkage arose OUTSIDE the realm of Tarot
scholarship -- and in the much more staid and less-fantasy-prone realm
of Crypto Jewish scholarship.
The mention of this linkage did not arise with reference to tarot
cards per se -- but tarocchi / trionfi / tarock games were and are in
the region where Jews were forced to convert or become Crypto Jews.
Further, i believe that the linkage between these card decks and the
teaching of the Torah as revealed in the study of Crypto Jewish
history makes sense of the seemingly senseless connection between the
cards and Kabbalah that first entered the field of occultism during
the Hermetic revival period.
One of the most convincing points in this argument to me is that the
origin of the linkage between playing cards and Crypto Jewish
religious practices is both dated and located appropriately -- namely,
to 1492, the year of the Spanish expulsion of the Jews from all
regions they controlled, including Sicily in Italy. I say that this is
"appropriate" in date and location because the date falls well after
the invention of tarocchi as a game and Sicily is well within the
expected spread of tarocchi card decks throughout Italy, including
those Italian regions controlled by Spain at the time and thus under
the Spanish edict of Jewish expulsion.
Side note -- Sea-faring Jewish merchants regularly travelled the
Mediterranean, from Spain and Portugal to Sicily and Malta and thence
to Cairo and Tunisia. In Malta and portions of Sicily at the time of
the expulsion, the Jewish population in some municipalities was 1/3 of
the total number of residents, and local officials appealed to Spain
to make an exception against the expulsion order, for fear of
destroying the social infrastructure. The Spanish King refused,
insisting that all Jews in Spanish-controlled Italy be converted or
expelled. Thus the number of Crypto Jews in Sicily and Malta was quite
large and the practice of using tarocchi cards as a disguise for
religious services was probably quite widespread.
The fact that the custom of using playing cards as religious tools
persists among Crypto Jews to this day -- 500 years after its origin
-- indicates that it was a widely-based practice and, very
importantly, also means that it was still an ongoing practice during
the period that the Egyptomania Hermetic craze took hold.
> Catherine indicated in her posting that the information at the link
> she provided "may shed light on the commonly held Hermetic belief that
> tarot or tarocchi game cards contain hidden symbolism relating to the
> Jewish Kabbalah."
Yes, and i will now go a step farther, Jess.
Based on this new information (new to me -- and apparently new to the
world of tarot research, since i have not encountered it anywhere
except in scholarship about Crypto Jews) i am now radically reversing
my stand on the origins of what i considered to be a "myth" on the
part of Hermetic authors.
In short, i now think that the Hermetics were telling something very
close to the truth. In short, i now believe that the association of
tarocchi cards with Jewish mysticism predated the rise of the
occult-Egyptomania craze and that the authors who partook of this
craze were merely repeating something true.
I now believe that the only fantasy component in the Hermetic tale as
i was taught it in the 1960s was that the cards were *invented* to
display occult truths. I think, rather, based on the date of the
earliest tarocchi decks and the date of the Spanish order of
expulsion, that Jews *adapted* the cards for use to disguise prayers
and religious teachings.
The fact that a specific and unique Ladino word for playing cards -
"barajas" -- exists in New Mexico among Crypto Jews, when the rest of
the Spanish-speaking world calls these objects "cartas" is a very
suggestive lead, as was noted in the article, where is was stated that
the Academia Hebraica in Albuquerque, NM, had identified the word
"baraja" with the Hebrew word "baraha," meaning "prayer," based on the
use of these cards to disguise prayer on the Sabbath.
This leaves only one link incomplete -- the jump from the known
teaching of Torah and/or the observance of Jewish prayer via playing
cards to the not-yet-proven teaching of Jewish mystical Kabbalah via
playing cards. However, given the early date of 1492 for the start of
the custom of using tarocchi to teach Torah, i think that the link to
Kabbalah can be safely assumed, for Kabbalah did not fall out of
favour among Jews until the rise of the Enlightenment philosophy, and
in the 15th and 16th centuries Kabbalistic teachings such as the
numerological "decoding" of "Bereshith" (the first word in the Book of
Genesis) were an intimate part of the religious training of Jews.
Finally, we have the question of the "Egyptian" connection to tarot.
Why Egypt?
I suggest that if you wish to look into this further, from a
researcher's point of view rather than a dogmatist's, you study the
matter of the Geniza in the Cairo synagogue.
Allow me to point the way, if not to lead the scholarly expedition:
It was common Jewish belief prior to the 19th century (and is still
held true among some Jews) that any piece of paper upon which any one
of the names of Gç–‹ has been inscribed or indicted or engraved must
not be thrown away as rubbish, even if the paper is no longer of use
or too worn for use. Thus old Torah scrolls are not tossed in the
garbage, nor are written prayers -- nor, in the Medieval and
Renaissance period -- were personal letters in which a prayer was
made. A letter, for instance, in which one wrote to one's merchant son
who was plying the Mediterranean trade, "I miss you, my dear, but Gç–‹
willing we will meet again when you return home from your voyage" was
not to be thrown out, because the name of Gç–‹ was on it.
As Jews were being expelled from place after place in the wake of the
Spanish edict of 1492, there was one repository where old Torah
scrolls, prayers -- and other old paper upon which Gç–‹'s name appeared
-- were sent. This was the Geniza in the Cairo synagogue -- an upper
room or loft area into which the papers were cast, thus allowing them
to remain on holy ground. The Jews had not been expelled from Cairo,
and thus this was a safe place to send worn-out papers of holy
significance.
The Geniza was first opened to scholars in the late 19th century, and
among the treasures found there were early Essene Jewish sect versions
of the Torah (equivalent to those later found at Qumran near the Dead
Sea). The material in the Geniza was jumbled, tumbled, many centuries
old, and had never been "preserved," only stored. It was continually
being eaten by rats and continually being replenished by new deposits.
Scholarship in the Geniza originally centered on religious scrolls --
early versions of the Torah. Only later did the matter of Medieval
prayers, Kabbalistic speculations, and personal correspondence even
become of interest. By then much of the material had been mauled and
damaged in picking over the trove for Torah scrolls. The full extent
of the Geniza holdings -- more than a millennia's worth of discarded
documents -- will never be known.
Now, what is of interest here to me is this: The fact that these
holdings exist at all indicates that during the period after the order
of expulsion, Jews were in the habit of depositing sacred religious
writings whose possession meant a death sentence in Cairo. Egypt was
not the home of the Jews or the tarot, but to Crypto Jews who no
longer had their own synagogues, Egypt was the one safe place that
worn-out Torah scrolls -- and other papers -- could be sent.
This is just a hint of where a diligent researcher could go in
following up the idea of why the tarot cards were simultaneously said
to contain Jewish mystical teachings and to come from Egypt. The
extent of the social data (as opposed to religious data) to be gleaned
from the Geniza holdings is only now becoming apparent, as we see by
the fact that scholars have published such books as "A Mediterranean
Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the
Documents of the Cairo Geniza" (in four volumes). In other words, this
is a new field, and research is still ongoing.
It's a vague lead, of course, but it does hint at a manner in which
one may take into account an actual (not fantasy) history of Crypto
Jewish involvement with tarocchi cards and connect three seemingly
unrelated things: Egypt - Jews - the use of playing cards as religious
artifacts.
I hope that that people interested in the history of the tarot give
some consideration to these matters.
I do not expect anyone to reverse their opinion, as i have -- and
conclude immediately that the seemingly anti-rationalist Hermetic
"fantasy" that the tarot contains Kabbalistic teachings was actually
based on facts surrounding the use of playing cards by Crypto Jews as
"baraja" (prayers).
I do hope, however, that in any debate that results from this opening
of a new area of research it is is understood that i am not in any way
proposing to revive the outworn Hermetic fantasies that "the tarot was
created in ancient Egypt" or "the tarot was created by Jewish
Kabbalists."
Rather, i am proposing that it now seems quite realistic to suppose
that after the 1492 decree of expulsion of all Jews from Spanish-held
lands -- including territories in Italy, where tarocchi was invented
-- the Jews did indeed adopt the use of these playing cards to
promulgate religious and mystical teachings. Further, i propose that
the pun on torah/tarot is probably quite old, and that the
Egyptophilic Hermetics who claimed that "the tarot contains hidden
Jewish wisdom" were basing their opinions on contact with or knowledge
of the Crypto Jewish use of tarocchi cards as disguises for prayer and
religious education.
cat yronwode
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/catalogue.html
Send e-mail with your street address to cata...@luckymojo.com
and receive our free catalogue of hoodoo supplies and amulets
Catherine Yronwode
I covered this objection in part (3) in this thread, just posted.
Briefly, major portions of Italy were ruled by Spain at that time and
thus the order of expulsion extended there.
In some municipalities in Sicily and Malta, 1/3 of the population was
Jewish. The Jews of Messina were said to be one of the largest
settlements of Jews anywhere. Messina is in Italy but was ruled by
Spain and thus the Jews there had to convert or face expulsion. Also,
there were numerous Jews in Ferrara, Italy, where they were protected,
but from whence they sent financial aid to the Jews of Sicily, many of
whom became Crypto Jews. Many Italian Jews were merchants and
travelled widely along regular routes of trade between Italy, Malta,
Tunisia, Cairo, Spain, and Lisbon.
For documentation via the web, search on Jews of Messina, Jews of
Italy, History of Jews in Sicily, Crypto Jews in Sicily, Jews in
Malta, Jews of Ferrara, and so forth. There is a wealth of
information.
Catherine Yronwode
>
> The link for this part:
>
> > , and just fantasized or MADE UP the idea that Jews used
> > playing cards to disguise hidden spiritual lessons -- a
> > complete coincidence!
>
> No, a perfectly understandable development, happily apart from the
> conjecture you offer, as I explain here:
>
> http://jktarot.com/egyptomania.html
I have read your essay, Jess, and i believe that it provides good
background on the rise of the "Egyptianization" myths surrounding
tarot.
But it does not provide a meaningful look at why the *Kabbalah* (which
is not Egyptian, but Jewish) was also said to be encoded in the tarot
by occultists of that and even more recent periods.
If it can be demonstrated that the tarot is not Egyptian, which you do
quite handily, in my opinion, then it follows that even if one
believes Judaism to be Egyptian in character (WHICH I DO NOT), you
will have just debunked the Jewish mystical link to the tarot.
Hence i return to my theory -- and, as you note, it is *apart* from
the conjecture you offer:
It is known that around 1492, Crypto Jews -- while under Spanish legal
injunction to convert to Christianity or face expulsion from all
regions in Italy then ruled by Spain -- developed a practice of using
playing cards to cover or disguise the teaching of Torah and the
recital of prayers on the Sabbath and at the Jewish High Holy Days.
It is known that this practice continues to the present day among
Crypto Jews in Spain and New Mexico at least, and perhaps elsewhere.
It is therefore evident that this practice existed in the era of the
Hermetic revival.
Hence it is possible -- even likely -- that knowledge of the Crypto
Jewish practice of employing tarocchi cards as covers for
religio-mystical teachings gave rise to the Hermetic revival notion
that the Kabbalah was somehow contained within and/or linked to and/or
encoded in tarot cards.
Accepting one theory does not require the dismissal of the other. In
fact, the two theories -- the Egyptomania theory of tarot and the
Crypto Jewish theory of tarot -- work hand-in-hand to help define why
the Hermetic revival embraced the far-reaching conclusion that both
the Egyptian Book of Thoth AND the Jewish Kabbalah were concealed
within the tarot.
The former was, as you submit and i concur, sheer fantasy.
The latter was, as it now seems to me, factual, at least in a sense. I
do not believe that the tarot was created to embody Jewish teachings,
as some Hermetics stated, but it seems possible -- even likely -- that
an adaptation of the tarot to Jewish mystical and religious uses was
propagated after 1492 and during the subsequent centuries preceding
the Hermetic revival among Crypto Jews in the circum-Mediterranean
region.
John B
This is interesting to me. Do you think there's some possibility that
there was confusion ( either among occultists, scholars or Jewish
people themselves) between the cards association with esoteric Judaism
in the sense of a judaism that is itself an inner teaching among
forceably converted christians, and the traditional contents of
esoteric Judaism,ie. mystical tradition of the kaballah?
I don't know enough about the historical development of the
association between the tarot and the Kabbalah to speculate on this.
Do the tarot associations bear the hallmarks of the christian
appropriation of Kabbalistic lore, or do they seem like they could
have been developed by Rabbis and Jewish scholars? How likely is it
that occultists or Jewish kabbalists would have even been aware of the
strategies adopted by crypto-Jews?
JB
Blazin' Tommy D.
http://www.ok.org/homemaker/shavuos_57/cover.html
http://www.efn.org/~rstein/halacha/myst.htm
The theory as I understand it is that Gypsies carried the tarot with them
from Egypt hence the name Gypsies, so there you get into the issue of which
influenced, the Alexandrian religious thing, the worship of Isis is a better
religion than Judaism, Xtianity is the better evolution from both, &c., &c
and finally whether Kabbalah is actually a part of Judaism or is something
that was invented by non-Jews inter alia to discredit Judaism. Because the
OTO and perhaps the Golden Dawn set out to exploit white supremacy and
anti-Judaic sentiment in Germany Western Magical tradition is tinctured with
this sort of Conservative party bullshit as Nazis are always looking for
something to justify their bigotry -e.g., the real god/gods intended it that
way, &c. It's unfortunate because it's unnecessary and like the war against
the Iraqi civilians many people opposed it merely because they blamed Israel
for causing it - the old Billy Graham Richard M. Nixon "stranglehold on
America" bullshit all of which is really baby shit distraction.
In any event few persons posting to this group having studied the issue will
argue that the magical traditions used the tree of life and some ideas from
Kabbalah for whatever reasons which someone like Bill Heidrick or Poke
Runyon could probably better explain than me, but according to Michel
Abehsera (see article above) he set out to study Kabbalah in Jerusalem so
Kabbalah is definitely a Jewish thing whether we stole it from one of
Adolf's napkins or not.
The only question then is how much of this having to do with tarot is
actually Jewish -e.g., is the symbolism employed in the Waite-Rider deck
something Jewish or does the symbolism refer to something else. If the
latter then the whole idea with tarot cards and what symbolism they actually
employed might be a hoax appended to give this new Aryan approach the
appearance of historical credibility. Pokey for example seems to believe
that Jews that study the Kabbalah are closest idolaters worshipping the
Assyrian gods and keeping it all secret under color of monotheism while
depriving the rest of the world the same. I had an uncle that was a
communist, believe me, I've heard it all.
Personally I think that any sort of system of symbols that may be used to
communicate ideas is interesting - which for example the Waite-Rider deck
does - and has potential for being useful, so it doesn't really matter when
it is/was invented, no one has enough time in one lifetime (all we have) to
find out, so fuck it. Life is too short. If it doesn't make sense move on to
something else that will and get comfortable with it death comes soon
enough.
"John B" <John_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b200936a.03051...@posting.google.com...
jk
> jk wrote:
>>> but the tradition of linking Tarot to Kabbalah began with the
>>> Egyptomaniacal theories of French Freemasons:
> I used to believe as you do about this, Jess: I took a rationalist
> viewpoint---
As opposed to what, an irrationalist viewpoint? Being irrational
is certainly a Tarot tradition, but it isn't useful in determining
the facts of history, including the history of Tarot.
> , that i since i could see no logical reason why the Kabbalah
> was linked to playing cards (tarocchi or tarock decks)---
There is a logical reason why the Kabbalah was
linked to Tarot (which is a peculiar kind of playing cards),
and that reason is evident to people who know something
about Tarot and Kabbalah---they share a numerical motif
of twenty-two symbols. That alone is sufficient to explain
why people, already given to making metaphysical speculations
about the meanings of Tarot's "mysterious" trumps, would
make the Kabbalistic connection.
This tendency is strengthened when you consider who made
the connection---i.e., people already invested in Egyptian
(or Egyptomaniacal) and Apocalyptic dogmas, the very
Freemasons who invented occult Tarot.
That is not a conjecture. That is a fact.
> , it was logical to assume that any such claimed the linkage
> was a fantasy on the part of Hermetic Egyptomaniacs.
It's only logical to conclude that IF you've got evidence
to support that conclusion. That same rule governs your
conjecturing. And you have not met even the least rigorous
standard for supplying convincing evidence for your claim.
You have instead invented a story to fit the absence of
any supporting facts for your conjecture.
> The article cited at the beginning of this discussion---
---also offers conjectures, not fact-based arguments. That some
people have some stories about some behaviors, or even if
they presently exhibit those behaviors, is simply insufficient
evidence to support the claims you're making about what those
stories or behaviors indicate. You are acting like the occultists
who invented the Egyptian Tarot mythology. They also weren't
good historians.
> The mention of this linkage arose OUTSIDE the realm of Tarot
> scholarship --
And as you yourself admit---IT DOESN'T MENTION TAROT.
You need first to address that glaring shortcoming of your
conjectures.
The answer, or dodge, you've manufactured, is again insufficient.
> and in the much more staid and less-fantasy-prone realm
> of Crypto Jewish scholarship.
How much Crypto-Jewish scholarship have you actually read?
Perhaps the lack of mention of the use by Crypto-Jews
of Tarot cards is the result of this avoidance of
fantasy in that field of study. You might try emulating
that cautious approach.
> The mention of this linkage did not arise with reference to tarot
> cards per se -- but tarocchi / trionfi / tarock games were and are in
> the region where Jews were forced to convert or become Crypto Jews.
Once again, Tarot wasn't produced in Spain until lately, and
that's because there is no tradition of Tarot game play in
Spain. They have plenty of other card games, using the
distinctive Spanish cards (which look different from
Italian and French cards), but Tarot never caught on
in Spain until it was adopted, as it was in the
UK and the United States, as a fortune-telling
deck.
So, what you would have us believe is that---
1. Jews wished to mask their true beliefs by hiding
a Jewish practice under the guise of playing cards.
2. The deck of cards (Tarot) they chose for this purpose
was rare in Spain, and so likely to draw attention to its
users for that reason alone.
3. If only or mainly Jews or Crypto Jews used Tarot, again
a rare deck of cards in Spain, for this purpose, eventually
that fact would have been discerned by the Inquisition (which
is after all our source for much of the information concerning
the practices of Crypto Jews). In other words, if Crypto Jews
used Tarots it might have marked them as Crypto Jews
in a way that using regular Spanish card decks would not
have done.
You have offered NO evidence to support the idea that
the cards these Jews were supposedly using were Tarot
cards.
No evidence is an insufficient amount.
> Further, i believe that the linkage between these card decks and the
> teaching of the Torah as revealed in the study of Crypto Jewish
> history---
First off, what is revealed in the "study" is merely a claim
about this, nothing documented, and it is claimed to be a
family custom, not a regional one. So we don't have any
indication this practice (of teaching Torah with playing
cards) was widespread, nor even that it was actually
something inherited as a tradition from centuries earlier.
> makes sense of the seemingly senseless connection between the
> cards and Kabbalah---
Again, the connection between Tarot and Kabbalah is not senseless.
It is simply not accurate with respect to the historical basis claimed
for it by occultists.
In fact, the reason the connection was made was that it
was so obvious, so attractive to make it. It didn't require
much pondering, or even irrational guesswork, to SEE it.
But it did require more skepticism to confirm it than
occultists were usually prepared to use.
> One of the most convincing points in this argument to me is that the
> origin of the linkage between playing cards and Crypto Jewish
> religious practices is both dated and located appropriately -- namely,
> to 1492, the year of the Spanish expulsion of the Jews from all
> regions they controlled, including Sicily in Italy.
But you're talking here about people who were Crypto Jews,
so people who presumably wouldn't have been expelled because
they were pretending NOT to be Jews.
> I say that this is "appropriate" in date and location because
> the date falls well after the invention of tarocchi as a game
> and Sicily is well within the expected spread of tarocchi card
> decks throughout Italy, including those Italian regions controlled
> by Spain at the time and thus under the Spanish edict of
> Jewish expulsion.
So what exactly is it you're trying to say happened?
Be very specific.
> Side note -- Sea-faring Jewish merchants regularly travelled the
> Mediterranean---
But that doesn't mean any of them were engaged in transporting
Tarot decks to Spanish Crypto Jews, especially for the purposes
you wish to claim.
Again, you offer NO evidence, merely baseless conjecture.
> The fact that the custom of using playing cards as religious tools
> persists among Crypto Jews to this day --
It has not been demonstrated that this is a widespread or
persistent practice among Crypto Jews, or any Jews.
> 500 years after its origin---
That also has not been demonstrated. You are inventing fiction,
not offering historical speculation.
Again, no facts, the amount you're supplying here, is
insufficient.
> -- indicates that it was a widely-based practice---
If your fiction were true in all particulars it might
indicate this, yes, but your fiction is only that,
a baseless conjecture.
>> Catherine indicated in her posting that the information at the
>> link she provided "may shed light on the commonly held
>> Hermetic belief that tarot or tarocchi game cards contain
>> hidden symbolism relating to the Jewish Kabbalah."
> Yes, and i will now go a step farther, Jess.
Why?
You have offered absolutely no evidence to build any additional
steps to your initial baseless conjecture.
> Based on this new information (new to me -- and apparently new to the
> world of tarot research, since i have not encountered it anywhere
> except in scholarship about Crypto Jews)---
"this new information" is your invention, not anything supported
by the article whose link you provided.
> i am now radically reversing my stand on the origins of what
> i considered to be a "myth" on the part of Hermetic authors.
Other than the confessional content, which perhaps has
relevance on some "support" group somewhere, the value of
this reversal is not evident with respect to enlightening
anyone concerning Tarot history.
> In short, i now think that the Hermetics---
Which "Hermetics"?
Be specific.
> In short, i now believe that the association of
> tarocchi cards with Jewish mysticism predated the rise of the
> occult-Egyptomania craze---
Catherine, you don't even understand the meaning of the
terms you're attempting to employ, nor their historical
relevance. You're talking ignorantly about things which
only interest you to the extent you're being given a public
correction here. That correction will not cease merely
because your exploitation of your own ignorance expands
in scope from the merely questionable to the ludicrous.
> I now believe---
What you believe is really not that interesting or
pertinent to the issues you pretend to address.
What you can document, what you can support with facts
and educated analyses, MIGHT be welcome, but that's not
what you're offering.
> The fact that a specific and unique Ladino word for playing cards -
> "barajas" -- exists in New Mexico among Crypto Jews, when the rest of
> the Spanish-speaking world calls these objects "cartas"---
The "rest of the Spanish-speaking world" is quite large
and varied and uses forms of baraj- to indicate several
card-playing ideas, including decks and shuffling. I've
not checked the etymology but I doubt it's Hebrew in
origin.
> This leaves only one link incomplete --
Yes, and using your approach you should be able to
also demonstrate the existence of Bigfoot-prints
on the ocean floor in the middle of the Bermuda
Triangle. No doubt some Atlantean connection can
be made to this amazing (but also baseless) claim.
> the jump from the known teaching of Torah and/or the
> observance of Jewish prayer via playing cards to the
> not-yet-proven teaching of Jewish mystical Kabbalah via
> playing cards.
No "jump" of this sort is required if you have not
supported your claims, and you haven't.
> However, given the early date of 1492 for the start of
> the custom of using tarocchi to teach Torah, i think that the link to
> Kabbalah can be safely assumed---
For nitwits, perhaps. Not for people seriously interested in
Tarot history. For the latter, "safety" is not merely a matter of
feeling good about one's latest imitation of Mary K. Greer---or Eric
von Daniken.
> Finally, we have the question of the "Egyptian" connection to tarot.
> Why Egypt?
http://jktarot.com/egyptomania.html
> I suggest that if you wish to look into this further, from a
> researcher's point of view rather than a dogmatist's---
But you ARE a dogmatist, and certainly not evidently any kind
of reliable researcher. The question of "why Egypt?" has been
convincingly answered already, without need of any Crypto
Jewish inspirations.
[long irrelevant bit snipped]
Catherine, let me make you a suggestion. By all means send your
ideas, with an appropriate summary of where you'd like to take
them, off to a publisher. And you'd better do it quickly before
someone steals your "research". I have no doubt your book about
the Crypto-Jewish origins of occult Tarot would be unduly popular.
I also have no doubt that jktarot.com will welcome the opportunity
to review it in torturously painstaking detail.
Catherine Yronwode
>
> Catherine Yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
> > jk wrote:
> How much Crypto-Jewish scholarship have you actually read?
A good deal. And you?
> > The mention of this linkage did not arise with reference to tarot
> > cards per se -- but tarocchi / trionfi / tarock games were and are in
> > the region where Jews were forced to convert or become Crypto Jews.
>
> Once again, Tarot wasn't produced in Spain until lately,
Once again (third time) you are making a mistake in thinking that
because the edict of expulsion that led to the formation of what is
now called Crypto Judaism was *promulgated* in Spain that it only
affected people *living in* Spain.
For the third time: At the time of the 1492 Jewish expulsion order,
Spain owned, ruled, controlled, had possession of, and enforced its
laws (including the expulsion order) in Sicily, which is, was, and
will be part of Italy, which is where tarocchi cards originated.
> and that's because there is no tradition of Tarot game play in Spain.
Irrelevant. Expelled Jews and Crypto Jews also lived in ITALY!!!!
That's because Spain ruled part of Italy.
> They have plenty of other card games, using the
> distinctive Spanish cards (which look different from
> Italian and French cards), but Tarot never caught on
> in Spain until it was adopted, as it was in the
> UK and the United States, as a fortune-telling
> deck.
Yes, and that is irrelevant.
I am not talking about Spain, but about ITALY.
Up to 1/3 of the population in some municipalities in Sicily and Malta
were Jewish at the time of the order to convert or die -- and hundreds
of thousands became Crypto Jews. I am not talking about Spain. I am
talking about Spanish-ruled ITALY.
> So, what you would have us believe is that---
>
> 1. Jews wished to mask their true beliefs by hiding
> a Jewish practice under the guise of playing cards.
I do not wish you "believe" it, i merely point you to scholarly
research in which it is mentioned as fact.
> 2. The deck of cards (Tarot) they chose for this purpose
> was rare in Spain, and so likely to draw attention to its
> users for that reason alone.
Get off the SPAIN thing, Jess. I am talking about ITALY, much of which
was ruled by Spain. I have been saying this for three days in at least
three previous posts and you have not even acknowledged that i have
written it.
> 3. If only or mainly Jews or Crypto Jews used Tarot, again
> a rare deck of cards in Spain,
Forget SPAIN, Jess. Think ITALY. Crypto Jews in ITALY. ITALY!!!!
> for this purpose, eventually
> that fact would have been discerned by the Inquisition (which
> is after all our source for much of the information concerning
> the practices of Crypto Jews).
The Inquisition may be YOUR source for information on Crypto Jews, but
it is not "our" source by any means.
The best research on Crypto Jews comes not from other sources, such as
post-Expulsion grave stone inscriptions, the persistence of Jewish
names in ostensibly Christianized families, the financial records of
charitable funds created to facilitate the repatriation and religious
retraining of Crypto Jewish families who were admitted into
Judaism-tolerant nations (e.g. Holland), personal papers and diaries,
and family reminiscences of Crypto Jewish practices. Although much of
this information is found only in print, there is some available on
the web, including a remarkable record of a Crypto Jewish gravestone
found in post-expulsion Italy. Check it out.
> In other words, if Crypto Jews
> used Tarots it might have marked them as Crypto Jews
> in a way that using regular Spanish card decks would not
> have done.
You are off in SPAIN again, Jess. I have been talking about ITALIAN
Crypto Jews. I thought you were educated enough to have known that
Spain ruled a large part of Italy, but when i saw that you were
unfamiliar with this, i mentioned it at once -- and yet, three posts
and three days later, you are still obsessing about SPAIN.
> You have offered NO evidence to support the idea that
> the cards these Jews were supposedly using were Tarot
> cards.
Beyond the fact that hundreds of thousands of Crypto Jews lived in
Italy, where the tarocchi cards were invented, i have not offered any
speculation, much less firm evidence. I made this quite clear at the
outset when i called this an interesting theory.
> > Further, i believe that the linkage between these card decks and the
> > teaching of the Torah as revealed in the study of Crypto Jewish
> > history---
>
> First off, what is revealed in the "study" is merely a claim
> about this, nothing documented, and it is claimed to be a
> family custom, not a regional one.
You have mistaken my use of the word "study" -- referring to the
entire field of Crypto Jewish historical research -- as a reference to
one article. Presumably you made this mistake because an article that
reports results is sometimes called a "study" in scientific circles --
but the article in question was not a scientific "study," it was an
"essay" -- and i was not referring to it at all when i spoke of "the
study of Crypto Jewish history." Rather, i was using the word "study"
as a verb -- the "studying" of the subject.
However, to your point, in the one article i mentioned, there is
documentation of the custom from Madrid, Spain, and Albuquerque, New
Mexico -- which seems not to be evidence of a mere "family" custom,
but rather of a widespread cultural practice.
> > One of the most convincing points in this argument to me is that the
> > origin of the linkage between playing cards and Crypto Jewish
> > religious practices is both dated and located appropriately -- namely,
> > to 1492, the year of the Spanish expulsion of the Jews from all
> > regions they controlled, including Sicily in Italy.
>
> But you're talking here about people who were Crypto Jews,
> so people who presumably wouldn't have been expelled because
> they were pretending NOT to be Jews.
I think you are less familiar with history than i assumed you were.
Let me recapitulate:
In 1492 the order of expulsion was put into effect in Spain. Jews
under Spanish rule in portions of Italy were required to either
convert or leave, taking only the clothes on their back. At that time
some left and others sincerely converted to Christianity. A third
group pretended to convert, and they are the Italian Crypto Jews. Some
of these Crypto Jews were later expelled anyway, on the grounds that
their conversions were insincere.
During this time of instability in the Jewish communities throughout
the circum-Mediterranean region, there was no one way to "be" a Crypto
Jew.
Some families adopted Crypto Jewish practices and then, when they
could safely remove to a new home in a friendlier nation (such as the
Netherlands) with their possessions intact, they resumed their Jewish
religion, even after a generation or two or three.
Other families were never able to relocate and their descendants
remained Crypto Jews for five centuries and are only now being
reintegrated into the Jewish community.
Still other families started out as Crypto Jews but gradually became
less and less Jewish in orientation, some even forgetting that they
had ever had Jewish forebears.
The potential for variant experiences from region to region and from
family to family is vaster than you seem to understand.
> You are inventing fiction, not offering historical speculation.
I am offering a theory. I am inviting intelligent scholarly people to
investigate it further.
> Catherine, let me make you a suggestion. By all means send your
> ideas, with an appropriate summary of where you'd like to take
> them, off to a publisher. And you'd better do it quickly before
> someone steals your "research". I have no doubt your book about
> the Crypto-Jewish origins of occult Tarot would be unduly popular.
I proposed a theory and hoped for dialogue with educated tarot
researchers and you think i am out to publish a book.
Do you think that all intellectual discourse must needs have
competition for a *publishing contract* at its root?
If so, you are a sad scholar indeed.
Let me make my position VERY clear to you, Jess:
My interest in this matter arose because my family is openly Jewish on
my German mother's side and there are two known Crypto Jewish surnames
(our of four surnames known) on my father's Sicilian side. While
researching Italian Crypto Jews, i found some remarkable material on
the use of playing cards to disguise Jewish religious teaching in
Crypto Jewish families. I shared it with those who might be better
able to make use of it than i.
Any motivation beyond that is your fantasy.
Are you interested in the subject, or only in name-calling and
sarcasm?
If you are interested in tarot research with respect to the Crypto
Jewish use of playing cards to disguise religious teachings and prayer
from 1492 to the present, you might suggest some other Italian forms
of playing cards that existed circa 1492, beyond tarocchi cards, that
might have been used by Crypto Jews
You might then theorize as to why people who had a 22 letter alphabet
and could thus see in the already-extant 22 tarocchi trumps a pretty
good "fit" for teaching their hidden heritage, would choose to utilize
a different form of Italian playing cards that lacked the coincidental
number-22 linkage.
Hoping for more light and less heat,
cat yronwode
Freemasonry for Women ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html
Juan Herberto
purpose was rare in Spain, and so likely to draw attention to its users
another? Just how common WERE playing cards of ANY sort in the late 15th
century ANYwhere? Perhaps you have a community-by-community analysis--
you're usually SO specific. Was it the habit of the all-seeing pawns of
inquisitors to stand by, taking notes, examining cards, recording
table-talk, etc; ie were these 'cops' also anthropologists? Did the
wandering snitches even know how to READ? Was the intrinsic behavior
considered at all? Do mummers play cards together?.. or only Solitaire?
Maybe you should stick to movie reviews- even when they suck, at least
there's some likelihood that you're dis-cussing something you may have
actually SEEN... ^..^
Got Problems?
Get RIDOVEM
John B
<snip>
>
> If you are interested in tarot research with respect to the Crypto
> Jewish use of playing cards to disguise religious teachings and prayer
> from 1492 to the present, you might suggest some other Italian forms
> of playing cards that existed circa 1492, beyond tarocchi cards, that
> might have been used by Crypto Jews
>
> You might then theorize as to why people who had a 22 letter alphabet
> and could thus see in the already-extant 22 tarocchi trumps a pretty
> good "fit" for teaching their hidden heritage, would choose to utilize
> a different form of Italian playing cards that lacked the coincidental
> number-22 linkage.
Hi Catherine,
I mentioned thread to some of the people in the Judaic Studies
program who are studying crypto jews and here are the questions or
comments they had:
- Most Jewish communities already possessed methods for restricting
access to information about the Kaballah, why would they adopt the
'card game' strategy?
- In the article mentioned, the use of the cards seems to be to
address the problem of concealing the reason for the gathering, rather
than the content. In other words the cards seem to be being used as a
blind to disguise the purpose of the assembly. Is there other evidence
that the cards actually have something to do with the practice of the
religion, or the teaching of the Torah beyond giving an excuse for
people to be sitting around a table together in the evening?
Those were the two recurring questions from people who know more
about this than I do. The general consensus seemed to be that any
number of strategies may have been used by communities under such
strain, but there didn't seem to be much hard information about the
promulgation of kabbalistic teachings in communities struggling to
conserve the minimum requirements of the jewish faith. But lack of
evidence is not evidence of a lack, as they say...
Hopefully you can shed some light on the questions my friends had.
JB
Joseph
John B wrote:
That was the impression i got from Cathrines original post, following the various responces it kept
occuring to me to wonder how orthodoxy would handle the proscription against "graven images".
Joseph
Catherine Yronwode
>
> Catherine Yronwode (c...@luckymojo.com) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > If you are interested in tarot research with respect to the Crypto
> > Jewish use of playing cards to disguise religious teachings and prayer
> > from 1492 to the present, you might suggest some other Italian forms
> > of playing cards that existed circa 1492, beyond tarocchi cards, that
> > might have been used by Crypto Jews
> >
> > You might then theorize as to why people who had a 22 letter alphabet
> > and could thus see in the already-extant 22 tarocchi trumps a pretty
> > good "fit" for teaching their hidden heritage, would choose to utilize
> > a different form of Italian playing cards that lacked the coincidental
> > number-22 linkage.
>
> Hi Catherine,
>
> program who are studying crypto Jews and here are the questions or
> comments they had:
>
> - Most Jewish communities already possessed methods for restricting
> access to information about the Kaballah, why would they adopt the
> 'card game' strategy?
I am not asserting that they did.
What i have been saying is that i believe that the currently widely
discredited Hermetic "myth" that "the Kabbalah is encoded in tarot
cards" may have arisen because Hermetic authors either were Crypto
Jews or knew Crypto Jews who were using playing cards to disguise
Torah teachings.
I was also contrasting the possibly real-life basis of this Hermetic
so-called myth with the entirely fabulous and utterly unsalvageable
Hermetic myth that the tarot cards arose in Ancient Egypt as the Book
if Thoth.
> - In the article mentioned, the use of the cards seems to be to
> address the problem of concealing the reason for the gathering, rather
> than the content. In other words the cards seem to be being used as a
> blind to disguise the purpose of the assembly. Is there other evidence
> that the cards actually have something to do with the practice of the
> religion, or the teaching of the Torah beyond giving an excuse for
> people to be sitting around a table together in the evening?
This is found in the article by Art Benveniste at
http://www.cryptojews.com/card_playing_to_hide_jewish_iden.htm
...an email from Judith Crystal Pirkle who described her family
customs.
She said: "The stories passed down to me by my Mother and her
family all
check out. Also the custom of playing cards on the Sabbath eve,
(Erev
Shabbat) was passed on through our family. As the Mexican soldiers
checked houses on Friday evening to make sure no one was observing the
Sabbath, the Crypto Jews played cards and told Torah stories by
using
the cards..."
The suggestive phrase is "told Torah stories by using the cards." What
is being stated is that there was a system in place of using specific
cards to relate to different portions of the Torah.
As Corey (hierony...@aol.com) mentions in another post in this
thread, such identifiation of cards with specific portions of
scripture has a counterpart in Christian tradition:
"...please consider the publishing of 'Curious and
Interesting Anecdotes', under the name "Louis Bras-de-Fer",
printed in 1778 in Belgium. It is the oldest specific reference
I can find of 'The Soldier's Almanack / Prayer Book', the story
that
relates playing cards to Christian doctrine.
Corey is referring to the oldest version of a prose-poem made popular
in the 20th century under the name "The Deck of Cards," which was
recorded by a variety of country and western singers, the most popular
being T. Texas Tyler, who had a huge hit with it during World War Two.
(Lyrics are at the end of this post.)
Of course, this Christian poem or half-sung recitation describing the
use of cards to teach Biblical stories originates in the 18th century,
about 300 years after the Crypto Jews presumeably began using the
technique. But Corey takes us even further back in time when he points
out that:
"...please consider the publishing of 'Curious and Interesting
Anecdotes', under the name "Louis Bras-de-Fer", printed in
1778 in Belgium. It is the oldest specific reference I can
find of 'The Soldier's Almanack / Prayer Book', the story that
relates playing cards to Christian doctrine.
"In 'The Encyclopedia of Tarot, Vol. 1', Stuart Kaplan writes, 'In
the sixteenth century, a book written by Jacob Cammerlander
described each pip card with its moral and spiritual
associations,"
referencing a book 'Kartenlosbuch', published by a M. Jacob
Cammerlander von Mentz that describes playing cards in religious
terms.
"The text is written in rhyme."
So via Cammerlander, we arrive at the 16th century for the earliest
known associatations being made between playingcards and spiritual
subjects. But a few questions remain: I have not seen the Cammerlander
book and i am unsure whether Kaplan explains whether the "moral and
spiritual associations" made by Cammerlander with respect to the cards
refer to the Torah (the "Old Testament" of Christians), or whether
there are Christian ("New Testament") associations included as well.
In either case, the 16th century closes 100 years after the order of
the expulsion of the Jews and the rise of Crypto Judaism in the late
15th century.
So, if we acknowledge that Art Benveniste has rediscovered a hidden
Crypto Jewish tradition, the Jewish people may legitimately be seen as
the earliest to make linkages or association between playing cards and
religious teachings -- and, even if they were not the only ones, and
Christians did it too, the fact that they did so still lends a factual
basis to the otherwse discredited Hermetic "myth" of the tarot as a
"cover" for Jewsih religious teachings.
> Those were the two recurring questions from people who know more
> about this than I do. The general consensus seemed to be that any
> number of strategies may have been used by communities under such
> strain, but there didn't seem to be much hard information about the
> promulgation of kabbalistic teachings in communities struggling to
> conserve the minimum requirements of the jewish faith. But lack of
> evidence is not evidence of a lack, as they say...
I agree -- and again, i want to make it clear that i am not asserting
that a complete system of Torah correspondences was in place, nor that
Kabbalah was being taught.
Rather, the fact that a association of playing cards with Judaism (or,
more properly Crypto Judaism) has a basis in history causes me to look
with fresh eyes upon the supposed "myth" of the Hermetic revival that
tarot contains encided Jewish mystical wisdom. The Hermetics may have
exaggerated or misinterpreted the role of cards vis-a-vis-Judaism, but
if the material presented in the article by Art Benveniste is true,
then the Hermetics seem to NOT have made up the story of a
relationship between the cards and Judaism out of whole cloth.
Now, here are the lyrics to "Deck of Cards" by T. Texas Tyler:
-----------------------------------------
The Deck of Cards
By T. Texas Tyler
During the North African campaign a bunch of soldier boys had been on
a long hike. They arrived in a little town called Cassino and the next
day
being Sunday, several of the boys went to church. After the chaplain
read the prayer, the text was taken up. Those of the boys who had
prayer
books took them out, but this one boy had only a deck of cards, so he
spread them out. The sergeant who commanded the boys saw the cards
and said "Soldier, put away those cards."
After the service was over, the soldier was taken prisoner and brought
before the provost marshal. The marshal said "Sergeant, why have you
brought this man here?"
"For playing cards in church, Sir."
"And what have you to say for yourself, Son?"
"Much, Sir", The soldier replied.
The marshal said "I hope so, for if not I shall punish you severely."
The soldier said "You see, Sir, I have been on the march for six days
and
I had neither bible nor prayer book, but I hope to satisfy you, Sir,
with
the purity of my intentions.
"You see, Sir, when I look at the Ace, it reminds me there is but one
God.
"When I see the Deuce, it reminds me that the Bible is divided into two
parts, the Old and the New Testaments.
"When I see the Trey, I think of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost.
"When I see the Four, I think of the four evangelists who preached the
gospel. There were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
"When I see the Five, it reminds me of the five Wise Virgins who trimmed
their lamps; There were ten of them, five were wise and were saved, five
were foolish and were shut out.
"When I see the Six, it reminds me that in six days God made this great
Heaven and Earth.
"When I see the Seven, it reminds me that on the seventh day God
rested.
"When I see the Eight, I think of the eight righteous persons God saved
when he destroyed this earth. There was Noah, his wife, their three sons,
and their wives.
"And when I see the Nine, I think of the lepers our Savior cleansed, and
nine of the ten didn't even thank Him.
"When I see the Ten, I think of the ten commandments God handed to
Moses on the tables of stone.
"When I see the King, it reminds me once again there is but one King of
Heaven, God Almighty.
"When I see the Queen, I think of the blessed Virgin Mary, who is
Queen of Heaven.
"And the Jack or Knave is the Devil.
"When I count the number of spots on a deck of cards I find three
hundred
and sixty five, the number of days in a year.
"There are fifty-two cards, the number of weeks in a year.
"There are thirteen tricks, the number of weeks in a quarter.
"There are four suits, the number of weeks in a month.
"There are twelve picture cards, the number of months in a year.
"So you see, Sir, my deck of cards has served me as a Bible, almanac, and
prayer book."
And, friends, this story is true.
I know ... because *I* was that soldier.
------------------------------
Notes:
1) The earliest reference to the song in this specific form does not
date
to World War II. A version regarding "the case of a private soldier,
Richard Lee," is found on pages 265 - 267 in Robert E. Davis' "History
of the Red Men and Degree of Pocahontas 1765-1988" (Davis Brothers
Publishing Co., Waco, Texas: 1990). Davis dates the composition in
its present form to the May 25 1883 issue of "The Council Brand," and
says that the editor of this publication at that time, Brother Tanner,
selected the article from "The London Times." The original title is
given
as "The Religious Card Player: A Soldier's Bible, Almanac, and Common
Prayer Book."
2) Re the line: "When I count the number of spots on a deck of cards I
find
three hundred and sixty five, the number of days in a year." -- If you
add the
13 cards in each suit up, assigning a value of 11 to Jacks, 12 to
Queens and
13 to Kings, you get 91. 91 times 4 is 364, and if you throw in the
Joker you
get 365.
cat yronwode
Freemasonry for Women ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/catalogue.html
John B
I see. So, you'd have to track these hermetics down and hope to find
biographies that included some information on where they got their
ideas. Something with enough clues to posit a relationship to
crypto-jewry... This is a fairly ambitious research project. Something
like what Yates did with Giordano Bruno...
It's interesting to me because the associations of the cards could
last long after the jewish identity is forgotten. Then the similarity
to jewish thought could potentially be 'discovered' at some point.
This is the tricky thing about studying secrecy, and the fascinating
thing... The epistemological snarls that develop around something no
one is supposed to know about.
- The hermetic in question could be a descendant from a jewish family
without knowing it (This would be similar to my sole personal
experience with crypto-judaism, a friend of mine discovered her
grandfather was Jewish, only after he died. He came to Canada to
escape the persecution in Europe during the war, and never told the
family he started about his past. However, there were so many
indicators of his past indentity that apparently his wife and kids
knew (or strongly suspected) who he had been. It was only the third
generation who were ignorant of their grandfather's past. It's kind of
a sad story: a life of silence surrounded by people he could have
spoken to, as they already knew the contents of the secret he held.)
Anyway there are a number of possibilities that arise when trying to
determine who knew what.
>
> > - In the article mentioned, the use of the cards seems to be to
> > address the problem of concealing the reason for the gathering, rather
> > than the content. In other words the cards seem to be being used as a
> > blind to disguise the purpose of the assembly. Is there other evidence
> > that the cards actually have something to do with the practice of the
> > religion, or the teaching of the Torah beyond giving an excuse for
> > people to be sitting around a table together in the evening?
>
> This is found in the article by Art Benveniste at
> http://www.cryptojews.com/card_playing_to_hide_jewish_iden.htm
>
> ...an email from Judith Crystal Pirkle who described her family
> customs.
> She said: "The stories passed down to me by my Mother and her
> family all
> check out. Also the custom of playing cards on the Sabbath eve,
> (Erev
> Shabbat) was passed on through our family. As the Mexican soldiers
> checked houses on Friday evening to make sure no one was observing the
> Sabbath, the Crypto Jews played cards and told Torah stories by
> using
> the cards..."
>
> The suggestive phrase is "told Torah stories by using the cards." What
> is being stated is that there was a system in place of using specific
> cards to relate to different portions of the Torah.
You're right, that's more than just a screen, there is something to
this. I'll be sure to mention this the next time I run into the person
who brought this up to me and see what she says.
>
> As Corey (hierony...@aol.com) mentions in another post in this
> thread, such identifiation of cards with specific portions of
> scripture has a counterpart in Christian tradition:
<snip>
>
> I agree -- and again, i want to make it clear that i am not asserting
> that a complete system of Torah correspondences was in place, nor that
> Kabbalah was being taught.
>
> Rather, the fact that a association of playing cards with Judaism (or,
> more properly Crypto Judaism) has a basis in history causes me to look
> with fresh eyes upon the supposed "myth" of the Hermetic revival that
> tarot contains encided Jewish mystical wisdom. The Hermetics may have
> exaggerated or misinterpreted the role of cards vis-a-vis-Judaism, but
> if the material presented in the article by Art Benveniste is true,
> then the Hermetics seem to NOT have made up the story of a
> relationship between the cards and Judaism out of whole cloth.
Right, well that would be interesting.
The confusion of crypto-judaism for esoteric judaism would be fairly
easy to make. It still wouldn't preclude the actions of certain
creative hermetics seeing the relationships for themselves. It's not
as though occultists have been shy with speculations of this kind, or
leery of incorporating the mystical thought of other traditions into
esoteric christian practices. People with superficial understanding of
both the cards and jewish mysticism continue to see the 'obvious'
connection for themselves today.
Just a comment on the below... for some reason this reminds me of an
third or fourth century neo-platonist document... it might have even
been something I read in the corpus hermeticum... These lists of the
the significance of the first ten digits... reminds me of hellenistic
numerology.
JB
jk
>> Catherine Yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>>> jk wrote:
>> How much Crypto-Jewish scholarship have you actually read?
> A good deal. And you?
I've read enough to know you don't know what you're talking
about.
More than this, I've read enough, and indeed researched enough,
playing-card history to know that despite any claims to knowledge
of Crypto-Jewish history you might make, your claims about
Tarot with respect to it are baseless at best.
>>> The mention of this linkage did not arise with reference to tarot
>>> cards per se -- but tarocchi / trionfi / tarock games were and are
in
>>> the region where Jews were forced to convert or become Crypto
Jews.
>> Once again, Tarot wasn't produced in Spain until lately,
> Once again (third time) you are making a mistake in thinking that
> because the edict of expulsion that led to the formation of what is
> now called Crypto Judaism---
The Edict of Expulsion did not lead to Crypto-Judaism. You are
obviously ignorant of even the most basic facts of the subject
about which you're writing.
You have focused on this edict and this date (1492) for SOME
reason, which you've not explained, but your need to rewrite
history to make it fit your fiction is neither pertinent nor
convincing.
Furthermore, I was talking about Tarot, and at the start of this
thread so were you, and more importantly we were talking about
Tarot IN SPAIN, not in Spanish possessions. We were talking about
Tarot in Spain because you have claimed over and over again,
without ANY support whatsoever, that the cards used by the Jews
(in Spain) mentioned in the article you linked to were using Tarot
cards.
When you were asked to support this claim, you failed to do so.
Again, no evidence and no support for your claims is an insufficient
amount.
> was *promulgated* in Spain that it only
> affected people *living in* Spain.
If this magic charm of affection afflicted people living
somewhere other than Spain, why did you initially talk
about people living in Spain, that is SPANISH Jews?
And why did you link to an article describing the actions
of Spanish (and more generally, Iberian and American)
Jews?
Be specific.
> For the third time: At the time of the 1492 Jewish expulsion order,
> Spain owned, ruled, controlled, had possession of, and enforced its
> laws (including the expulsion order) in Sicily, which is, was, and
> will be part of Italy---
It will be part of Italy?
What does Sicily have to do with your claims?
> , which is where tarocchi cards originated.
Spain didn't control those parts of Italy in which
Tarot originated.
>> and that's because there is no tradition of Tarot game play in
Spain.
> Irrelevant.
It's irrelevant to point this out with respect to claims made
about supposed use of Tarot cards in Spain?
Why?
> Expelled Jews---
Would be expelled Jews, and so not relevant.
> and Crypto Jews---
Crypto Jews wouldn't have been expelled.
So what has the expulsion order have to do with your
claims?
Be specific.
> also lived in ITALY!!!!
So? You didn't link to an article describing the supposed
playing-card traditions of Italian Jews or Crypto Jews.
You linked to an article describing these supposed traditions
amongst Spanish Crypto Jews and their descendants.
> That's because Spain ruled part of Italy.
OK, but you only started talking about Italy when it was
pointed out to you there wasn't a good reason to think
anyone in Spain would be using Tarot cards to mask their
behaviors.
You changed your story to try to avoid the conflict between
your fiction and the facts.
That is not doing history, that is you lying to protect your
obviously fragile ego.
>> They have plenty of other card games, using the
>> distinctive Spanish cards (which look different from
>> Italian and French cards), but Tarot never caught on
>> in Spain until it was adopted, as it was in the
>> UK and the United States, as a fortune-telling
>> deck.
> Yes, and that is irrelevant.
> I am not talking about Spain, but about ITALY.
Here, this is from your first posting:
"The site from which this article is drawn is one that deals with
Ladino Crypto Jews, secret Jews living in Spanish and Portuguese
cultures who have hidden their Jewishness since the days of the
Catholic Inquisition."
The word "Italy" doesn't appear there, does it? And certainly you are
not trying to suggest that Italy is a Spanish culture, are you?
Now, you have a real problem here with that creature, logic, whose
merits you claimed to favor.
1. At first you claimed this Crypto-Jewish practice was respecting
"Spanish and Portuguese cultures". And the article itself specifically
refers to practices in northern New Mexico and Barcelona. Just so
you know, Catherine, neither of those places is in Italy. Indeed, I'm
pretty sure Barcelona IS IN SPAIN!
2. Having realized that your own deep ignorance regarding the history
of playing cards (that Tarot would have been a rare and therefore
noticeable bird in Spain) was compromising your baseless conjecture
about Crypto Jews and Tarot, you tried to change the subject to Italy
and supposed card-playing Crypto Jews there. You at the same time
tried to launch an absurd attack on my knowledge of Crypto-Jewish
history as a way of deflecting attention from the obvious problems
of your ideas and your "reasoning" (or actually lack of it). You did
the latter despite the fact that your own grasp of Crypto-Jewish
history is obviously negligible and that of playing-card history
non-existent. Let us conjecture, for the moment, that you are
doing this for some other reason than the fact you're an idiot.
What reason would that be? Any conjectures? Or reasonable
speculations?
3. Having now landed your leaky boat in Italy, and in those southern
regions of it once controlled by Spain, and having apparently
abandoned your initial questionable premise that Spanish Jews
were cryptoing via Tarot, you run into another problem. Tarot
originated and initially became popular in regions of Italy NOT
controlled by Spain. So where is the evidence these southern
Italian Crypto Jews were using Tarot cards to symbolize Torah?
BE SPECIFIC.
> Up to 1/3 of the population in some municipalities in Sicily and Malta---
Sicily and Malta at what time? And using what Tarots?
>> So, what you would have us believe is that---
>> 1. Jews wished to mask their true beliefs by hiding
>> a Jewish practice under the guise of playing cards.
> I do not wish you "believe" it, i merely point you to scholarly
> research in which it is mentioned as fact.
Actually, and as I pointed out before, it isn't mentioned
as "fact", nor in any way does the article you linked to
support the subsequent story you wished it to signify.
You simply wished to confuse the notion of "discoverer"
(something you are not---at least not with respect to the
history of Tarot) with "delusioner" (something you
are with respect to many things) and they really are
different ideas.
>> 2. The deck of cards (Tarot) they chose for this purpose
>> was rare in Spain, and so likely to draw attention to its
>> users for that reason alone.
> Get off the SPAIN thing, Jess.
Get off your DELUSION thing, Catherine.
Or, have you lost the capacity to control it any longer?
Do fact and fancy seem identical and interchangeable to
you?
> I am talking about ITALY---
Unfortunately, the article you linked to wasn't talking
about ITALY.
Was it?
Nor have have you talked so far about ITALY in any pertinent
fashion, save with respect to a kind of desperation on your
part to practice deflection in the face of pointed questions
about your baseless claims.
> I have been saying this for three days in at least
> three previous posts and you have not even acknowledged that i have
> written it.
Your goetic chants are not that interesting either.
>> 3. If only or mainly Jews or Crypto Jews used Tarot, again
>> a rare deck of cards in Spain,
> Forget SPAIN, Jess. Think ITALY. Crypto Jews in ITALY. ITALY!!!!
OK!!!! Where and when in Italy?
Be specific.
>> for this purpose, eventually
>> that fact would have been discerned by the Inquisition (which
>> is after all our source for much of the information concerning
>> the practices of Crypto Jews).
> The Inquisition may be YOUR source for information on Crypto Jews---
And that of scholars as well.
> , but it is not "our" source by any means.
What is your source? Channeled confessions from beyond?
> The best research on Crypto Jews comes not from other sources---
What "best research" are you talking about then?
Be specific.
>>> Further, i believe that the linkage between these card decks and
the
>>> teaching of the Torah as revealed in the study of Crypto Jewish
>>> history---
>> First off, what is revealed in the "study" is merely a claim
>> about this, nothing documented, and it is claimed to be a
>> family custom, not a regional one.
> You have mistaken my use of the word "study" -- referring to the
> entire field of Crypto Jewish historical research -- as a reference to
> one article.
Then be very very specific. In what example of "Crypto Jewish
historical research" is there any evidence presented that supports
your claims here for there being a Crypto Jewish/Tarot connection?
> Presumably you made this mistake because---
---that's the only piece of evidence you've offered. And it
doesn't support your claims.
> However, to your point, in the one article i mentioned, there is
> documentation of the custom from Madrid, Spain---
But above you claimed you weren't talking about Spain.
Furthermore, you are quite incorrect---the "custom" mentioned in the
article was claimed to be practiced by a family in Barcelona (also in
Spain). Did you even bother to read the article you linked to?
> I think you are less familiar with history than i assumed you were.
> Let me recapitulate:
You mean capitulate.
> In 1492 the order of expulsion was put into effect in Spain. Jews
> under Spanish rule in portions of Italy were required to either
> convert or leave, taking only the clothes on their back.
That's not true. You don't know anything about the historical
facts you're claiming support your case.
>> You are inventing fiction, not offering historical speculation.
> I am offering a theory. I am inviting intelligent scholarly people to
> investigate it further.
You have not provided ANY reason why "intelligent scholarly
people" should bother doing so.
> I proposed a theory and hoped for dialogue with educated tarot
> researchers and you think i am out to publish a book.
"I am a professional writer and this material IS intended to be
part of a book"
Not such an unreasonable suggestion, is it? And a pretty
interesting thread from which that confession of yours
comes.
> Do you think that all intellectual discourse must needs have
> competition for a *publishing contract* at its root?
"I am a professional writer and this material IS intended to be
part of a book"
I remembered what you wrote.
> If so, you are a sad scholar indeed.
Or you have a bad memory indeed. But I hear that's
not the case, so perhaps the problem is something else.
> Let me make my position VERY clear to you, Jess:
You do that a lot, without in fact clarifying anything
at all, which is not surprising really, since your intent
is to mask, not to clarify, the failure of your "position".
> My interest in this matter arose because my family is openly
> Jewish---
Doesn't seem to have equipped you with an honest "zeal" to learn
the truth however.
> Any motivation beyond that is your fantasy.
Or your words.
> Are you interested in the subject, or only in name-calling and
> sarcasm?
Fortunately, you are not in charge of doling out the choices
I get to make in that regard either.
> If you are interested in tarot research with respect to the Crypto
> Jewish use of playing cards---
Then I would ask questions, hard questions, or even simple ones
for that matter.
And that is what I have done.
And you have failed to answer those questions.
And you have failed to provide any credible reason whatsoever
why anyone, especially any "intelligent scholarly person",
should be interested in your silly conjectures.
> Hoping for more light---
Then don't read what you write.
> and less heat,
Or write it either.
Sue
Catherine Yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
> Forget SPAIN, Jess. Think ITALY. Crypto Jews in ITALY. ITALY!!!!
OK. Go ahead and post about Italy. In my opinion, you don't have to
limit yourself to post-1492 Crypto-Jews, but if you feel you want to
limit yourself that way, go ahead.
Jews in Italy is an interesting topic. Somehow connecting that to tarot
would be even more interesting.
So far, I've found the theory of Jews in Italy being connected to tarot
to be an interesting concept - thanks for bringing it up, even if it was
in a kind of roundabout way.
--
"...I confess I was lost in the pages of a book..."
nagasiva
sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com> says:
# ...an article that may shed light on the commonly held Hermetic
# belief that tarot or tarocchi game cards contain hidden
# symbolism relating to the Jewish Kabbalah.
ok, pertains to Hermetic conceptions about history, not history.
# The site from which this article is drawn is one that deals with
# Ladino Crypto Jews, secret Jews living in Spanish and Portuguese
# cultures who have hidden their Jewishness since the days of the
# Catholic Inquisition.
and then she quotes from:
# http://www.cryptojews.com/card_playing_to_hide_jewish_iden.htm
# CARD PLAYING TO HIDE JEWISH IDENTITY
# by Art Benveniste
# adapted from an articles in HaLapid, Summer 1999
# In his presentation to the 1999 Society for Crypto Jewish Studies
# Conference in Los Angeles, Seth Ward told of a woman from Northern New
# Mexico whom he had interviewed. She was describing the Crypto Jewish
# practices of her family and told about playing cards every September
# with her Grandmother. Playing cards was an annual ritual of the family
# that was somehow related to the Jewish High Holidays.
annual for how long? is this something Hermetics might witness?
is this the same as the Crystal woman at the end of the article?
# It reminded me of a story told by Rabbi Baruj Garzon of Spain:
who is this rabbi? is his recollection reliable? does it matter?
# Several years ago the Jewish community of Spain wanted to buy some
# land in the Barcelona Area for a Jewish summer camp. Rabbi Garzon
# drove there from Madrid to negotiate with the landowner. It was late
# in September. A price was agreed on and the rabbi told the landowner
# that he would go back to Madrid to talk with the Board of Directors
# and they could sign the papers the following week.
# Back in Madrid that evening, Garzon received a call from the man in
# Barcelona. The landowner said that there were certain days the
# following week when he could not sign the papers. The rabbi wrote down
# the dates and went to bed. The next day he was about to put the dates
# on his calendar when he noticed that they coincided with the Jewish
# High Holidays. He called Barcelona and asked why the man could not
# sign on those dates. He was told that the man's family had a "strange"
# calendar and that there were some days each year when they did not
# work or handle money. The rabbi asked what the family did on those
# days. He was told that they played cards.
# On checking the man's "strange" calendar for the next few years, he
# found that the days always fell on the High Holidays. The man had no
# explanation for the card playing.
neat-o.
# Card Playing Disguises Prayer
# The rabbi explained that during the time of the Inquisition, secret
# Jews would gather for prayer by sitting around a table with cards on
# the table and prayer books on their laps. When strangers came by they
# would play cards and when they were alone they would turn to the
# prayer books.
is there some reason to think that
1) this story about the Inquisition is true;
2) Hermetics would have heard it;
3) this somehow became related to Hermetic tarot fantasies?
# Last April I repeated this story at a talk I gave in Tucson,
# Arizona. My presentation was reviewed in the Chronicle, and
# Emma Moya of New Mexico got a copy of it.
who is she? does it matter?
# She writes:
# "In Nuevo Mexico cards are called Barajas, [but] in other
# southwestern areas the cards are called cartas. Our Academia Hebraica
# in Albuquerque has researched and recorded the following information
# that may or may not relate to Mr. Benveniste's statement in the
# Chronicle: The word "baraja" alludes to the word "baraha", prayer
# in Hebrew."
so Hermetics are likely to have known this?
# In addition, recently I received an email from Judith Crystal
# Pirkle, who described her family customs. She said:
# "The stories passed down to me by my Mother and her family all
# check out. Also the custom of playing cards on the Sabbath eve (Erev
# Shabbat) was passed on through our family."
for how long? does it matter? why would Hermetics take the practice
of playing cards on Sabbath eve (anywhere?) as a reason for Torah
instruction via the mechanism of the cards? because they weren't
invited? :> because it sounds more exciting and secret?
# As the Mexican soldiers checked houses on Friday evening to make
# sure no one was observing the Sabbath, the Crypto Jews played cards
# and told Torah stories by using the cards. A heavy cloth was placed on
# the table with a large candle burning; at bedtime the candle was
# placed under the table so it could not be seen from the windows.
# --------EOF--------
during what period of time? in what locations? do you think these
kinds of stories were heard by Hermetics, or that they were witness
to the activities themselves and conjectured thereafter?
thanks!
nagasiva
nagasiva
taro...@jktarot.com (jk):
# It is interesting that Jews would have used some kind
# of playing cards to teach Torah,
seems more an excuse to have religious activities. the article
itself is called "Card Playing to Hide Jewish Identity".
# ...the tradition of linking Tarot to Kabbalah
# began with the Egyptomaniacal theories of
# French Freemasons:
# http://jktarot.com/egyptomania.html
thanks. that's an interesting article. here are some
queries on it....
@ http://jktarot.com/egyptomania.html#2
# Aleister Crowley's bizarre "Stele of
# Revealing" invention, wherein he took an
# ordinary Egyptian artifact, coincidentally
# numbered item 666 in the Cairo Museum,
# and turned an inept translation of its
# hieroglyphs into Apocalyptic god names --
# this is particularly the case with the
# purely Egyptomaniacal "Hadit". Latter-day
# OTO management has sought to cover up this
# absurdity by inventing yet another myth
# wherein Egyptian hieroglyphs are again
# required NOT to function as intended (as
# ideograms and phonograms of the ancient
# Egyptian language), but instead are used
# as an allegorical ornament serving a
# purely modern religious agenda.
what, precisely, is the myth constructed by
"latter-day OTO management" to which you refer?
do you mean merely the tales told by Crowley
about Nuit and Hadit and Ra Hoor Khuit (from
his scripture) to his cultists, which they
continue to repeat?
or are you talking about something new which
has been constructed and promoted by this
order's management, *adding* to Crowley's
stories?
@ http://jktarot.com/egyptomania.html#4
# In [A] Wicked Pack of Cards, the authors
# [Dummett/Decker] write (page 47):
# "For those who originated and developed
# [the occult] interpretation...of the cards
# demonstrably owed nothing to any antecedent
# tradition that had come down from earlier
# times." As I point out in some detail in
# my book, Rhapsodies of the Bizarre, [NOTE:
# a $40 PDF avail from the author -- NY] the
# authors of this absurd bit of posturing are
# quite incorrect....
here Decker/Dummett may answer your criticism:
The material amassed by [Michael Dummett,
Ronald Decker and Thierry Depaulis] became
so sizable that it compelled a division of
the one-volume project into two. We
published in 1996, under the title
*A Wicked Pack of Cards*, a study of the
esoteric uses of Tarots in France from the
first evidence up to the early XX century.
We described the major packs, both esoteric
and divinatory, published in the period under
discussion. We provided biographical data
on the major theorists; we explained their
innovative thoughts, their unacknowledged
sources and their programmes of symbolism.
We indicated certain misconceptions and
misrepresentations.
...
It was in France that Tarot cards were
first incorporated into the theory and
practice of magic. In 1781 Antoine Court
de Gebelin, in Volume VIII of his massive
*Monde primitif*, published his famous
Tarot essay along with one by the comte
de Mellet [translation of these is included
in the PDF available as mentioned above],
both propounding an ancient Egyptian origin
for the pack. The professional fortune-
teller who called himself Etteilla promptly
adopted this theory and exploited it for
cartomantic use; he invented for the purpose
a greatly altered type of Tarot pack, based
on the Hermetic books, and named it the
'Book of Thoth'. In the middle of the XIX
century, Eliphas Levi, repudiating Etteilla's
theories, integrated a more traditional
version of the Tarot into occultist doctrine
by another means: Levi associated the pack,
quite erroneously, with the Cabala. Meanwhile,
outside France, variegated types of occultism
absorbed new movements: Swedenborgianism,
Mesmerism and spiritualism. In the 1880s,
the occult Tarot was added to these. Ever
since, it has been axiomatic among followers
of the Western tradition of magic that the
Tarot is an essential component of the occult
sciences.
---------------------------------------------
"A History of the Occult Tarot --
1870-1970", by Ronald Decker and
Michael Dummett, Duckworth, 2002;
pp. ix, 25.
=============================================
so sri catyananda, are you saying that you think
Eliphas Levi was a Crypto-Jew, or was exposed to
Crypto-Jews, or had reason to believe that the Cabala
was being instructed or concealed via cards *because*
of someone's exposure to Crypto-Jews?
and Jess, are you saying that the antecedent tradition
was what Decker/Dummett here call "the Hermetic books"?
if so, then it looks like they've recanted as regards
upon what antecedent trad upon which the esoteric
interpretation of Tarot was based, or maybe you've
taken them out of context? (I don't have that text yet;
(maybe they were talking about just Court de Gebelin
and not Etteilla/Levi?).
@ http://jktarot.com/egyptomania.html#mary
[thx for recommending the books by
Erik Iversen & Mary Lefkowitz!]
# The wealth of Hebrew scriptures of the OT
# had been, for several centuries prior to
# the development of Christianity, in a sense
# resurrected and reinterpreted by Jews for
# service in a new, apocalyptic, movement. The
# NT book, Revelation (or the Apocalypse),
# was written as the Christian expression of
# this tradition.
this Patmos vision wasn't a political diatribe
written by an exiled Jew? was RevStJ written
by a Christian or a Jew?
nagasiva
nagasiva
sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com> about the Crypto-Jew playing card text:
# The article was not written with specific respect to Tarot (tarocchi,
# tarock) sets, but the TIMING is interesting. The Inquisition -- and
# thus the Jewish use of playing cards to disguise Jewish prayer --
# occurred BEFORE the Egyptomania craze.
granted that the Inquisition story is accurate.
# The expulsions and forced
# conversions of Jews in Spanish-held lands dates to 1492, when tarocchi
# was certainly in vogue. Also, note that the article in question
# documents the practice of card-playing on both the Sabbath and the
# Jewish High Holy Days as STILL occurring among Ladino Spanish Crypto
# Jews at the present time, both in Madrid, Spain, and in New Mexico,
# USA.
I'd rather say that it reports it as occurring at the present time.
unless we have some reason to think its practice extends backwards
in time to the Inquisition in an unbroken manner, why should we?
that continuity seems important in a consideration of whether it
is "STILL occurring" rather than, for example "also occurring now",
or "has begun again".
# Now consider your choices:
# A) From 1492 down to the present day Ladino Crypto Jews have used
# tarocchi (tarock) cards to hide their prayer and their Torah teachings
# from Christians -- but the Hermetics, Freemasons, and/or Egyptophiles
# did not [...] know this at all, and just fantasized or MADE UP the idea
# that Jews used playing cards to disguise hidden spiritual lessons -- a
# complete coincidence!
ok, let's call this the
Cosmic Esoteric Coincidence Theory
of Tarot-Kabbalah Connection
it seems somewhat unlikely as stated. ignorance on the part
of Hermetics/Freemasons/Egyptophile for what was being
used to avoid Christian condemnation seems odd somehow.
maybe there is a huge overlap of membership such
that Jews would be sure to also exclude the rest? :>
# or
# B) Some Hermetics, Freemasons, and/or Egyptophiles either
# knew Crypto Jews or WERE Crypto Jews, and thus they told the
# truth when they said that the Jews used tarocchi cards as
# guides to spiritual mysteries.
this would of course be the
Crypto Jew Influence Theory
of Tarot-Kabbalah Connection
the main problem with this is that it contends the use of
tarocchi cards "as guides to spiritual mysteries" when it
seems the evidence only points to card playing as a cover
for religious identity at least, observance at most. there
isn't anything in the material I've seen so far indicating
that anyone is saying the cards were being manipulated in
design, for example. does being a guide to a spiritual
mystery include becoming an excuse to oppressive authorities
who are checking up on whether religious activities are
taking place in the home? or does what was *on* the
cards make any difference, granted some unbroken usage?
# Choice (B) seems more logical to me than choice (A),
are those the only ones available from which to choose?
how about
(C) Lots of people have played cards. Sometimes cards have
been used as an excuse to do something else which was
forbidden. By sheer coincidence, Hermetics like Eliphas Levi
found the resonance between the 22 trumps of cards (esp.
reflecting on the combined writings of Court de Gebelin
and comte de Mellet in Monde primitif!) and 22 letters of
Hebrew alphabet in card decks in their (same?) region to be
too attractive to pass up as a device for communicating
their Hermetic philosophy. They took advantage of a well-
prepared sociological predisposition (that the Tarot
had been dubbed 'The Book of Thoth') and ran with it.
let's call this the
Egypto-Resonance Coincidence Theory
of Tarot-Kabbalah Connection
it seems to be what Dummett/Decker and jk are advancing.
I hope to be corrected if in error. :>
sri catyananda continues, describing the merits of (B):
# simply because it merely requires direct knowledge of
# something that would at that time have been known to
# hundreds of thousands of Ladino Crypto Jews,
Levi had knowledge of Court de Gebelin and de Mellet.
did de Gebelin and de Mellet know Crypto Jews or were
they themselves such? any reason to think so?
# while choice (A [you had B here]) requires a very
# far-out yet highly accurate fantasy to have been
# coincidentally true.
I'd agree that (B) seems more realistically possible
than (A) above. and what do you think of (C)? is the
coincidence sufficiently conservative that it starts
to sound a more plausible/possible coincidence than (A),
a more sociologically-supportable contention than (B)?
thanks!
nagasiva
nagasiva
sri catyananda:
#> The article was not written with specific respect
#> to Tarot (tarocchi, tarock) sets---
#> , but the TIMING is interesting. The Inquisition -- and
#> thus the Jewish use of playing cards to disguise Jewish
#> prayer -- occurred BEFORE the Egyptomania craze.
the "Jewish use of playing cards disguise Jewish prayer"
phrase can be misunderstood very easily. I'll presume you
just mean it like the article to which you referred, in
which the cards were nothing more than an excuse/cover.
taro...@jktarot.com (jk):
# ...that doesn't by any means indicate it is likely that
# this Jewish use of playing cards contributed to the
# occultist interpretation of Tarot involving Kabbalah.
"the occultist interpretation of Tarot involving Kabbalah"
is quite precise, and not something you appear to be
discussing when mentioning Jews in Venice:
@ http://jktarot.com/tarmag16.html
#: the development of alternative applications
#: of playing cards and Tarot in Venice seems to
#: coincide with the arrival in Venice of Jews,
#: and the development of a Jewish community
#: (eventually the Jewish Ghetto). The question,
#: it seems to me, should be asked:
#: did Jews invent or help contribute to the
#: invention of cartomancy? Or, was this a
#: transcultural development, a cartocultural
#: extension of an already existing tradition of
#: magick and divination in various subcultures?
# ---which evidence points to some kind of
# mystical-magickal use or interpretation of
# playing cards much earlier than the 18th-century
# origin of occult Tarot.
as possible conjuration usage, by Inquisition
records. you quote Dummett's "Game of Tarot" on
the probable entrypoint for cards to Europe
being Venice:
#: The overwhelming probability, then, is that, in about 1370-75,
#: playing cards came to Europe, very likely through Venice, from
#: Mamluk Egypt, where they had been known for some time.
and
#: A genuine exception to the rule that fortune-telling with
#: ordinary playing cards is unknown in Europe before the eighteenth
#: century is provided by a book by Francesco Marcolino da Forli,
#: entitled Giardino di pensieri and published in Venice in 1540.
#: This book is indeed intended solely to provide a means of
#: foretelling the future by the use of playing cards.
#
# ...
#
# The Game of Tarot, from Ferrara to Salt Lake City,
# by Michael Dummett, London; Duckworth, 1980.
criticizing Dummett for his comment that:
#: This light-hearted diversion has nothing to do with the occult,
#: and it is impossible to imagine anyone taking it seriously as
#: an oracle.
some have speculated that there's been missing Devils from
extant decks in collections on account of magical activities
with them (whether venting hatred or praying for help).
divination and games are confusingly interwoven. artificial
distinctions erected between them are too often the tenuous
grasp of poorly-understood data.
nagasiva
nagasiva
sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
# This is found in the article by Art Benveniste at
# http://www.cryptojews.com/card_playing_to_hide_jewish_iden.htm
#
# ...an email from Judith Crystal Pirkle who described her
# family customs. She said: "The stories passed down to me
# by my Mother and her family all check out. Also the custom
# of playing cards on the Sabbath eve, (Erev Shabbat) was
# passed on through our family. As the Mexican soldiers
# checked houses on Friday evening to make sure no one was
# observing the Sabbath, the Crypto Jews played cards and
# told Torah stories by using the cards..."
#
# The suggestive phrase is "told Torah stories by using the cards."
# What is being stated is that there was a system in place of
# using specific cards to relate to different portions of the Torah.
thank you for bringing this more into central focus as I missed
it the first couple of times through. :/
# As Corey (hierony...@aol.com) mentions in another post in this
# thread, such identification of cards with specific portions of
# scripture has a counterpart in Christian tradition....
# ...Corey takes us even further back in time when he points
# out that:
#
# "...please consider the publishing of 'Curious and Interesting
# Anecdotes', under the name "Louis Bras-de-Fer", printed in
# 1778 in Belgium. It is the oldest specific reference I can
# find of 'The Soldier's Almanack / Prayer Book', the story that
# relates playing cards to Christian doctrine.
#
# "In 'The Encyclopedia of Tarot, Vol. 1', Stuart Kaplan writes,
# 'In the sixteenth century, a book written by Jacob
# Cammerlander described each pip card with its moral and
# spiritual associations,"
# referencing a book 'Kartenlosbuch', published by a M. Jacob
# Cammerlander von Mentz that describes playing cards in
# religious terms.
#
# "The text is written in rhyme."
#
# So via Cammerlander, we arrive at the 16th century for the earliest
# known associatations being made between playing cards and spiritual
# subjects.
if both Christians *and* Jews practiced this association, how can we
be sure it wasn't Christians that inspired the notion that spiritual
instruction could be obtained from referencing tarocchi cards?
# So, if we acknowledge that Art Benveniste has rediscovered a
# hidden Crypto Jewish tradition,
possible.
# the Jewish people may legitimately be seen as the earliest to
# make linkages or association between playing cards and
# religious teachings
possibly others beforehand. cards possibly originated in China. :>
# -- and, even if they were not the only ones, and Christians
# did it too, the fact that they did so still lends a factual
# basis to the otherwise discredited Hermetic "myth" of the
# tarot as a "cover" for Jewish religious teachings.
indeed it does, though whether it competes well with the
Egyptomania-Resonance Coincidence Tarot-Kabbalah Theory
has yet to be seen. :> I wanna know about their
*intersection*! Levi a Crypto Jew? was his translation
of his name into Hebrew just a costume? or was he
actually telling us something? where does the Judaism-
stealing start and the revealing-as-Crypto-Judaism end?
# that a complete system of Torah correspondences was in place, nor that
# Kabbalah was being taught.
# ...The Hermetics may have exaggerated or misinterpreted the
# role of cards vis-a-vis-Judaism, but if the material presented
# in the article by Art Benveniste is true, then the Hermetics
# seem to NOT have made up the story of a relationship between
# the cards and Judaism out of whole cloth.
indeed, though this doesn't confirm that this relation is the
inspiration for the fabrication of the Hermetic fantasies. :>
to do that, you'd have to throw in a few more bridging databits.
thanks! wonderful discussion!
nagasiva
Kwaw93
># seem to NOT have made up the story of a relationship between
># the cards and Judaism out of whole cloth.
>
>indeed, though this doesn't confirm that this relation is the
>inspiration for the fabrication of the Hermetic fantasies. :>
Maybe such maybe be found among the artists and their patrons who produced some
of the earliest cards?
Mantegna was among a group of artists who were steeped in esoterica. He along
with the alchemist and qabalist vesspucio were the tutors of Botticelli, who
Frances Yates has linked with Hermeticism. Bembo studied astrology and qabalah.
Both Bembo's and Mantegna's main patrons were a close knit group of noble
families including the medici's, the Este, Gazalogo and the Sforza who were
involved with hermeticism and the qabalah and were members of several esoteric
orders.
A close friend of all these families and also a Patron of Mantegna and Bembo
was Rene de Anjou (a companion of Joan of Arc) who according to "The Holy Blood
and The Holy Grail' was Grandmaster of the Priere de Sion. Both Levi and Papus,
two of the main purveyors of the 'hermetic fantasy' were also later associated
with this same order according to the account in this book.
Kwaw
Kwaw93
produced some of the earliest of the cards can be found on the net.
For example here a list of books in the visconti library, clearly showing and
interest for esoteric studies:
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/visconti-library.htm
Also from the internet:
Rene d'Anjou (1408 -1480), wrote and painted books, was in Italy from 1438 -
1442 and 1453/54 as concurrent of Alfonso d'Aragon to the throne of the kingdom
of Naples, became then friend to Cosimo de Medici, Francesco Sforza and Jacopo
Antonio Marcello, was called beside many other titles King of Jerusalem, is
called an esoteric grandmaster in the Rennes-de-Chateaux papers, is part of
"Esoteric History".
Rene D'Anjou (1408-1480?). King of Naples and Sicily, and King of Jerusalem.
Prompted Cosimo de Medici to acquire and translate Platonic, Cabalistic,
Gnostic and Hermetic works. Founder of the Order of the Crescent. Sponsored
Mantegna. Accompanied Joan of Arc (1412-1431) to Chinon, Orléans and Reims.
Cosimo de Medici (1389-1464). Virtual lord of Florence and patron of the arts.
Influenced by René d'Anjou. Patron of Marsilio Ficino. Protector of the
Platonic Academy in Florence. Founder of Europe's first public library, the San
Marco Library.
Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499). Italian philosopher, scholar (EB 9:237) and magus.
Head of the Platonic Academy in Florence (1462). Translated the Hermetic corpus
(1471), Plato (1484) and Plotinus (1492). Sponsored by Cosimo de Medici.
Teacher of Lorenzo de Medici.
Andrea del Verrocchio (1435-1488). Italian sculptor and painter. Alchemist and
hermeticist. Taught Leonardo da Vinci and Botticelli.
Botticelli (1444-1510). Italian painter. Studied under alchemist and
hermeticist Verrocchio and Mantegna. Patronized by de Medici. Well acquainted
with Leonardo da Vinci.
Lorenzo de Medici (1447-1492). Virtual lord of Florence and patron of the arts.
Patron of Verrocchio, Botticelli, Pico della Mirandola.
Christopher Columbus (1451-1506). Spanish or Italian navigator and explorer. In
the service of René d'Anjou in 1472-73 (EB). Married to daughter of a former
Knight of Christ, who had charts and diaries. Sailed under the red pattée cross
of the Knights of Christ, the renamed Knights Templars of Portugal. Incarnation
of Saint Germain (ECP).
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). Italian artist, inventor and universal genius.
Sponsored by de Medicis and Ludovico Sforza, son of Francesco Sforza, close
friend of René d'Anjou. Member of the Order of the Crescent.
John Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494). Italian philosopher, scholar and magus.
Sponsored by Lorenzo de Medici. Connected with the Platonic Academy. Strongly
influenced by Ficino. Explored Cabalist magic. An adept according to HPB (BCW
4: 607).
Kwaw
Sue
kwa...@aol.comnojunk (Kwaw93) wrote:
> >he Hermetics
> ># seem to NOT have made up the story of a relationship between
> ># the cards and Judaism out of whole cloth.
> >
> >indeed, though this doesn't confirm that this relation is the
> >inspiration for the fabrication of the Hermetic fantasies. :>
>
> Maybe such maybe be found among the artists and their patrons who produced
> some
> of the earliest cards?
In order to pursue that line of thought one would have to specify which
cards were the earliest and which artists and patrons were involved in
their creation.
>
> Mantegna was among a group of artists who were steeped in esoterica. He along
> with the alchemist and qabalist vesspucio were the tutors of Botticelli, who
> Frances Yates has linked with Hermeticism. Bembo studied astrology and
> qabalah.
Was Mantegna involved with the creation of the "earliest cards"?
> Both Bembo's and Mantegna's main patrons were a close knit group of noble
> families including the medici's, the Este, Gazalogo and the Sforza who were
> involved with hermeticism and the qabalah and were members of several
> esoteric
> orders.
This is all quite interesting. Can you please site your sources of
information?
> A close friend of all these families and also a Patron of Mantegna and Bembo
> was Rene de Anjou (a companion of Joan of Arc) who according to "The Holy
> Blood
> and The Holy Grail' was Grandmaster of the Priere de Sion. Both Levi and
> Papus,
> two of the main purveyors of the 'hermetic fantasy' were also later
> associated
> with this same order according to the account in this book.
Was Rene de Anjou a 'close friend' of the Visconti?
Kwaw93
>cards were the earliest and which artists and patrons were involved in
>their creation.
Among the earliest were those of Mantegna and Bembo, through the patronage of
D'Anjou (the King of the Jews) and the Visconti-Szorfa (of a close knit family
of nobles that claimed descent from the tribe of Benjamin, and who also
commissioned the first Graal stories). Also all connected with the knight
templars and whose descendants were formative in the creation of the
freemasons.
>Was Mantegna involved with the creation of the "earliest cards"?
>
He has been associated with a set of prints that became the model of later
cards. Some scholars have said it wasn't him, but if not then it was certainly
someone in the same school and enjoying the same patronage. Bembo too is said
to have created three of the sets of cards commissioned by the Visconti-Sforza
family.
>This is all quite interesting. Can you please site your sources of
>information?
Frances Yates, Michael Baigent. Any book on Renaissance art and patronage. I
have already sent some sources that can be found on the internet on the
internet. Just do a google search.
>Was Rene de Anjou a 'close friend' of the Visconti?
Yes, and of all the noble patrons of above artists. He himself commisionned at
least two set of cards and his freinds commisioned several others for him and
his wife. He was himself a patron of Mantegna (as were his friends the
Visconti's, the Este and the Gazagola, all connected with Judaism, Hermeticism,
the Qabalah and the Order of the Crescent, banned by the Vatican for
promulgation of Heretical doctrines).
He was also associated with Joan of Arc. When going to see the king she told
him 'I have a message from the King' ( the King of the Jews? Anjou?) And
particularly asked for Anjou, the King's son in law, to be her escort.
Could this be related to the card the female priestess, Pope Joan? Among the
mottos of the Anjou family 'Make me King, I'll Make you Pope'. ??
>Was Rene de Anjou a 'close friend' of the Visconti?
A very close friend. The Visconti introduced him to Cosimo Medici. And several
scholars and histories have said that it was the influence of Anjou that led
the Medici to form the hermetic and qabalistic library which intiated the
Renaissance.
Anjou also developed several esoteric orders, many of which survived into the
19th century and of which Levi and Papus were members.
Kwaw
Sue
kwa...@aol.comnojunk (Kwaw93) wrote:
> >In order to pursue that line of thought one would have to specify which
> >cards were the earliest and which artists and patrons were involved in
> >their creation.
>
> Among the earliest were those of Mantegna and Bembo, through the patronage of
> D'Anjou (the King of the Jews) and the Visconti-Szorfa (of a close knit
> family
> of nobles that claimed descent from the tribe of Benjamin, and who also
> commissioned the first Graal stories). Also all connected with the knight
> templars and whose descendants were formative in the creation of the
> freemasons.
>
> >Was Mantegna involved with the creation of the "earliest cards"?
> >
>
> He has been associated with a set of prints that became the model of later
> cards. Some scholars have said it wasn't him, but if not then it was
> certainly
> someone in the same school and enjoying the same patronage. Bembo too is said
> to have created three of the sets of cards commissioned by the
> Visconti-Sforza
> family.
Many works of art get attributed to different artists at different
times. In fact, many artists and their apprentices often ended up
working on the same work at various times. It would be helpful if you
elaborated a bit on the info you provide. What sources do you have to
back up your information and what sources are there that refute it?
Which sources do you have associating Mantegna to a set of prints that
may have been used as a model for the cards? Which sources refute the
association and to whom do these sources credit with the creation of
those prints? Is it proven that these particular prints became the model
for later cards? By what sources?What sources do you have clearly
attributing to Bembo the creation of three decks for the
Visconti-Sforza family? Are there any artists to which they have been
attributed? Could they have been created by more than one artist during
more than one time period?
Do you have credible sources for your information? Can you provide them?
>
> >This is all quite interesting. Can you please site your sources of
> >information?
>
> Frances Yates, Michael Baigent. Any book on Renaissance art and patronage. I
> have already sent some sources that can be found on the internet on the
> internet. Just do a google search.
Info on the web is often as factual as a conversation between strangers
overheard in a coffee shop. Info on the web should be read skeptically
and confirmed by sources not on the web. Books also need to be read
skeptically - the information should be confirmed by more than one other
source and sources refuting information should also be considered.
Can you provide credible sources for your information?
>
> >Was Rene de Anjou a 'close friend' of the Visconti?
>
> Yes, and of all the noble patrons of above artists. He himself commisionned
> at
> least two set of cards and his freinds commisioned several others for him and
> his wife. He was himself a patron of Mantegna (as were his friends the
> Visconti's, the Este and the Gazagola, all connected with Judaism,
> Hermeticism,
> the Qabalah and the Order of the Crescent, banned by the Vatican for
> promulgation of Heretical doctrines).
Could you please site credible sources to back up your claim of a close
friendship between Rene d'Anjou and the Visconti? I'd like to understand
what caused them to be considered close friends.
>
> He was also associated with Joan of Arc. When going to see the king she told
> him 'I have a message from the King' ( the King of the Jews? Anjou?) And
> particularly asked for Anjou, the King's son in law, to be her escort.
I have read that Joan requested Rene at one point - and his father paid
some her money instead while Rene remained at home. Is this the instance
of which you speak?
>
> Could this be related to the card the female priestess, Pope Joan? Among the
> mottos of the Anjou family 'Make me King, I'll Make you Pope'. ??
Could it? What sources do you have that might back up that concept?
Was that what was being attempted within that part of history - creating
Joan into a female Pope in return for her battles to make someone a
King?
You know, we still haven't managed to have a female President of the US
- and this country claims to be unbiased regarding the role of women in
its society...and yet your questions might lead some people to theorize
that during that period of history there was an effort to create a
female Pope in that particular religious climate with a particularly
restrictive mindset prevailing regarding the role of women.
Could you please back up the whole concept with some more information?
IIRC, there was some kind of heretical movement to have a female pope in
preparation for the second coming of Christ. Is that what this is all
about? And if so, was that movement centered around Joan of Arc? I was
under the impression that the whole thing was related to someone else.
>
> >Was Rene de Anjou a 'close friend' of the Visconti?
>
> A very close friend. The Visconti introduced him to Cosimo Medici. And
> several
> scholars and histories have said that it was the influence of Anjou that led
> the Medici to form the hermetic and qabalistic library which intiated the
> Renaissance.
Could you please give some sources for this so I can understand how this
friendship occurred?
When Alfonso disputed Rene's claim to Naples that Filippo Maria Visconti
sent a Genoese fleet which destroyed the Aragonese and resulted in the
capture of Alfonso and his brother. (_That_ might indicate some kind of
'friendship' towards Rene, if it weren't for the fact that Filippo was a
friend of Martin V, who happened to be an ally of Rene. Was Filippo
Maria really supporting Rene or could it be that Filippo was merely
trying to support Martin V somehow?) Then, without collecting any ranson
with which to pay off the Genoese, Filippo Maria released the two. This
resulted in the Genoese rising up against Milan.
Somehow, that doesn't seem to paint Filippo Maria as a 'close friend' of
Rene - I mean, Filippo released Rene's adversary _with nothing to keep
them from bothering Rene_ and cared enough to do so that he ended up
having a terrible time because of it. How much did he really care about
Rene's well-being in all this?
How did the close friendship between Rene and the Visconti happen in
light of this situation?
>
> Anjou also developed several esoteric orders, many of which survived into the
> 19th century and of which Levi and Papus were members.
Could you elaborate on these esoteric orders and possibly give a history
of them from their development by Rene up until the time of Levi?
What you're proposing is interesting, but I'd like more quite a bit more
information if at all possible .
Kwaw93
>times.
Indeed. The consensus is that the Mantegan tarocchi was not actually by
Mantegna. Nonetheless, it is generally agreed that they belonged to the same
humanistic school.
>Which sources do you have associating Mantegna to a set of prints that
>may have been used as a model for the cards?
I don't think the Mantegna set are a model for later cards. The Visconti-Sforza
set have better claim to that. Both of course are clearly informed by reference
to medieval astrology and neo-platonic symbolism of the hermetic school of the
florentine humanists, and there are clear analogies to qabalistic texts of the
period.
>What sources do you have clearly
>attributing to Bembo the creation of three decks for the
>Visconti-Sforza family?
The consensus among art historians says so. Personally I am inclined to
disagree.
>Are there any artists to which they have been
>attributed?
Several. All however belonging to the same humanistic school (neo-platonic,
hermetic and influenced by qabalistic theory).
>Could they have been created by more than one artist during
>more than one time period?
The three existent sets are said to cover a period of nearly fifty years. At
least seven cards of those in the three decks are said to be by another artist
to the original (whoever that may be).
>Do you have credible sources for your information? Can you provide them?
What is credible? All the few facts provide is a series of dots. We are left
to connect them as we will, all that is left is to connect them into a
credible story. I have no doubt that any of us here with an interest in the
esoteric have sufficient imagination to create our own (with the exception of
JK of course, to whom humour and romance seem alien and perverse). A bit like
reading the cards, maybe?.
>Can you provide credible sources for your information?
What information? I asked a question, and proposed a few areas of enquiry, I
don't pretend to have the answers.
>> >Was Rene de Anjou a 'close friend' of the Visconti?
>>
I have been led to believe so, but the more I enquire the less it seems likely.
>> Could this be related to the card the female priestess, Pope Joan? Among
>the
>> mottos of the Anjou family 'Make me King, I'll Make you Pope'. ??
>
>Could it? What sources do you have that might back up that concept?
>Was that what was being attempted within that part of history - creating
>Joan into a female Pope in return for her battles to make someone a
>King?
>
I doubt it, sounds rather a ridiculous proposition to me. But there again,
according to the "The Good King Rene and His Seven Queens", who knows what Rene
may have believed, living all his life under the display of matriarchall
authority? (Maybe).
...and yet your questions might lead some people to theorize
>that during that period of history there was an effort to create a
>female Pope in that particular religious climate with a particularly
>restrictive mindset prevailing
My questions may lead in that direction, but it is not a direction I intended.
It is an absurd speculation, but while we are in the field of absurd
speculations, why not say the the female pope is indicative of the believe that
the spirit/religion is inherited through the female line, as for example is the
case in Judaism?
>IIRC, there was some kind of heretical movement to have a female pope in
>preparation for the second coming of Christ.
No idea. There were enough heretical movements however to make the possiblilty
of this one merely one among many.
>Could you please give some sources for this so I can understand how this
>friendship occurred?
The more I look into it, the less likely a friendhip appears (at least in terms
of what friendship means in our times).
>Could you elaborate on these esoteric orders and possibly give a history
>of them from their development by Rene up until the time of Levi?
No (it would take too long, I am however putting it all together and will put
it on my website and post the address when it is ready). But I can recomend the
writings of Frances Yates. The works of Michael Baigent of course deal with a
lot of this, but his scholarship is considered a bit iffy whereas that of Yates
is highly considered.
>What you're proposing is interesting, but I'd like more quite a bit more
>information if at all possible .
Well unfortunately I am not proposing anything. I merely asked a question and
don't pretend to have any answers. My question arose from some curious
suggestions that have arisen such as those that I have mentioned. Their
authenticity would need to be researched and confirmed or rejected (if such was
anyones interest), they suggest a line of enquiry, and having looked at
archives I can see that I am far from the first to have mentioned them. But if
anyone is interested, they may care to look into where and when such qabalistic
documents as the the book of formation and the fifty gates of understanding
first appeared, and which noble families sponsored their publication.
Kwaw
Kwaw93
>Joan into a female Pope in return for her battles to make someone a
>King?
>
>You know, we still haven't managed to have a female President of the US
>- and this country claims to be unbiased regarding the role of women in
>its society...and yet your questions might lead some people to theorize
>that during that period of history there was an effort to create a
>female Pope in that particular
>religious climate with a particularly
>restrictive mindset prevailing regarding the role of women.
>
>Could you please back up the whole concept with some more information?
During the riegn of Ottone Visconti, Archbishop of Milan there was a woman
called Guglielmina famed as an astrologer, healer and witch who belonged to the
heretical sect of Calabrian priest Joachim da Fiore who divided history into
three successive stages; the age of the Father, the age of the Son and the age
of the Holy Ghost. Guglielmina claimed to be the incarnation of the Holy Ghost.
Manfreda Visconti was a fervent follower of Guglielmina and was nominated as
her Vicar on Earth. Manfreda worked towards the ideas promulgated which
included the overthrowing of the Pope, installing Guglielmina as Pope and the
renovation of Christianity as a matriarchy.
In an era when member's of a witch's family were themselves suspected of
witchcraft the actions of Manfreda had consequences for other members of the
family. Pope John XXII in a dispute with Matteo Visconti brought Matteo on
charges of heresy and witchcraft in which the relationship to Manfreda was
counted against him.
The 'Female Pope' in the Visconti-Sforza decks may then be a reference to
Guglielmina/Manfreda Visconti rather than Joan D'Arc. The later association
with 'Pope Joan' may reference a believe that Joan D'Arc/Rene D'Anjou were
conspirors within a similar type heresy, but such is pure speculation.
Reference' "Italian Dynasties" by Edward Burman.
Kwaw
Sue
kwa...@aol.comnojunk (Kwaw93) wrote:
> >Many works of art get attributed to different artists at different
> >times.
>
> Indeed. The consensus is that the Mantegan tarocchi was not actually by
> Mantegna. Nonetheless, it is generally agreed that they belonged to the same
> humanistic school.
The consensus of whom or what, exactly?
Also, please elaborate upon this 'same humanistic school'.
>
> >Which sources do you have associating Mantegna to a set of prints that
> >may have been used as a model for the cards?
>
> I don't think the Mantegna set are a model for later cards. The
> Visconti-Sforza
> set have better claim to that. Both of course are clearly informed by
> reference
> to medieval astrology and neo-platonic symbolism of the hermetic school of
> the
> florentine humanists, and there are clear analogies to qabalistic texts of
> the
> period.
Regarding what information was involved in creating the decks
themselves, I'm not ready to completely agree with you on all points
listed. Can you offer more information indicating that these decks
referred to medieval astrology, neo-platonic symbolism, hermetics.
Florentine humanism, and qabalah?
If you can prove that these decks clearly had qabalistic content, please
do so. That alone would be of great interest. I'm also interested in
which aspects of these decks you believe to be clearly hermetic.
Regarding humanism - why did you choose to specify _Florentine_
humanism? Was there something special about Florence regarding humanism?
And what would any of that have to do with tarot?
>
> >What sources do you have clearly
> >attributing to Bembo the creation of three decks for the
> >Visconti-Sforza family?
>
> The consensus among art historians says so. Personally I am inclined to
> disagree.
Could you elaborate on why you disagree? Why would art historians
attribute these decks to him if there was any doubt about it? Do you
think some other artist would be a better choice? Or maybe even more
than one artist?
Have you looked at other work by Bonifacio Bembo? I have to tell you
that there are examples of work by Bembo in which the people look almost
exactly like the court cards in the Visconti-Sforza deck. (It made me
think that Bembo had a certain way of drawing _everybody_ so that they
looked exactly like the court cards of the Visconti-Sforza deck, that's
how similar the images are.) That doesn't mean I'm saying categorically
that Bembo was responsible for all of the cards, but I can understand
why art historians would be inclined to name Bembo as at least one of
the potential candidates for the Visconti-Sforza deck.
> >Are there any artists to which they have been
> >attributed?
>
> Several. All however belonging to the same humanistic school (neo-platonic,
> hermetic and influenced by qabalistic theory).
Once again, you'd have to further elaborate on what you've written
above, with sources, before I'd venture to agree or disagree with you.
>
> >Could they have been created by more than one artist during
> >more than one time period?
>
> The three existent sets are said to cover a period of nearly fifty years. At
> least seven cards of those in the three decks are said to be by another
> artist
> to the original (whoever that may be).
What sources gave you this information? Do you agree or disagree with it?
BTW, I want you to know that I'm surprised you didn't say that the
other artist must have belonged to the same humanistic school. <g>
>
> >Do you have credible sources for your information? Can you provide them?
>
> What is credible? All the few facts provide is a series of dots. We are left
> to connect them as we will, all that is left is to connect them into a
> credible story. I have no doubt that any of us here with an interest in the
> esoteric have sufficient imagination to create our own (with the exception of
> JK of course, to whom humour and romance seem alien and perverse). A bit
> like
> reading the cards, maybe?.
Would you consider reference books to be credible sources?
You might enjoy trying to find the answers to the concepts you've
brought up. You might never get an exact answer to any one question, but
you'd have a whole lot more information with which to try to piece
together some kind of recognizable pattern.
Any of the potential artists for these cards - what do you really know
about them? How about their patrons - what do you know about them? What
do you really know about the Viscontis or the Sforzas? How about the
history of Italy - what do you know about it at the time tarot was
supposedly being created? Do you know about the art and society of that
time period?
If you look further into it all, you might decide that you could have
written a much better book than _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_. And if you
_do_ write a book, let me know - I'd be interested in reading it.
>
> >Can you provide credible sources for your information?
>
> What information? I asked a question, and proposed a few areas of enquiry, I
> don't pretend to have the answers.
Oh. I was apparently mistaken when I thought you had formed some
potential answers when you stated that Rene de Anjou was a close friend
of the Visconti.
>
> >> >Was Rene de Anjou a 'close friend' of the Visconti?
> >>
>
> I have been led to believe so, but the more I enquire the less it seems
> likely.
>
> >> Could this be related to the card the female priestess, Pope Joan? Among
> >the
> >> mottos of the Anjou family 'Make me King, I'll Make you Pope'. ??
> >
> >Could it? What sources do you have that might back up that concept?
> >Was that what was being attempted within that part of history - creating
> >Joan into a female Pope in return for her battles to make someone a
> >King?
> >
>
> I doubt it, sounds rather a ridiculous proposition to me. But there again,
> according to the "The Good King Rene and His Seven Queens", who knows what
It might not be so ridiculous - but you won't know unless you try to
find out about the situation.
> Rene
> may have believed, living all his life under the display of matriarchall
> authority? (Maybe).
Has anything been written about him that might give some kind of insight
into what he may have believed?
>
> ...and yet your questions might lead some people to theorize
> >that during that period of history there was an effort to create a
> >female Pope in that particular religious climate with a particularly
> >restrictive mindset prevailing
>
> My questions may lead in that direction, but it is not a direction I
> intended.
> It is an absurd speculation, but while we are in the field of absurd
> speculations, why not say the the female pope is indicative of the believe
> that
> the spirit/religion is inherited through the female line, as for example is
> the
> case in Judaism?
Are you saying that? If so, what evidence can you present to support
your concept?
If you want speculation, here's one you might enjoy:
In the book _The Hours of Catherine of Cleves_, there is a miniature
given the title "Resurrection" whose caption reads:
"This scene of the Resurrection is unusual in a number of its details,
such as Christ stepping backward out of His tomb and the extremely
awkward postures of the soldiers. Of the two soldiers in front of the
sarcaphagus, one sits upright, his head completely enclosed in a helmet,
his arms and legs drawn in taut unnatural positions. The other kneels
forward propping his head with one elbow on the ground and holding his
back or hop with his other hand. A third soldier, behind the
sarcophagus, throws his head back against the twisted lid while holding
his battle ax and raising his other hand above his face. The fourth
soldier, without armor but wearing iron gauntlets and holding a pike,
leans drowsily on the edge of the sarcophagus. These postures do not
suggest sleep, and two of the soldiers have their drowsy eyes at least
partially open. In the lower border, a naked child or putto blows a
long trumpet, an analogy perhaps to the trumpeting angels who will
resurrect the dead at the Last Judgement."
While we're in the field of absurd speculations, why not say that the
postures of the figures in this miniature represent letters indicating a
secret message about the Priory of Sion? (Don't bother asking me for any
evidence regarding this. If you can't see it for yourself, then you
weren't meant to be one of the initiated. <g>)
>
> >IIRC, there was some kind of heretical movement to have a female pope in
> >preparation for the second coming of Christ.
>
> No idea. There were enough heretical movements however to make the
> possiblilty
> of this one merely one among many.
>
> >Could you please give some sources for this so I can understand how this
> >friendship occurred?
>
> The more I look into it, the less likely a friendhip appears (at least in
> terms
> of what friendship means in our times).
I know that Cosimo supported Francesco Sforza in his quest for Milan.
Could that have somehow been the what led you to believe in a close
friendship between the Viscontis and Rene de Anjou?
>
> >Could you elaborate on these esoteric orders and possibly give a history
> >of them from their development by Rene up until the time of Levi?
>
> No (it would take too long, I am however putting it all together and will put
> it on my website and post the address when it is ready). But I can recomend
> the
> writings of Frances Yates. The works of Michael Baigent of course deal with a
> lot of this, but his scholarship is considered a bit iffy whereas that of
> Yates
> is highly considered.
I'd be very interested in your website and look forward to you posting
the address.
I'm not a big fan of Baigent, but I'll gladly look further into Yates
than I have so far.
>
> >What you're proposing is interesting, but I'd like more quite a bit more
> >information if at all possible .
>
> Well unfortunately I am not proposing anything. I merely asked a question and
> don't pretend to have any answers. My question arose from some curious
> suggestions that have arisen such as those that I have mentioned. Their
> authenticity would need to be researched and confirmed or rejected (if such
> was
> anyones interest), they suggest a line of enquiry, and having looked at
> archives I can see that I am far from the first to have mentioned them. But
> if
> anyone is interested, they may care to look into where and when such
> qabalistic
> documents as the the book of formation and the fifty gates of understanding
> first appeared, and which noble families sponsored their publication.
I'm interested, since I've looked into some other things which might be
related to this. Thanks.
Sue
kwa...@aol.comnojunk (Kwaw93) wrote:
> During the riegn of Ottone Visconti, Archbishop of Milan there was a woman
> called Guglielmina famed as an astrologer, healer and witch who belonged to
> the
> heretical sect of Calabrian priest Joachim da Fiore who divided history into
> three successive stages; the age of the Father, the age of the Son and the
> age
> of the Holy Ghost. Guglielmina claimed to be the incarnation of the Holy
> Ghost.
> Manfreda Visconti was a fervent follower of Guglielmina and was nominated as
> her Vicar on Earth. Manfreda worked towards the ideas promulgated which
> included the overthrowing of the Pope, installing Guglielmina as Pope and the
> renovation of Christianity as a matriarchy.
>
> In an era when member's of a witch's family were themselves suspected of
> witchcraft the actions of Manfreda had consequences for other members of the
> family. Pope John XXII in a dispute with Matteo Visconti brought Matteo on
> charges of heresy and witchcraft in which the relationship to Manfreda was
> counted against him.
>
> The 'Female Pope' in the Visconti-Sforza decks may then be a reference to
> Guglielmina/Manfreda Visconti rather than Joan D'Arc. The later association
> with 'Pope Joan' may reference a believe that Joan D'Arc/Rene D'Anjou were
> conspirors within a similar type heresy, but such is pure speculation.
>
> Reference' "Italian Dynasties" by Edward Burman.
>
Thank you for the reference.
If you'd like another viewpoint regarding the charges made against
Matteo and his sons by Pope John XXII, please see the chapter entitled
"Matteo the Great" in _A History of Milan Under the Visconti_ by Dorothy
Muir. In this account, no mention is made of Manfreda while the
political climate is emphasized and Dante's name appears in connection
with it all as well. (To type the whole story here would be quite
lengthy, but if you can't get the book, let me know and I'll see if I
can somehow paraphrase it. The author does such a great job of writing
about it that I'd really prefer you to read her account rather than
anything I might put together about it.)
Kwaw93
>> anyone is interested, they may care to look into where and when such
>> qabalistic
>> documents as the the book of formation and the fifty gates of understanding
>> first appeared, and which noble families sponsored their publication.
>
>I'm interested, since I've looked into some other things which might be
>related to this. Thanks.
>
Lots of usefull information (see the bibliographies in particular) and an
interesting hypothesis at this site:
http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Masquerade/Essays/allusion.html
Kwaw
Kwaw93
>political climate is emphasized
I've no doubt the charges were made on political grounds, the connection with
Manfreda was one of the tools that was used against him.
Also from this site:
From:
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:JJOB29SJ6YcJ:www.astroprofile.com/tar
otdocs/EsotericOrigins.pdf+kabbalah+Italy+sforza&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
The following:
"In the Visconte-Sforza Tarocchi deck we find a Popess dressed in the habit of
the Umiliata Order of the Guglielmites whose female leader, a Bohemian Lombard,
died in Milan in 1281. The image in the deck represents Popess Sister Manfreda,
who was elected Pope by her sect. She was regarded as an avatar of the Holy
Spirit sent to inaugurate the New Age of Spirit prophesied by Joachim of Flora.
This Popess was burned at the stake in autumn of A.D. 1300, the year that the
New Age ending male domination of religion was supposed to begin. Later the
Inquisition started proceedings against Matteo Visconti for his slight
involvement with the sect."
Note: according to 'Italian Dynasties' Sister Manfred was a relation of the
Viscontis.
Kwaw
Kwaw93
Yetzira from the 14th century in Italian, one dated to 1316/17:
MS Parma De Rossi "I" 1390 36b-38b.
MS Paris "L" 802(4) foll, 57b-59b.
Kwaw
Sue
kwa...@aol.comnojunk (Kwaw93) wrote:
This is quite similar to what Moakley wrote about the Popess.
>
> Note: according to 'Italian Dynasties' Sister Manfred was a relation of the
> Viscontis.
Moakley's account states this as well.
Sue
Kwaw93
>>
>> MS Parma De Rossi "I" 1390 36b-38b.
>>
>> MS Paris "L" 802(4) foll, 57b-59b.
>>
>Noted.
Also of course that one of Mirandola's main sources were the works Abraham
Abulafia (including a commentary on the Sefer Yetzira). Abulafia was
excommunicated as a heretic by the orthodox Jewish authorities of his time, he
outraged his co-religionists as he taught both woman and non-jews. So great was
his conversionary zeal he even went to Rome to convert the Pope!
Quote for Jewish Encyclopedia:
"In the Spaniard Abraham Abulafia of the thirteenth century Essenism of old
found its resurrection. Preaching asceticism and the highest potentiality of
the spirit through communion with God, effected by a perfect knowledge and use
of His names, he was thoroughly convinced of his prophetic mission, and
considered himself to be the God-sent Messiah and Son of God. He differs,
however, from the Messiahs who have risen at different times in his many-sided
philosophical training as well as in his perfect unselfishness and sincerity.
He addresses himself not to the masses, but to the educated and enlightened,
and does not confine his mission to his coreligionists, but is filled with the
desire to extend it to the adherents of the Christian church also. It seems
that, for the sake of influencing these, he tried to construct a Trinitarian
system, though it was a Trinity in form merely, and did not touch the essence
of God's personality. Before his vision stood the ideal of a unity of faith,
the realization of which he longed to bring about. Imbued with this spirit, his
disciples worked in Spain and Italy, emphasizing still more the Trinitarian
idea while treating of the 'Ten Sefirot' in order to win the adherents of the
Church. Hence the terms Father, Mother, Son, and Holy Ghost, borrowed from the
Christian creed, in the cabalistic literature of the thirteenth century. In
order to understand Abulafia psychologically and judge him correctly and
without bias in the light of history, it must be borne in mind that his cradle
was in Spain, the home of religious ecstasy, and that the age in which he lived
was that of the Crusades, so favorable to mystic speculation, an age in which
many longed to see the barriers separating Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
broken down, and in which the Messianic hopes of the Jews found new nourishment
in many hearts." .
The point being that the concepts of kabbalah and particular that to do with
letters was readily available druing the time period in Italy when the 22
tarochi make their appearance. The development and growth of Kabbalah in Europe
(esp, Italy, spain and france) run in parallel to dualistic and gnostic
christian heresies such as is possibly expressed in the figure of the 'Female
Pope' and some Scholars consider them to be closely linked. Interesting that
in Italy Florence, Milan and Ferrara were strongholds both of a type of
Catharism and of Jewish settlements with a heavy interest in kabbalah. with a
few exceptions the Jews in Milan, Florence and Ferrera recieved a degree of
protection not seen elsewhere. Interesting too that the papal edict protecting
jews was issued by Pope Gregory X, Theobold Visconti, brother of Ottone
Visconti archbishop of Milan. The Jews were also offered protection under
Francesco Visconti-Sforza. None of this particularly 'proves' anything but does
offer some interesting strands for a possible gnostic jewish/cathar connection
with the evolution of the cards in Northern Italy.
Kwaw
Sue
kwa...@aol.comnojunk (Kwaw93) wrote:
> >> Yetzira from the 14th century in Italian, one dated to 1316/17:
> >>
> >> MS Parma De Rossi "I" 1390 36b-38b.
> >>
> >> MS Paris "L" 802(4) foll, 57b-59b.
> >>
> >Noted.
>
> Also of course that one of Mirandola's main sources were the works Abraham
> Abulafia (including a commentary on the Sefer Yetzira). Abulafia was
> excommunicated as a heretic by the orthodox Jewish authorities of his time,
> he
> outraged his co-religionists as he taught both woman and non-jews. So great
> was
> his conversionary zeal he even went to Rome to convert the Pope!
Tarot appeared before Mirandola, didn't it? Do you have any particular
person or work that you can link to both Abulafia and the creation of
tarot?
Do you have any evidence of the presence of 'disciples' of Abulafia
present in Italy, most particularly anywhere near the region in which it
appears tarot originated, sometime before the first mention of tarot? Or
any evidence of the presence of works attributed to Abulafia in that
area prior to what is believed to be the creation of tarot? If so, that
would be very interesting.
>
> The point being that the concepts of kabbalah and particular that to do with
> letters was readily available druing the time period in Italy when the 22
> tarochi make their appearance. The development and growth of Kabbalah in
> Europe
> (esp, Italy, spain and france) run in parallel to dualistic and gnostic
> christian heresies such as is possibly expressed in the figure of the 'Female
> Pope' and some Scholars consider them to be closely linked. Interesting that
> in Italy Florence, Milan and Ferrara were strongholds both of a type of
> Catharism and of Jewish settlements with a heavy interest in kabbalah. with a
> few exceptions the Jews in Milan, Florence and Ferrera recieved a degree of
> protection not seen elsewhere. Interesting too that the papal edict
> protecting
> jews was issued by Pope Gregory X, Theobold Visconti, brother of Ottone
> Visconti archbishop of Milan. The Jews were also offered protection under
> Francesco Visconti-Sforza. None of this particularly 'proves' anything but
> does
> offer some interesting strands for a possible gnostic jewish/cathar
> connection
> with the evolution of the cards in Northern Italy.
Based on your line of thought, you might find the Rothschild Miscellany
of interest.
Prophet 718
> # ...the tradition of linking Tarot to Kabbalah
> # began with the Egyptomaniacal theories of
> # French Freemasons:
> # http://jktarot.com/egyptomania.html
nagasiva <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote:
>
> thanks. that's an interesting article. here are some
> queries on it....
>
> @ http://jktarot.com/egyptomania.html#2
>
> # Aleister Crowley's bizarre "Stele of
> # Revealing" invention, wherein he took an
> # ordinary Egyptian artifact, coincidentally
> # numbered item 666 in the Cairo Museum,
> # and turned an inept translation of its
> # hieroglyphs into Apocalyptic god names --
> # this is particularly the case with the
> # purely Egyptomaniacal "Hadit".
I remember a couple of years ago when you (JK) were of the opinion
that Crowley fabricated the catalogue number 666 for the Stele of
Revealing. Nice to see you change your rants to reflect the facts.
(There has been recent evidence located that proves the stele of
Ankh-f-n-khonsu was catalogue item #666 in the Egyptian Museum.)
The tiresome rant about Hadit being a mistranslation of the name of
the winged disk on the stele is also unfounded. The translation of the
stele was performed by a French assistant that worked in the museum.
The type of translation he provides is typical of what a tourist would
expect, that being something more poetic and ideological than
grammatical or literal. For instance, instead of using the name Wesir
(Osiris), he uses the word *deceased*. The term is ideologically
correct, but certainly not a literal translation of the hieroglyphics
comprising the word. The translator could have used the name *Behedet*
in describing the winged disk as it appears on the stele, but the name
is really the town where the legend was born. Instead, he chose
*Hadit*, which based on the crude understanding of Egyptian grammar in
1904, was probably a name that is synonymous with the winged disk and
the eye of Hoor: Hadjit. The translator may have considered the *D* as
the correct phoneme, and not *Dj*.
*Khabs* is not a word in Egyptian either, it is the lingual
conception the world had in 1904 of the Egyptian word that means
*starlight*. If the author of the Book of the Law had used actual
Egyptian words in the dictation, Crowley would have had no idea how to
spell them or known what the words meant. Instead, he used familiar
terms constrained to the grammatical understanding of Egyptian
language at the time. Thus if Crowley perceived the winged disk as
Hadit, there would be every reason for Aiwass to use the term in the
book.
Proximus Lux
Kwaw93
Thats the point. Some people have suggested there was no 'gentile' access to
kabbalistic theory prior to Mirandola. But Abulafia was teaching a
'christianised' version of the Kabbalah, founded heavily on the Sefer Yetzira,
in Italy between 1279 to 1292. There is also a manuscript of the SY in Italian
from 1316. There is also a strong parallel in the development of some
unorthodox jewish and christian sects that is suggestive of some sort of
connection or dialogue between them; and the 'female pope' of the
visconti-sforza set provides a possible link with one such heretical sect.
>Based on your line of thought, you might find the Rothschild Miscellany
>of interest
Thanks for the reference.
Kwaw
Sue
kwa...@aol.comnojunk (Kwaw93) wrote:
> >Tarot appeared before Mirandola, didn't it?
>
> Thats the point. Some people have suggested there was no 'gentile' access to
> kabbalistic theory prior to Mirandola. But Abulafia was teaching a
> 'christianised' version of the Kabbalah, founded heavily on the Sefer Yetzira,
> in Italy between 1279 to 1292. There is also a manuscript of the SY in Italian
> from 1316. There is also a strong parallel in the development of some
> unorthodox jewish and christian sects that is suggestive of some sort of
> connection or dialogue between them; and the 'female pope' of the
> visconti-sforza set provides a possible link with one such heretical sect.
I wouldn't have been one of those people that suggested that there was
no access to kabbalistic theory prior to Mirandola. I did wonder if you
had been able to find any concrete evidence of some kind of specific
_group_ or groups that existed from the time of Abulafio in Italy. My
own efforts to pin down the existence of such groups has still left me
with it all just being 'suggested', but I've really only been looking at
it all from the viewpoint of how it might be hinted at in art of the
time.
>
> >Based on your line of thought, you might find the Rothschild Miscellany
> >of interest
>
> Thanks for the reference.
You might also find it interesting that the reason I began looking into
this work had to do with Bembo - it was linked to him in one of the
books I found at the library when I was trying to find any published
images of his work. If you end up looking further into the Rothschild
Miscellany and find anything interesting, I'd like to hear about it.
It's a fascinating work.
jk
> I remember a couple of years ago when you (JK) were of the opinion
> that Crowley fabricated the catalogue number 666 for the Stele of
> Revealing.
That's one version of the story. It leaves out a number of important facts however.
> Nice to see you change your rants to reflect the facts.
That's how it's supposed to work. Thelemites often
don't favor that approach of course.
> (There has been recent evidence located that proves the stele of
> Ankh-f-n-khonsu was catalogue item #666 in the Egyptian Museum.)
Since you are a fan of facts, which important one did you
leave out in that survey?
Be specific.
> The tiresome rant about Hadit being a mistranslation of the name of
> the winged disk on the stele is also unfounded.
What is your source for this myth?
> The translation of the stele was performed by a French assistant
> that worked in the museum.
How do you know that part of the myth is true?
> The type of translation he provides is typical---
Again, how do you know this?
> of what a tourist would
> expect, that being something more poetic and ideological than
> grammatical or literal.
But Crowley freely admits he himself added the poetic
interpretation of what was provided to him. In other words,
he changed the translation to fit his creative needs. That's
why any competent translation of the stele differs so much
from what Crowley initially claimed it said.
> For instance, instead of using the name Wesir
> (Osiris), he uses the word *deceased*.
Actually, "he" wouldn't have used that word, would he?
So, what word did he use?
> The term is ideologically correct,
What do you mean by "ideologically correct"?
> but certainly not a literal translation of the hieroglyphics
> comprising the word.
A literal translation, or that is a competent translation,
would seem a relevant concern for those who imagine the
message on the ancient stele to be of literally cosmic
importance. That's why Crowley later had more accurate
translations made of the stele, which unfortunately
presented him, and later the OTO managers, with the
problem of explaining why, if nothing else, Aiwass was
such a poor translator of ancient Egyptian. Indeed, Aiwass
is shown to bend to Crowley's will in that respect, hardly
something one would expect from a supposedly
preternaturally gifted entity.
> The translator could have used the name *Behedet*---
Why could he have used that name?
> in describing the winged disk as it appears on the stele, but the name
> is really the town where the legend was born.
The name is not merely that.
What else is it?
Be specific.
> Instead, he chose *Hadit*---
How do you know that?
> , which based on the crude understanding of Egyptian grammar in
> 1904---
How would this "crude understanding" have affected the translation
of the name?
Be specific.
> , was probably a name that is synonymous with the winged disk and
> the eye of Hoor---
Why is it probably this?
> : Hadjit. The translator may have considered the *D* as
> the correct phoneme, and not *Dj*.
And why again would the translator have made this consideration?
> *Khabs* is not a word in Egyptian either---
So you admit that "Hadit" is not an Egyptian word, and
therefore does not appear on the Stele of Revealing?
Is that correct?
> If the author of the Book of the Law---
Who was the author of the Book of the Law?
> had used actual Egyptian words in the dictation---
It would have made a lot of sense, given that the supposed
context of the revelation was (in) ancient Egyptian.
> , Crowley would have had no idea how---
Now you're getting it. Precisely, no idea how, nor where,
nor what.
Yes, and that's reflected in what actually happened in Cairo
in 1904, which was something considerably less than the
change of Aeon claimed by Crowley and his followers.
> to spell them or known what the words meant. Instead, he used
> familiar terms---
How would "Hadit" have been a familiar term to Crowley? It is,
after all, supposed to be "actual Egyptian", the thing about
which you admit Crowley would have no idea.
> constrained to the grammatical understanding of Egyptian
> language at the time.
That's a myth, not a reasonable or knowledgeable explanation.
> Thus if Crowley perceived the winged disk as
> Hadit---
Again, why would he have perceived it this way?
> , there would be every reason for Aiwass to use the term in the
> book.
Precisely, since Crowley and Aiwass are equally incompetent
readers of ancient Egyptian. And that's because Crowley and
Aiwass are the same, imperfect, being.
(jk)
************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
Tarot News:
http://www.jktarot.com/news.html
************************************
Asiya
> jk wrote:
> > Prophet 718 predicted the fall of Thelema:
>
Crowley's Thoth Tarot deck was designed to help popularize Thelema.
Thelema is the inherent philosophical basis for the principles and
"truths" Crowley dishes out in his Tarot deck and book.
> > But Crowley freely admits he himself added the poetic
> > interpretation of what was provided to him. In other words,
> > he changed the translation to fit his creative needs. That's
> > why any competent translation of the stele differs so much
>
> does it differ so much? by what standards? be specific.
Crowley's "poetic paraphrases" differ greatly from what is actually on
the Stele. What is actually on the Stele would be the standard of
anyone interested in truth (which should also include Thelemites but
it seems unlikely that will happen anytime soon in regard to Thelema's
origins). And what is actually on the Stele can be revealed by anyone
with basic knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphics (which apparently does
not include Aiwas).
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
Sue
kwa...@aol.comnojunk (Kwaw93) wrote:
> >he Hermetics
> ># seem to NOT have made up the story of a relationship between
> ># the cards and Judaism out of whole cloth.
> >
> >indeed, though this doesn't confirm that this relation is the
> >inspiration for the fabrication of the Hermetic fantasies. :>
>
> Maybe such maybe be found among the artists and their patrons who produced
> some
> of the earliest cards?
Did your post from some time ago regarding the crown of the magi have
anything to do with your pursuit of information related to this concept?
jk
of the Thelemic Tower:
>>> The tiresome rant about Hadit being a mistranslation of the name
of
>>> the winged disk on the stele is also unfounded.
> Jess Karlin:
>> What is your source for this myth?
You didn't provide your source for this myth.
And you skipped something, didn't you, the part where your version
of history regarding the association of 666 with the stele was
questioned?
Why didn't you reply to those questions?
Be specific.
>>> The translation of the stele was performed by a French assistant
>>> that worked in the museum.
>> How do you know that part of the myth is true?
> The assistant---
You're using circular reasoning---claiming your proof for there
having been a French assistant is that there was a French
assistant.
So, again, how do you know that part of the myth is true?
> The common spelling at the time (and still) is
> *Nut*.
What do you mean by "common spelling"? "Nuit" was and is
certainly a variation of the spelling of "Nut" That word itself
doesn't prove a French assistant (or French anything) did
the translation.
> Aiwass did not generate very many translated Egyptian words or
> names.
Which ones did he "generate"?
> The majority were created by Crowley---
"created"? He claims to have simply been taking dictation.
> as names taken from the translation of the stele---
Why wouldn't Aiwass have corrected Crowley's misunderstanding
concerning "Hadit"?
Be specific.
> , modified slightly and used in the paraphrases.
You mean distorted considerably to serve Crowley's creative
interests, not any cosmic mission of some entity named
Aiwass.
> Can you be specific about which words you think Aiwass
> mistranslated?
The point is that there never was any Aiwass.
>>> The translator could have used the name *Behedet*---
>> Why could he have used that name?
> Sometimes the winged disk was called *The Behedet*.
At what times? And why would that have been appropriate for
the text written on the Stele of Revealing?
Be specific.
> The four monoliteral glyphs spelling the name of the town---
What are the four monoliteral glyphs?
> translate into English as b-h-d-t.
Explain how that works.
You say they translate into "English" as b-h-d-t, but that isn't
English. So what is it you were trying to say?
> The determinative glyph included with the monoliterals indicates
> *bhdt* is the name of a town.
That may be true, but that doesn't mean the function of the name
on the stele is merely geographical.
> I'm skipping the related mythology.
Is there a related mythology? Or another purpose?
Why wouldn't that be relevant to a consideration of the
correct meaning and translation of the word?
>>> Instead, he chose *Hadit*---
>> How do you know that?
> There are only three consonants in Hadit---
You mean in the English transliteration, or the mistranslated Egyptian
word?
And how and why did the translator "choose" Hadit as the correct
word?
> , and four monoliteral glyphs spelling the name bhdt on the stele.
> According to your theory, the translator not only lacked knowledge
> of the monoliteral glyphs,
Why should that be seen as my "theory"?
Although, certainly any person who rendered
"Hadit" from the hieroglyphs in question on the stele would lack
knowledge, yes. And again, it has been claimed Aiwass
possessed special knowledge, unavailable to mere mortals
(a claim which has in other contexts been shown to be incorrect),
and yet here he is shown to be incapable of reading and reporting
the simplest ancient Egyptian name.
> but actually skipped one of them in the translation.
Maybe he wasn't very good at reading ancient Egyptian.
> It doesn't make any sense when someone with no knowledge
> of hieroglyphics---
Who are you talking about?
> could take a list of the monoliteral glyphs---
What do you mean by "a list"?
> and do a better job of translating the symbols.
It's true something doesn't make any sense, but it's something
other than what you're attempting to say.
>>> , which based on the crude understanding of Egyptian grammar in
>>> 1904---
>> How would this "crude understanding" have affected the translation
>> of the name?
>> Be specific.
> As an example, Budge mistranslated the name of the town of Behedet
> as Behutet.
How did he mistranslate the name? What grammatical mistake
did he make?
And how is this an example of the "crude understanding" that would
guide us in understanding how "Hadit" could be derived from the
stele?
Be specific.
>>> , was probably a name that is synonymous with the winged disk and
>>> the eye of Hoor---
>> Why is it probably this?
> Based on the similarity between several terms that are close in
> meaning and spelling. Written in Manuel de codage, Hdd.t and Hdd are
> gods associated with the winged disk as a destructive force---
How does one spell those names in Egyptian hieroglyphics?
> , namely in the form of the scorpion. The names could be translated into
> English as Hadit and Had.
Were they ever translated into English as Hadit and Had?
When and where and by whom?
> Hadjit and Hadj are terms that mean bright, light, and destruction.
And how does one spell those words in Egyptian hieroglyphics?
> Hadjit (HD.t) is the name of the White Cow and the
> White Hippopotamus.
But they don't anything to do with Hadit, do they?
> Both images are facets of Hathor as the female destructive force
> bearing the Eye of Ra.
So?
>>> : Hadjit. The translator may have considered the *D* as
>>> the correct phoneme, and not *Dj*.
>> And why again would the translator have made this consideration?
> In the Beinlich wordlist, Hededet---
What is the spelling of that word in Egyptian hieroglyphics?
>>> *Khabs* is not a word in Egyptian either---
>> So you admit that "Hadit" is not an Egyptian word, and
>> therefore does not appear on the Stele of Revealing?
> I've demonstrated that Hadit can not only be a word in Egyptian---
You have merely claimed this, not demonstrated it.
The point is that "Hadit" is not a word in ancient Egyptian, and
certainly not one appearing on the Stele of Revealing.
> I will agree however, that Hadit does not appear as a
> name on the stele.
See.
>> How would "Hadit" have been a familiar term to Crowley? It is,
>> after all, supposed to be "actual Egyptian", the thing about
>> which you admit Crowley would have no idea.
> Hadit appears as a description in the translation of the stele---
You mean the mistranslation of the stele.
> , and appears with most of the other god names in the book
> as elements in the paraphrases by Crowley.
In the ignorant distortions by Crowley. Precisely.
>>> Thus if Crowley perceived the winged disk as
>>> Hadit---
>> Again, why would he have perceived it this way?
> Due to the name of the winged disk provided in the translation of
> the stele.
So, it is only the bad translation of the name that leads to his
usage of "Hadit" in the Book of the Law.
You know, I found this interesting quotation which mirrors
that view:
"As shown, the translation of Behedet as a god named Hadit is
incorrect."
You remember who wrote that, don't you?
Jason Michael Rubino
> The point is that there never was any Aiwass.
"The gnostic god AIWASS said: "I am the great god that sits
upon a throne of white marble. Black as the night are my eyes,
but brilliant as sun-illuminated snow fields. My horns of
pure obsidian, their trimming in scarlet, in their points
the honey of gnosis. My tail points to the snake's nose. My
phallus is ever erect, for my inner snake is forever united
with the Lady of Dreams in a kiss. My feet are solid upon the
earth, my horns pierce the clouds. I am the god to which the
throne of Ra was given, I am the glorious one, Christ named
by some, by others BAPHOMET, but Satan by the masses".
http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/prkoenig/stephen/ob/der_ordo_baphometis_en.htm
l
I thought it was funny; off-topic, but funny. As you were .
Prophet 718
> Prophet 718 added more verses concerning the destruction
> of the Thelemic Tower:
Universal laws cannot be destroyed.
>
> >>> The tiresome rant about Hadit being a mistranslation of the name
> of
> >>> the winged disk on the stele is also unfounded.
>
> > Jess Karlin:
>
> >> What is your source for this myth?
>
> You didn't provide your source for this myth.
>
> And you skipped something, didn't you, the part where your version
> of history regarding the association of 666 with the stele was
> questioned?
>
> Why didn't you reply to those questions?
>
> Be specific.
I skipped the part about you discovering the misplaced information
in the museum catalogue which confirms the stele of Ankh-f-n-khonsu
was numbered 666 as reported by Crowley. On behalf of Thelemites
throughout the galaxy, allow me to express our deepest gratitude for
the two-ton magic brick you have added to the Tower.
>
> >>> The translation of the stele was performed by a French assistant
> >>> that worked in the museum.
>
> >> How do you know that part of the myth is true?
>
> > The assistant---
>
> You're using circular reasoning---claiming your proof for there
> having been a French assistant is that there was a French
> assistant.
>
> So, again, how do you know that part of the myth is true?
>
> > The common spelling at the time (and still) is
> > *Nut*.
>
> What do you mean by "common spelling"? "Nuit" was and is
> certainly a variation of the spelling of "Nut" That word itself
> doesn't prove a French assistant (or French anything) did
> the translation.
In 1904, the spelling for the name of the Egyptian sky-goddess was
determined by exposure to the available writings of the day, namely
those produced by British and French researchers (Egyptologists).
Budge was the primary producer of English translations of Egyptian
texts. He used the spelling *Nut*, as evidenced by his writings. The
French used the spelling *Nouit*, as evidenced by the French writings
about the sarcophagus of Ankh-f-n-khonsu, written in 1913. Translating
the Egyptian name *nw.t* into English as *Nuit* requires thinking like
a French speaker. I can find no evidence of anyone using the spelling
*Nuit* before 1904.
>
> > Aiwass did not generate very many translated Egyptian words or
> > names.
>
> Which ones did he "generate"?
>
> > The majority were created by Crowley---
>
> "created"? He claims to have simply been taking dictation.
According the account provided in the Equinox of the Gods, Crowley
had the stele inscriptions translated by the museum staff and used the
translation as his source for the paraphrases that appear in the text
of the Book of the Law. Based on his statements and the appearance of
snippets of the paraphrases in the original manuscript, Crowley wrote
the paraphrases before the book was dictated. The names included in
the paraphrases are Hadit, Nuit, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, and Ahathoor, among
others. The spelling *Hoor* also appears for the first time in
Crowley's paraphrasing and the Book of the Law. My original point is
that Crowley was familiar with (or even inspired to produce) these
spellings before the book was dictated.
>
> > as names taken from the translation of the stele---
>
> Why wouldn't Aiwass have corrected Crowley's misunderstanding
> concerning "Hadit"?
>
> Be specific.
In order to determine whether Hadit could be an Egyptian word, it
must be reduced to consonants first due to Egyptian words being
written without vowels. Using the Beinlich wordlist, a reputable
source recognized by experts in the field of Egyptian language, I've
shown the vowels H-d-t are a word in the Egyptian language. A check of
Budge's second volume on the Egyptian gods shows that he links the god
Hdd.t with the solar disk. I've provided enough evidence to create a
reasonable doubt about Hadit being a mistranslation of the name of the
winged sun. If you wish to maintain credibility, you should delete the
reference to Hadit on your website.
Proximus Lux
Sue
eyeo...@yahoo.com (Prophet 718) wrote:
> In order to determine whether Hadit could be an Egyptian word, it
> must be reduced to consonants first due to Egyptian words being
> written without vowels. Using the Beinlich wordlist, a reputable
> source recognized by experts in the field of Egyptian language, I've
> shown the vowels H-d-t are a word in the Egyptian language. A check of
> Budge's second volume on the Egyptian gods shows that he links the god
> Hdd.t with the solar disk. I've provided enough evidence to create a
> reasonable doubt about Hadit being a mistranslation of the name of the
> winged sun. If you wish to maintain credibility, you should delete the
> reference to Hadit on your website.
>
Why would you think it necessary for the person to "maintain
credibility"?
Erodic Pragletz
jk
while yelling "victory" all the way down:
> taro...@jktarot.com (jk) wrote in message news:<ba8efff9.03060...@posting.google.com>...
> > Prophet 718 added more verses concerning the destruction
> > of the Thelemic Tower:
> Universal laws cannot be destroyed.
Certainly they can not be created by popular (or kookist) affirmation
either.
> > You didn't provide your source for this myth.
> > And you skipped something, didn't you, the part where your version
> > of history regarding the association of 666 with the stele was
> > questioned?
> I skipped the part about you discovering the misplaced information
> in the museum catalogue which confirms the stele of Ankh-f-n-khonsu
> was numbered 666 as reported by Crowley.
Not quite "as reported by Crowley". As with his followers, he also
tended to filter facts. Now, when you blundered into this thread you
began by claiming I was ranting about something, and that you were a
fan of facts. It's curious, isn't it, that if indeed I am merely the
"Crowley critic", factlessly ranting about evil Aleister and his
swindles, I would be the person who in FACT demonstrated that the
stele Crowley saw was in FACT numbered 666 after all. Of course, in
addition I was the person who demonstrated that the stele was in FACT
residing in the Cairo (not Bulaq) Museum on the day(s) Crowley saw it.
All of these facts tend not to support your characterization of me and
my work.
So, again, why did you leave them out of your version of history?
> On behalf of Thelemites throughout the galaxy---
When did they appoint you as their representative?
> , allow me to express our deepest gratitude for
> the two-ton magic brick you have added to the Tower.
That particular brick is actually made out of cardboard, like
the rest of the Thelemic Tower.
> > You're using circular reasoning---claiming your proof for there
> > having been a French assistant is that there was a French
> > assistant.
> > So, again, how do you know that part of the myth is true?
Why didn't you answer that question?
> > > The common spelling at the time (and still) is
> > > *Nut*.
> > What do you mean by "common spelling"? "Nuit" was and is
> > certainly a variation of the spelling of "Nut" That word itself
> > doesn't prove a French assistant (or French anything) did
> > the translation.
> In 1904, the spelling for the name of the Egyptian sky-goddess was
> determined by exposure to the available writings of the day---
Budge lists "Nuit" as an alternative spelling for "Nut" in his
hieroglyphic dictionary.
> The French used the spelling *Nouit*---
Which is NOT Nuit.
> Translating the Egyptian name *nw.t* into English as *Nuit*---
Do you actually know what the word "English" means?
It is not apparent that you do. Nor do you seem to understand what the
word "translation" means. It is not the same word as
"transliteration".
> requires thinking like a French speaker.
Obviously not.
You have not demonstrated why the "French assistant" portion of the
myth should be accepted as true.
> > > Aiwass did not generate very many translated Egyptian words or
> > > names.
> > Which ones did he "generate"?
Why did you not answer that question?
> > > The majority were created by Crowley---
> > "created"? He claims to have simply been taking dictation.
> According the account provided in the Equinox of the Gods,
That is not the only account, not even the only account written by
Crowley.
In fact Crowley, for some reason, was vague and contradictory about
what happened, when it happened, who did what, and what it might have
meant.
> Crowley had the stele inscriptions translated by the museum
> staff---
How do you know that is in fact what happened?
Be specific.
> Based on his statements---
Again, he made more than one set of statements about this.
> Crowley wrote the paraphrases before the book was dictated.
You mean before he wrote the book.
> My original point is that Crowley was familiar with (or even inspired
> to produce) these spellings before the book was dictated.
In other words, no matter how poorly Crowley actually understood the
ancient Egyptian on the stele, Aiwass wasn't going to correct him.
> > > as names taken from the translation of the stele---
> > Why wouldn't Aiwass have corrected Crowley's misunderstanding
> > concerning "Hadit"?
> > Be specific.
> In order to determine whether Hadit could be an Egyptian word---
Hadit is not an Egyptian word. And more importantly, Hadit does not
appear anywhere on the Stele of Revealing. You yourself have admitted
that.
So, Aiwass should have corrected Crowley. But he didn't.
> it must be reduced to consonants first due to Egyptian words being
> written without vowels.
I asked you to explain how this would work with respect to the
hieroglyphs which were rendered "Hadit". You did not do this. Why not?
> I've shown the vowels H-d-t are a word in the Egyptian language.
h-d-t are not vowels, nor are they Egyptian letters.
Again, what were you trying to say?
> A check of Budge's second volume on the Egyptian gods shows
> that he links the god Hdd.t with the solar disk.
But he doesn't call that "Hadit".
> I've provided enough evidence---
As I pointed out to Catherine somewhere else in this thread, no
evidence (the amount you've supplied) is an insufficient amount.
> to create a reasonable doubt about---
Any claim you might make to understanding what the hell you're talking
about.
> Hadit being a mistranslation of the name of the winged sun.
Hadit is a mistranslation of the Egyptian word transliterated as
"Behdet".
There is no question that this is the case.
> If you wish to maintain credibility, you should delete the reference
> to Hadit on your website.
Fortunately, my credibility is not measured by my willingness or
failure to follow your instructions.
Seriously though, doesn't the Tower have any more interesting
playthings than you to offer up for sacrifice?
Tom
"jk" <taro...@jktarot.com> wrote in message
news:ba8efff9.03061...@posting.google.com...
> eyeo...@yahoo.com (Prophet 718) threw himself from the battlements,
> while yelling "victory" all the way down:
>
> > the two-ton magic brick you have added to the Tower.
>
> That particular brick is actually made out of cardboard, like
> the rest of the Thelemic Tower.
Yeah, but it has "TWO TONS" written on it. That's enough to convince some
occultists of its weight. Especially if it looks like those words were
written on it a long time ago. And if your scales don't show that weight,
they will tell you that this kind of weight isn't detectable by your
inferior materialistic technology.
Belief often has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with a
personal agenda.
http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html
Blazin' Tommy D.
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QGwFa.44528$Io.39...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
BTD: In court, the first part is the other way around, as for the second,
that's why we prefer Juries:)
>
> http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html
>
>
>
>
{ Secret Chief }
A premise of your back-and-forth circle-jerk with Prophet718 is that
the precise meaning of the Stele should be of especial concern to
Thelemites.
I am not sure that this is the case.
The stele is not itself Thelemic scripture. It is rather the physical
point at which Thelemic scripture began to be transmitted (or written
by Crowley, whichever your prefer.)
Crowley's paraphrase, in Thelemic-theological terms, derives its
validity not from its fidelity to the original Egyptian, but from its
quotation in Liber AL.
You point about Thelema being a product (at least partially) of
Egyptomania is well-taken. But in and of itself, it doesn't decide
the value or lack thereof of Thelema.
Your question about the French assistant is also a good one; I'd be
curious to know what the source, if any, is for that.
Best,
- DH
P.S. Fuck you, Jessie.
jk
> Dear Jessie,
At the towers of Hod
the guarded knot
destroys chief secrets
by the Lot
> A premise of your back-and-forth circle-jerk with Prophet718---
The circle jerk is between Thelemites and their idiotic faith.
I'm merely processing the canned lamb being offered for
sacrifice.
> is that the precise meaning of the Stele---
What is the precise meaning of the Stele? And how should one
go about learning this?
> should be of especial concern to
> Thelemites.
It was of considerable concern to Aleister Crowley.
It should be of concern to Thelemites still interested in
learning the truth.
> I am not sure that this is the case.
And you wished someone to acknowledge your condition.
Noted.
> The stele is not itself Thelemic scripture.
What is written on the stele, or what has been claimed to
be written on it, is certainly Thelemic scripture.
> It is rather the physical point at which Thelemic scripture
> began to be transmitted (or written by Crowley, whichever
> your prefer.)
If it were merely that, no translation of its hieroglyphics would
have been necessary, or sought by Crowley.
> Crowley's paraphrase---
How does Crowley describe this paraphrase? Do you recall?
I'm thinking here of a specific claim he makes about its
quality and importance with respect to Thelemic scripture.
> , in Thelemic-theological terms, derives its
> validity not from its fidelity to the original Egyptian, but from its
> quotation in Liber AL.
The mere fact something is scribbled down in Liber AL does not
grant it authority or validity.
For example, if Crowley says something in Liber AL like
"The Stele of Revealing has written upon it the god name
Hadit", the incorrectness of that statement is not
extinguished, nor is that statement validated, by the
fact that it may appear in Liber AL. If Liber AL contains
claims or information that is incorrect, or which is based on
inaccurate information (especially as that may have been
communicated to the mere man, Aleister Crowley, prior
to his supposed supernatural revelations from Aiwass),
that should be of concern to anyone who might take
seriously Crowley's claims about the true authorship of
Liber AL. And if claims about that authorship are questionable,
which is certainly the case, then all other claims made about
the nature of Liber AL, and its true meaning, become
questionable.
Liber AL is merely the inane babbling of a
self-consumed and very minor poet, and NOT the
revelation of the New Aeon. People who wish to claim
otherwise are obliged to provide extraordinary evidence
that their faith has more foundation than that of any other
religionist. For if that is not the case, then Crowley's claim
that his religion bridges the gap between science and
religion can only be seen as baseless hype.
> You point about Thelema being a product (at least partially) of
> Egyptomania is well-taken.
How so?
> But in and of itself, it doesn't decide the value or lack thereof
> of Thelema.
What decides that value?
> Your question about the French assistant is also a good one; I'd be
> curious to know what the source, if any, is for that.
Curiosity is a good thing. And a dangerous thing.
> P.S. Fuck you, Jessie.
You don't fuck. You're a lamb chop.
jk
> > Not quite "as reported by Crowley". As with his followers, he also
> > tended to filter facts.
> every brain, except maybe idiot savant brains,
> filters facts
Filtering relevant ones is not helpful to learning the
truth.
> AFAIK, there is a common confusion in these regards owing to many
> factors---
You are not knowledgeable about those factors. You in fact do not
know what the fuck you're talking about.
That is also not helpful to learning the truth, assuming
that's of any interest to you.
> i wonder what this detail matters anyway?
It only matters to people interested in knowing the truth.
> > That particular brick is actually made out of cardboard, like
> > the rest of the Thelemic Tower.
> ugh, we are really straining metaphoric credulity here
How so?
> >>>So, again, how do you know that part of the myth is true?
> how do we know it is not true?
Not knowing isn't a sufficient reason to accept it as true.
> if it is not true, how does it substantively matter to the account of
> EotG generally?
If the account of EotG is questionable in one respect, or two
respects, or in many respects, then it calls into question the entire
myth, and claims made about its meanings.
If one is interested in learning the truth, he should be interested in
attempting to honestly answer these questions.
> >>>"created"? He claims to have simply been taking dictation.
> if memory is creative (ala current neurology cognitive science), maybe
> dictation is too
Then it would not be a reliable record of what is claimed to have been
said.
> > How do you know that is in fact what happened?
> > Be specific.
> How do we know it was not in fact what happened?
Because you would know it for certain factual reasons,
and not merely because you (all) are collectively ignorant
and comfortable with that condition.
> How do we know the earth in fact isn't doughnut shaped?
Or flat?
I'm sure you're still struggling with the likely answers to
those questions as well. Or perhaps not.
> >>Crowley wrote the paraphrases before the book was dictated.
> > You mean before he wrote the book.
> o, we are really splitting hairs now aren't we?
I'm grilling lamb chops. I hope to remove their
fleece first.
> the question of Liber AL's 'actual' authorship is normally
> too abstract---
When isn't it too abstract?
> , framed as it is (usually) by Aristotlean either-or, to
> merit much consideration.
To merit much consideration by whom?
Crowley certainly gave it a lot of consideration.
And people interested in learning the truth (about
Thelemic myths) should give it a lot of consideration.
> I don't know how seriously I'd take any of his comments on Liber AL
Then why take seriously any of his comments in Liber AL?
> > In other words, no matter how poorly Crowley actually understood the
> > ancient Egyptian on the stele, Aiwass wasn't going to correct him.
> Now that's funny! Misguided, or no, though it may be ;)
How would it be misguided?
> Liber Al's 'Write this in whiter words' (though not Egyptian) seems to
> directly contradict your genralized assertion.
How so?
> > Hadit is a mistranslation of the Egyptian word transliterated as
> > "Behdet".
> so what?
So that isn't what Crowley or the OTO have maintained, nor is
that what most Thelemites believe to be the case.
Why is the truth about this so threatening?
jk
> "jk" <taro...@jktarot.com> wrote in message
> > That particular brick is actually made out of cardboard, like
> > the rest of the Thelemic Tower.
> Yeah, but it has "TWO TONS" written on it.
And that does weigh heavily on the minds and spirits of true
believers.
It's funny though, that same busy brick of fluff holds up all
faith-based towers. The company that manufactures them (or it) must be
doing terribly well.
Hieronymous707
>The company that manufactures them (or it) must be
>doing terribly well.
Well or not, it is no doubt a company of idiots.
...
I am, of course, in the company of idiots.
-hi-
Tom
>
> It's funny though, that same busy brick of fluff holds up all
> faith-based towers. The company that manufactures them (or it) must be
> doing terribly well.
The company is doing very well indeed. It employs some 20,000,000,000
utterly loyal and virtually tireless workers and using only 20-40 watts of
electrical power to produce all those bricks and more.
nagasiva
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net>:
# "jk" <taro...@jktarot.com>:
#> eyeo...@yahoo.com (Prophet 718):
#> while yelling "victory" all the way down:
#>
#># , allow me to express our deepest gratitude for
#># the two-ton magic brick you have added to the Tower.
#>
#> That particular brick is actually made out of cardboard,
#> like the rest of the Thelemic Tower.
Babble-On's Card Tower!
# Yeah, but it has "TWO TONS" written on it. That's enough to
# convince some occultists of its weight. Especially if it
# looks like those words were written on it a long time ago.
they might even be written on it in some supposed ancient
language (but the gods don't reveal that the language as
presented really means 'bright red cabbage').
# And if your scales don't show that weight, they will tell
# you that this kind of weight isn't detectable by your
# inferior materialistic technology.
or that weight is something that the observer doesn't *really*
understand, its mass and the way it pulls to ground is 'just
an illusion that the observer must somehow overcome' (a test
set up by the God for winnowing True Masters from fakes --
compare Creationism with archaeological data).
# Belief often has nothing to do with evidence and everything
# to do with a personal agenda....
# http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html
#>
#>Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory
#> in Social Psychology
#>Edited by Eddie Harmon-Jones and Judson Mills
belief has something to do with personal subjective
empiricism (as regards subjective effects), however
reliably reported by the mystic. belief usually does
have to do with a personal agenda, though it doesn't
have to (one might suspend this for one's own
reasons: for discussion in this forum for example).
usually the empirical method is as good as the perceptual
state of the observer (of course enhanced toward the ideal
of objectivity with peer review), and many mystical and
occult methods include states or practices that inspire
perceptual distortions for the purpose of result that
make unbiased reports difficult to find.
if one combines the ostensibly stigmatizing admission
of the use of some kind of psychoactive, to facilitate
suspension of disbelief or maybe the enabling of enhanced
imaginative effects as it impacts waking consciousness,
with the widespread standard of 'protecting the unwary
from powerful occult (or mystical) technology', it is
no wonder that most information on practical occultism
and shamanic explorations are incomplete, extremely
biased, and completely ungrounded. neither do these
make reporting reliable (because they are often twisted
by the very methods which make the data available),
nor do they predispose the skeptical to regard them
with a great degree of reliability (having learned long
ago the problems of confusing the visionary with the real).
nagasiva
{ Secret Chief }
> bloodo...@goddamnfruit.com ({ Secret Chief }) slapped spitwads on Tower cracks:
[snip jk's bad poetry]
> > A premise of your back-and-forth circle-jerk with Prophet718---
>
> The circle jerk is between Thelemites and their idiotic faith.
Is this the only circle jerk?
> I'm merely processing the canned lamb being offered for
> sacrifice.
If your whole point, Jessie dear, is that Thelema is stupid and
self-indulgent, why even bring up the shoddy Egyptology? Certainly
there are more obvious proofs of this! Or are you just a mashochist?
(Hint: Yes.)
Fuck you, Jessie,
- Lam Chop
This is the song that doesn't end!
Yes it goes on and on my friend:
A ka dua...
etc.
Prophet 718
> eyeo...@yahoo.com (Prophet 718) threw himself from the battlements,
Like The Falcon falling from the sky about to pounce on his
opponent. ;-)
> while yelling "victory" all the way down:
And a few other things. :-)
>
> All of these facts tend not to support your characterization of me and
> my work.
I fail to see how the Stele of Revealing has anything to do with
your work on the tarot.
>
> So, again, why did you leave them out of your version of history?
Trivial.
>
> > On behalf of Thelemites throughout the galaxy---
>
> When did they appoint you as their representative?
My statement was rhetorical.
Prophet 718:
> > > > The common spelling at the time (and still) is
> > > > *Nut*.
JK:
> > > What do you mean by "common spelling"? "Nuit" was and is
> > > certainly a variation of the spelling of "Nut" That word itself
> > > doesn't prove a French assistant (or French anything) did
> > > the translation.
P-718:
> > In 1904, the spelling for the name of the Egyptian sky-goddess was
> > determined by exposure to the available writings of the day---
JK:
> Budge lists "Nuit" as an alternative spelling for "Nut" in his
> hieroglyphic dictionary.
Budge's dictionary was not published until 1920, therefore it could
have no influence on the use of *Nuit* as a spelling in 1904. Most of
Budge's books were were published after 1904.
>
> > The French used the spelling *Nouit*---
>
> Which is NOT Nuit.
*Nouit* is the obvious source of *Nuit*. There is no other
explanation for the spelling.
>
> > Translating the Egyptian name *nw.t* into English as *Nuit*---
>
> Do you actually know what the word "English" means?
It implies words constructed of English letters used in English
publications, like Nuit and the Book of the Law.
>
> It is not apparent that you do. Nor do you seem to understand what the
> word "translation" means. It is not the same word as
> "transliteration".
A translated word has the same meaning as the word in the language
it is translated from. A transliterated word shares the same phonemes
or syllables as the word in the language it is transliterated from.
*Nuit* is really neither, so an inaccurate description will have to
suffice.
>
> > requires thinking like a French speaker.
>
> Obviously not.
*Nuit* is a phonetic transliteration of *Nouit* -- French into
English.
>
> You have not demonstrated why the "French assistant" portion of the
> myth should be accepted as true.
See above.
jk
Hellmouth:
> taro...@jktarot.com (jk) wrote in message news:<
>ba8efff9.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > eyeo...@yahoo.com (Prophet 718) threw himself from the battlements,
> Like The Falcon falling from the sky about to pounce on his
> opponent. ;-)
More like the chicken dropping courteously into the pot.
> > while yelling "victory" all the way down:
> And a few other things. :-)
Like what?
> > All of these facts tend not to support your characterization of me and
> > my work.
> I fail to see how the Stele of Revealing has anything to do with
> your work on the tarot.
Have you never read Liber AL, and Crowley's commentaries?
The connection is easy enough to understand, just from that source
alone.
> > So, again, why did you leave them out of your version of history?
> Trivial.
Not with respect to an honest summary of my involvement with the
stele.
> > > On behalf of Thelemites throughout the galaxy---
> > When did they appoint you as their representative?
> My statement was rhetorical.
Perhaps that is the excuse for everything you're writing.
But your rhetoric had better catch up to the excuse.
> JK:
> > Budge lists "Nuit" as an alternative spelling for "Nut" in his
> > hieroglyphic dictionary.
> Budge's dictionary was not published until 1920---
But he did not invent "Nuit" in 1920, did he?
> > > The French used the spelling *Nouit*---
> > Which is NOT Nuit.
> *Nouit* is the obvious source of *Nuit*.
Then if in fact it isn't the source of "Nuit", the obviousness
you claim isn't real, but is only your faith-based fantasy.
What if the truth were that "Nouit" isn't the source
for "Nuit", especially in the translation used by
Crowley?
In other words, what if you're dead wrong?
Then what?
Now, think about this---I know for a fact you're dead
wrong.
> There is no other
> explanation for the spelling.
Yes there is, just as there is another, better,
explanation for "Hadit" than the one you've
promoted.
> > > Translating the Egyptian name *nw.t* into English as *Nuit*---
> > Do you actually know what the word "English" means?
> It implies words constructed of English letters---
What are English letters?
> used in English publications---
You mean ones published in England?
> , like Nuit and the Book of the Law.
Is that a publication in England?
> > It is not apparent that you do. Nor do you seem to understand what the
> > word "translation" means. It is not the same word as
> > "transliteration".
> A translated word has the same meaning as the word in the language
> it is translated from.
That is incorrect, and in many cases quite impossible.
You don't know the meaning of translation.
> A transliterated word shares the same phonemes---
phoneme---any of a small set of basic units of sound, DIFFERENT FOR
EACH LANGUAGE.
OK, try again.
> *Nuit* is really neither, so an inaccurate description will have to
> suffice.
Giving inaccurate descriptions seems to be your specialty.
> > > requires thinking like a French speaker.
> > Obviously not.
> *Nuit* is a phonetic transliteration of *Nouit* -- French into
> English.
Except that isn't true.
Seriously, what is the source of your confidence? Utter and
complete dishonesty? Or what exactly?
> > You have not demonstrated why the "French assistant" portion of the
> > myth should be accepted as true.
> See above.
Even if one would accept your argument, that this one word suggests a
French origin for the entire translation, how does that demonstrate
there was a French assistant at the Cairo Museum who prepared the
translation of the Stele?
Be very specific.
(jk)
************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
jk's Webring:
http://tinyurl.com/dan8
************************************
jk
> [snip jk's bad poetry]
How was it bad?
> > > A premise of your back-and-forth circle-jerk with Prophet718---
> > The circle jerk is between Thelemites and their idiotic faith.
> Is this the only circle jerk?
Why, are you looking for other ones to join?
> > I'm merely processing the canned lamb being offered for
> > sacrifice.
> If your whole point, Jessie dear, is that Thelema is stupid---
My point is that Thelema is falsely promoted.
If the agents of Thelema think dishonesty is a proper means
to promote their religion, that indicates something fundmental
about the nature of Thelema, or of its effects upon the people
who claim to follow it.
> why even bring up the shoddy Egyptology?
Because it goes to the heart and mind of the essential dishonesty
at work and play in Thelema since the very start of the religion.
> Certainly there are more obvious proofs of this!
We have already seen that what is viewed by others as "obvious" may not be so.
> Or are you just a mashochist?
> (Hint: Yes.)
You, and some others here, seem to be the ones in pain.
> Fuck you, Jessie,
Salt and pepper you, lamby pie.
> This is the song that doesn't end!
Well you'd better get another singer then, the last
one retired back in 1947.
(jk)
************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
Jason Michael Rubino
"jk" <taro...@jktarot.com> wrote:
<clip>
> > I fail to see how the Stele of Revealing has anything to do with your
work on the tarot.
>
> Have you never read Liber AL, and Crowley's commentaries?
I have the the old and new comments in one precious volume worth hella. Let
me run over a few things that lack in your lexicon notes, though fitting it
in the context of your trite will be difficult. I'll manage;
> > > Budge lists "Nuit" as an alternative spelling for "Nut" in his
hieroglyphic dictionary.
>
> > Budge's dictionary was not published until 1920---
>
> But he did not invent "Nuit" in 1920, did he?
No; Crowley did. I view Nuit the conjoining of "Nut" and "Neith". "IT" is
all troughout Aleister Crolwey's writings so his coining NuIT and HadIT are
of no surprise.
> > > > The French used the spelling *Nouit*---
>
> > > Which is NOT Nuit.
>
> > *Nouit* is the obvious source of *Nuit*.
>
> Then if in fact it isn't the source of "Nuit", the obviousness you claim
isn't real, but is only your faith-based fantasy.
>
> What if the truth were that "Nouit" isn't the source for "Nuit",
especially in the translation used by Crowley?
>
> In other words, what if you're dead wrong?
>
> Then what?
It's not a matter of being right or wrong, it's a matter of privileged point
of view. Had you read the commentaries to Liber Al vel Legis you'd know that
it was Samuel bar Awaiss who introduced Crowley to "Anu" and "Adad,"
referring to the mother and father creation dieties of Sumer. Nuit and Hadit
( getting back to stiffling dead your original argument) has nothing to do
with the Stele' of Revealing; in point of fact, as pointed out earlier in
this thread, the wings at the top of the tablet are those of Horus; nor is
Aiwass in the theme of the Stele'-- the aire of the scene is a man named
Anhk-f-n-khonsu being made a priest by Ra. Cites? Learn Egyptian.
If you want to get technical about the so-called pseudo-Egyptian gods given
in the Book of the Law, Geb (Earth) takes the place of Hadit; use Nut (Sky)
or Neith. The rest of the pantheon pans. Hadit (Had) is more than likely the
Canaanite god Hadad. You have to be up on your class notes to remember how
Hadad ended-up in Egypt. Since you're being an asshole, do your own
research.
Back to the confusion: Aiwass' appearance during the 1904 dictation was
unplanned. To prepare for the ordeal, Crowley, in his oratory in Cairo, gave
this invocation which prompted communication with Aiwass;
"Unprepared and invoking thee, I [greek magical name here], Frater RR et AC,
am here in Thy presence - but thou art everywhere, O Lord Horus - to confess
humbly before Thee my neglect and scorn of Thee. How shall I hold myself up
before Thee? Thou art the mighty and unconquered Lord of the Universe. I am
a spark of Thine unnuterable radiance. How should I approach Thee? - Thou
art everywhere - But Thou hast graciously deigned to call me unto Thee, to
this exorcism of art, that I may be Thy servant, Thine Adept, O Bright One,
O Sun of Glory! Thou hast called me - should I not then hasten to Thy
presence? With unwashed hands therefore I come unto Thee and I lament my
wandering from Thee. But Thou knowest! Yea! I have done evil! If me
blasphemed Thee, why should I therefore foresake Thee? But Thou, the
Avenger, all is with Thee. Now I bow my neck before Thee, and as once Thy
sword was upon it, so I am in Thy hands. Strike if Thou wilt, Spare if Thou
wilt, but accept me as I am. My trust in Thee - shall it be confounded? This
ritual of Art, this forty and fourfold invocation, this sacrifice of blood,
these I do not comprehend. It is enough if I obey Thy decree. Did thy call
go forth from my eternal misery? Were not my joy to execute thy sentence
upon myself? For why? For that all is in Thee and it is enough that I burn
up in the intolerable glory of Thy presence. Everywhere! I turn toward Thy
promise. Doubtful are the words. Dark are the ways - to my words and ways
bring light. Thus then, now as ever, I enter the path of Darkness. If so I
may attain of the light. Hail!"
- Aleister Crowley, notebook entry, 1904.
You could see, if you were learned in mediumship, how confusion could have
arose in the mind of Aleister Crowley during the "transmission." It was his
wife Rose who had brought the ordeal of the gods to her husband; it was Rose
who mentioned Horus when she said, " They're waiting for you." It was Horus'
picture in the Stele', item # 666 (since moved from Boulak Musuem, now in
the heart of Cairo; item # 9422, section 22) that Rose had showed her
husband to verify her vision. He was expecting Horus.
> Now, think about this---I know for a fact you're dead wrong.
heh, heh, heh.
<clip>
Tell us more about the "Thelemic Religion."
{ Secret Chief }
> at work and play in Thelema since the very start of the religion.
The "heart of Thelema" is that it is a religion of some few thousand
(perhaps!) adherents founded by a homosexual junkie during the
honeymoon of his (first) lavendar marriage in Cairo in 1904.
If this is a subject you take seriously enough to argue over niceties
of middle-Egyptian grammar and so forth, Ra-Hoor bless ya!
jk
> jk wrote:
> > You first have to know the truth in order for it to become an enemy, or
> > for it to set you free.
> glib nonsense...
How so?
> >>>What is written on the stele, or what has been claimed to
> >>>be written on it, is certainly Thelemic scripture.
> >>why?
> > Because Crowley unquestionably thought the text from something
> > ancient Egyptian would add an air of antique authority to his
> > con. Very traditional, but very dishonest.
> does ac anywhere state that the stele 666 is 'scripture?'
Look, if you can't or won't read and reply to what is
actually being discussed or stated, then go knit.
I did not say that "stele 666" is scripture.
What did I say?
> what do you mean by this word---
By what word?
You mean by "scripture"?
Are you paying any attention here whatsoever or
are you merely jerking off your ignorance in
public?
Secret Chief replied to me:
"The stele is not itself Thelemic scripture. It is rather the
physical
point at which Thelemic scripture began to be transmitted (or written
by Crowley,"
And you replied to his observation, without correcting him.
So presumably you understood the meaning of the
term "scripture" with respect to the stele and Thelema.
On the other hand, you both have mischaracterized what
I said in order to deflect the critique that Crowley's use
of the stele text in Thelemic scripture has been both
indifferent and dishonest.
> , as it is not at all standard sentiment or language
> among thelemites.
And all Thelemites speak in "standard" sentiments
or language?
Why is that?
> what is standard however, is that liber 1, liber 7,
> liber 10, liber 27, liber 31, liber 65, liber 66, liber 74, liber 90,
> liber 156, liber 220, liber 370, liber 400, liber 231, liber 156, liber 813,
> are all 'class A material,'
Why are they all "class A material"?
> i normally associate with 'thelemic scripture,' not the stele
> 666.
Again, I did not say the stele was Thelemic scripture.
> a) yes, chapter 3 of liber 220 contains a versification of verso side of
> stele 666.
Do you recall who wrote this:
"This verse is a direct translation of the first section of the stele.
It conceals a certain secret ritual of the highest rank, connected
with
the two previous verses."
Do you recall what that comment refers to?
> b) yes, the stele 666 plays a special role in the 'religion' of thelema
> (your phrase not mine).
You mean "religion of Thelema"? That's not just my phrase.
> but all this does not make the stele 666 thelemic 'scripture,'---
Nor is that what I said.
Characteristics which are necessary for the development
of a truly Thelemic or magickal mind are the capacity to shut
up and listen, and the will to pay attention.
You do not possess these virtues.
> as far as i understand---
With respect to the matters being discussed in this
thread, that isn't far enough to warrant the opening
of your mouth.
> i can't understand exactly what you might
> be getting at.
See.
The people for whom the message is intended are
getting it just fine.
> if you can pull a quote where ac says he means the stele 666 to be
> 'thelemic scripture,'
Then I would be searching in support for your
mischaracterization and your misunderstanding.
There is no reason why I should do your stupid work for
you, is there?
> i do not have any responsibility furthermore as a
> thelemite to agree with everything ac said or did.
What responsibility do you have to agree with
ANYTHING he said or did?
More importantly, what responsibility do you have
to yourself to learn the truth?
> frankly i am still wondering what your point is:
I have stated that point explicitly in this thread.
> that ac lied?
That's part of the point, yes.
> that he fooled a bunch of people into believing a mess of
> lies? big news there!
Interestingly, it IS still big news for so many people,
especially for true believers.
> >>slippy slope, anyone?
> > Slippery slope. And you obviously are as unfamiliar with
> > the meaning of that idea as you are with how to properly
> > spell it.
> an obvious typo---
Not so obvious. As pointed out, it is not merely your
misspelling of the term which indicates your lack
of familiarity with the concept it represents.
> (a post immediately after this contained the same word
> but spelled correctly---
Good boy! Perhaps someone can award you a gold
star.
> , in case there is any doubt---
Or interest in your emotional problems.
> i am more inclined to believe---
That is the fundamental source of your problem.
Know, don't believe.
> you think it cute to try to press people's buttons)---
You came to worship me with pre-pressed buttons, or
as we know them to be---indolently depressed ones.
You asked to be anointed. I granted your request.
Stop whining.
> believe what is paptently absurd---
That's your religion, not mine.
> > I'm sure you've attempted to practice all those evasions
> > in your efforts to protect yourself from the truth, but the mere
> > goetic chanting of those words is not a proper substitute for
> > a rational argument.
> no doubt this is true;
Progress. So stop chanting and start thinking.
> >>the salvific or soteriological impact/status of Thelema's various
> >>artefacts are hardly less subject to the whims of prejudice et al than
> >>any other religion---
> > That isn't what Crowley claimed.
> actually, he waffled.
Actually, he was quite specific about the nature of Thelema's
distinctiveness compared to all other religions, and in
the ability of it to withstand "the whims of prejudice".
> which means i could array an armada of evidence to
> refute your somewhat bland over generalization---
You could, as many people do here, post reams of text.
That isn't necessarily "evidence", especially in support
of whatever point you believe yourself to be making.
In fact, one of the themes of this thread, which goes back
in time, you may recall, to the silly conjectures posted about
Tarot (and Jews) by Catherine Yronwode, is that the mere
posting of or linking to text, is not by itself a convincing
argument in support of whatever conclusion the quoter
or linker claims.
So, no doubt you could post a lot of text.
The question is why, other than wasting your own time
and that of others, you should be motivated to do so,
especially when there is also no doubt that you don't
know what you're talking about.
> in magick without tears, book of lies, and elsewhere (see below) he is
> plenty critical of his own 'religion' ---
You have not demonstrated this by the texts you have
quoted.
> encouraging scepticism be liberally applied everywhere---
Including towards the Stele of Revealing myth?
> liber 6:
> >part i:
> > 1. This book is very easy to misunderstand---
Did you read that part? What you do believe he meant
by it?
> >; readers are asked to use the most minute critical
> > care in the study of it, even as we have done in its
> > preparation.
So, do you use the most minute critical care in the
study of it?
And what exactly does that mean?
> > It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain
> > things certain results will follow;
Then it IS material that certain things be done, and not
certain other things. Results will follow in any case
however. They always do. But to obtain the desired results
(such as understanding him, or learning to effectively
manipulate the signs) it is necessary that certain things
be done, and correctly perceived.
> > students are most earnestly warned against attributing
> > objective reality or philosophic validity
> > to any of them.
Yet "certain things" must be done.
> > part ii verse 4.
> > These rituals need not be slavishly imitated---
That is, on the surface, an example of teaching people
who don't need to be taught, in other words a pointless
exercise.
Since Crowley knew that, consider that "these rituals
need not be slavishly imitated" because slaves will
necessarily not be drawn to performing them.
That doesn't mean that those who are drawn to performing
them shouldn't imitate them.
> > on the contrary the student should do nothing---
With respect to Crowley's teachings, or any occult teachings,
often the very best advice.
> liber 9:
> > part i verse 6
> # The experimenter is encouraged to use his own intelligence---
But the experimenter needs to bring some intelligence
to the lab in order to follow this guidance.
> , and not to rely upon any other person
So Aiwass should just shut up and leave the room.
Of course Aiwass isn't supposed to be a person, but
a "disembodied spirit". Thus, the concern over relying
upon his intelligence if indeed he isn't truly what he's
claimed to be.
> part 7 verse 7:
> # Let him further remember that he must in no wise rely upon,
> # or believe in, that master. He must rely entirely upon himself,
> # and credit nothing whatever but that which
> # lies within his own knowledge and experience.
As I pointed out to some of the YAMs who were once
blathering on alt.tarot about the virtues of NOT READING
BOOKS, and instead of following the special sauce
of "intuition" and "experience", reading books is ALSO
an experience. So is attentively listening to those
wiser and more knowledgeable than oneself.
> in fact, the only place i can see where he was fairly adamant about
> things is the last chapters of EotG.
He actually explained the difference between his poetic
description of individual will and destiny (and perception)
and the scientific circumstances and facts of existence
which tend to flow all supposed "stars" into the same
toilet.
I explain this in my essay on Tarot and semiotics but basically
Crowley was concerned to point out that no one should take
any truth, as perceived and communicated by someone else,
as objectively pertinent (or true). However, unless one would
lead a very short and impertinent life, he should realize that the
subjective differences in perception between our relative
positions in the cosmos often (and one may say generally)
HAVE NO PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
Thus, your Moon in the sky is not precisely the same as
mine. But they are practically the same Moon, and so we
can do some technical magick and visit there together.
One of the great problems people have in reading
Crowley is in blending his innate skepticism with
his devout faith and also his natural tendency to
dissemble. But these symptoms do blend.
> but since i take ac's work as a
> whole,
As a whole what?
> it is fairly easy for me to reconcile this seeming 'blind dogmatism.'
And it is fairly easy for most people to mistake their own
laziness and misunderstanding for "reconciliation".
> in short: who cares what ac, 'the master' claimed.
Obviously, you and many other people do care a great
deal about what he claimed. That doesn't mean you
(all) possess the skills and patience to learn what
his claimings mean.
So, there is a lot of this attitude heard amongst you,
that no one should care about mastering those
obviously very sour grapes (out of your reach).
> he's long dead---
And with death dies significance?
Or obligations?
Again, obviously that is not the case.
> , and i don't hang that much importance on such ill-defined
> topics as you are setting forth thus far in regards the stele 666.
Since you don't know what I'm talking about, your hanging
isn't really pertinent, is it?
> >>if thelema is special to me---
> > You sound like the Church Lady.
> you sound like an uptight asshole.
How so?
> i promise not to make fun of you---
You're making fun of yourself.
> , if you can refrain your own temptations at ad hominem.
Why are you attempting to negotiate with me?
Watch yourself. Or someone may turn you into a frog.
> > But you do demand that its false claims should be ignored
> > by me (and others).
> i demand no such thing, you are free to live with any illusion, so long
> as it stays well away from interfering with my own starry orbit.
"Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights."
Is that what you mean to say, that your rights are being thwarted by
what I'm talking about?
Well, Renfield, I'm sure you're used to dining on flies.
> > Why?
> give an example of my 'false demands' and---
I would once more be doing the work of supporting your
mischaracterizations.
Again, not much reason for me to play that silly game of yours, is
there?
> >>without necessarily needing your approval on the matter.
> > But you do need my approval on the matter.
> no, i don't. really.
Yes, you do really. And you know it.
> i don't know who you are---
Yet it still matters to you.
Funny, huh?
> give me a break. you are needlessly embarrassing your self with
> mindless flattery.
You know that isn't true.
> > Otherwise you'd be silent.
> you are confusing various truisms.
I'm simply noting that the supposed theme of your exercise
isn't supported by your words and deeds.
Silence, in this case particularly, is the wise course
for you.
> silence implies, occassionally, assent---
Or sometimes the wisdom to know you don't know.
That is a wisdom no doubt being displayed right now by
many silent ones much wiser than you.
> if i do not assent to your views---
As you have admitted, you don't know my views.
> this is hardly an example of 'needing approval,'---
But is an example of protesting too much.
> >>do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. love is the law,
> >>love under will.
> > So how do you know I'm not doing that?
> i made a simple statement.
What does that simple statement mean?
> if you thought that i implied or was attempting to
> imply that you were in fact *not* doing your will---
What about true will?
> , you read more into my simple statement than i actually
> intended---
What did you actually intend?
> i meant the statement as a demonstration of the values i have
> in the past demonstrated---
But that isn't the truth, is it?
> it is *much different* than the hostile interrogative:
> 'do you plan on ever taking out the garbage?'
Well, do you?
> the 1st statement is direct and unequivocal, implying no harm or
> offense.
How do you know?
> it is a simple statement. like do what thou wilt.
What does "do what thou wilt" mean?
If it means anything in a practical sense, then it
certainly implies harm and offense---just none
perhaps that would bother a Thelemite.
> the 2nd is filled with unnecessary implications/ projections of
> laziness, etc.
Aren't you lazy?
You're certainly woefully ignorant. And seemingly quite proud
of it.
> in short, i was continuing a logical line of thought---
You don't know or care anything whatsoever about logic.
Again, that's another theme of this thread, the use of the
word "logic" as a cheap wand, instead of as a tool of
reasoning.
> >>>What decides that value [of Thelema]?
> >>the individual. for themselves.
> > On what basis?
> for myself, the basis is certainly a mix of experience/ memory and
> reason/ desire.
It is, to judge from the postings you make here, a poor mix.
Did you ever see the movie "2001"? The difference between
the beast and the man before the monolith is in some respects
irrelevant, but in others it is crucial to the one thing that
distinguishes the two creatures.
Fear is not the distinguishing feature, but it is the common
thread that ties the two together in space and time.
You and many others here make suits for the dark side of
the Moon out of that thread.
> >>the elect are self-chosen.
> > If they base their choice on their ignorance, they are
> > also self-delusional.
> i am sure---
You are not that at all.
> so anyway, i wish your book didn't cost $40.
I didn't price the book (or write it for that matter) in
accord with people's wishes.
333
hi Jess!
taro...@jktarot.com (jk):
# My point is that Thelema is falsely promoted.
by some, agreed. religions generally are. they are promoted by
the deluded, securing the delusion of others for support of a
social hierarchy and/or set of scriptures/doctrines.
# If the agents of Thelema think dishonesty is a proper means
# to promote their religion, that indicates something [fundamental]
# about the nature of Thelema, or of its effects upon the people
# who claim to follow it.
well said.
bloodo...@goddamnfruit.com ({ Secret Chief }):
#> why even bring up the shoddy Egyptology?
#
# Because it goes to the heart and mind of the essential dishonesty
# at work and play in Thelema since the very start of the religion.
is it Thelema-as-religion per se that leads to this dishonesty?
or are ignorance, impressionability, and generally deceptive
practices prevalent throughout religion?
what alternatives are there to Thelema-as-religion, if any?
333
{ Secret Chief }
> what alternatives are there to Thelema-as-religion, if any?
Lots? None?
PotniaTheron
>
>
>
Thelema-as-religion, particularly as practiced by organizations such
as the OTO (and I'm not saying any of the others are differnt) is an
idiot-trap, designed (whether consciously or no) to attract those who
need a dogma.
For myself, the alternative is drawing from it as I do from any other
religion/philosophy I encounter.
--PT
Fr. A.o.C.
333 wrote:
>
> 50030623 Kaos Day! XIII om Solstice Pisces-Age-Y2006
>
> hi Jess!
>
> taro...@jktarot.com (jk):
> # My point is that Thelema is falsely promoted.
>
> by some, agreed. religions generally are. they are promoted by
> the deluded, securing the delusion of others for support of a
> social hierarchy and/or set of scriptures/doctrines.
My thought exactly, if we are speaking of "religion" as defined as "that
which is subscribed to by
*faith*.
> # If the agents of Thelema think dishonesty is a proper means
> # to promote their religion, that indicates something [fundamental]
> # about the nature of Thelema, or of its effects upon the people
> # who claim to follow it.
>
> well said.
Indeed, if one simply substitutes the general term "religion" for "Thelema".
There are other proponents of Thelema as a philosophy that can evolve
the meaning of it from it's first principles. For such persons, it
doesn't matter at all if the Egyptology is "correct", or it was
"received" from a supernatural intelligence, or if it was found scrawled
on a bathroom wall written in Pig Latin. It's a maxim of logic that the
truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its source. Just because
the biggest fool in the world says it's raining, that by itself does not
prove the sun is shining.
This is why some very useful and valid ideas about life can be derived
from the works of fiction, and real, living persons can be inspired by
them. My daughter is a big Harry Potter fan (as am I *grin*) and there
are useful and valid teachings on the meaning of life, the universe and
everything to be found in Rowlings's stories. It doesn't matter in any
way whatsoever if Dumbledore was a real person and Hogwarts a real place
or not. The same can be said of Lord of the Rings, Discworld, Zen and
the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Foucault's Pendulum -- and Stranger
in a Strange Land, around which a group of people spawned a religious
organization, knowing full well they were basing their beliefs on a
fictional work.
The same could be said of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, for
there is very little objective proof of the historical accuracy of
ANYTHING in these writings. So what? Would Jessie indict Judaism and
Christianity on the same grounds as s/he is indicting Thelema? If not,
s/he is merely being dishonest and bigoted, because the inconsistencies
of the Bible with the historical record are rife.
So while there may be something to an indictment of the PEOPLE who
resort to promoting "fiction" as "truth", it has nothing whatsoever to
do with the value of what philosophy they have derived from that
fiction. Let's just assume it's ALL fiction. So what?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Love is the law, love under Will.
Every man and every woman is a Star.
The validity and applicability of these maxims are utterly independent
of whether or not Crowley accurately translated the Stele of Revealing.
> bloodo...@goddamnfruit.com ({ Secret Chief }):
> #> why even bring up the shoddy Egyptology?
> #
> # Because it goes to the heart and mind of the essential dishonesty
> # at work and play in Thelema since the very start of the religion.
>
> is it Thelema-as-religion per se that leads to this dishonesty?
> or are ignorance, impressionability, and generally deceptive
> practices prevalent throughout religion?
Exactly. The logical fallacy being promoted here is: if it can be proved
that Crowley's Egyptology is inconsistent, then it renders all of the
the philosophical tenets of Thelema worthless.
Apply this logic to any religion, and they're ALL worthless.
> what alternatives are there to Thelema-as-religion, if any?
To separate the "religion" from the useful philosophies by separating
"faith" from "observation".
I've always resisted joining such groups as the OTO, even though I
self-identify as a Thelemite, because certain tenets must be accepted on
"faith". One must "accept the Book of the Law", which is generally
defined as investing faith in the story of it's source -- the
"preternatural intelligence" of Aiwass. Having never observed Aiwass,
such a belief would for me be an act of faith. I have no faith in faith,
be it damned for a dog. I "believe" in Thelema because to me its
premises are self-evident and observable in my life.
Faith: Magic(k) works. I maintain a belief in a mysterious force that
permeates the universe and that is capable of being used by humans when
operations are correctly performed according to the occult patterns
inherent in the universe itself. This force is unobservable,
unmeasureable and unquantifiable, but nonetheless I am convinced that it exists.
Observation: Magic(k) works. I have observed events -- changes in my
perceptions of external and internal reality -- that can be simply and
elegantly described by assuming magical operations, when performed
within and according to the mental, physical and psychic parameters of
the human being, can derive predictable and observable results, when
designed and executed according to a logical and internally consistent
conceptual framework.
Faith: I maintain a belief in the existence of one or more disembodied
spiritual entities that are external to myself, self-aware, intelligent,
and possessed of perceptual and/or telekinetic powers beyond that
observable in humans. These entities can and will exert influence on the
affairs of humans. They can intelligently interact with humans and can
be induced to exercise their powers of influence. I have no evidence for
the existence of the entities, but I am nonetheless convinced that they exist.
Observation: When I mentally induce a mode of magical perception that
enables me to strongly visualize what appear to be entities external to
myself, I derive observable magical results (see above) by behaving as
if I am interacting with these entities as if they are what they appear
to be.
Jessie ties the validity of Thelema to faith in it's origin stories. I
do not. But it's a sad fact that many people MUST have comfortable myths
in order to invest belief in anything. Perhaps someday we'll all evolve
beyond that.
Jessie appears to be an expert on the Tarot. Does s/he rail against
those Tarot practitioners who tout stories of it's being based on
bookplates destroyed in the burning of Alexandria? Does the fact that
many people who believe in the Tarot and its teachings also believe in
the easily disprovable legends of its origins render the Tarot itself invalid?
Here's a hypothetical question to consider: if it were suddenly proven,
with unassailable evidence, that the Tarot as we know it was invented by
a charlatan "fortune teller" in the 1700's to flim-flam money out of
rich royal patrons, would that instantly invalidate the Tarot as a
system of contemplation and divination? Or does the Tarot stand or fall
on its own merits, regardless of how the "truth" of its origins might
contradict what people who use it tend to believe about its origins?
- Fr. A.o.C.
"The enlightened person remains what he is, and is never more than his
own limited ego before the One who dwells within him, whose form has no
knowable boundaries, who encompasses him on all sides, fathomless as the
abysms of the earth and vast as the sky." -- C. G. Jung, 'Answer to Job'
{ Secret Chief }
> 333 <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message news:<GPHJa.4826$%3.25...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> > 50030623 Kaos Day! XIII om Solstice Pisces-Age-Y2006
> >
> >
> > what alternatives are there to Thelema-as-religion, if any?
> >
>
> Thelema-as-religion, particularly as practiced by organizations such
> as the OTO (and I'm not saying any of the others are differnt) is an
> idiot-trap, designed (whether consciously or no) to attract those who
> need a dogma.
Only one day here and already we're making friends!
> For myself, the alternative is drawing from it as I do from any other
> religion/philosophy I encounter.
For myself, the alternative is to critically engage everything I come
across, prodding at it and trying to figure out how it fits with what
I have previously found, instead of drawing willy-nilly from whatever
has a surface appeal and slopping it all together into one big
amorphous mess.
Eclecticism, I have found, is too often a hiding-place for half-wits.
jk
> > taro...@jktarot.com (jk):
> > # My point is that Thelema is falsely promoted.
> > by some, agreed. religions generally are. they are promoted by
> > the deluded, securing the delusion of others for support of a
> > social hierarchy and/or set of scriptures/doctrines.
> My thought exactly---
Really? OK, then tell us what you think he meant. And what is the
point of it?
> , if we are speaking of "religion" as defined as "that
> which is subscribed to by *faith*.
Certainly that is what Crowley was speaking about with respect to
Thelema and its creation myth.
> > # If the agents of Thelema think dishonesty is a proper means
> > # to promote their religion, that indicates something [fundamental]
> > # about the nature of Thelema, or of its effects upon the people
> > # who claim to follow it.
> > well said.
> Indeed, if one simply substitutes the general term "religion" for
> "Thelema".
Or the general term "politics" for Thelema, or the general term
"culture" for Thelema. But I wasn't talking about general terms, but
very specific ones, and very specific acts and claims. And if one does
not substitute the general for the specific, the specific meaning of
what I wrote is not conveniently evaded.
> There are other proponents of Thelema as a philosophy---
I'm sure there are proponents of Christianity as a philosophy. And
certainly one can derive philosophical elements from many (and perhaps
all) religions. But when one strips away the religious aspect of the
ideas promoted in a religion, one loses his connection to and his
understanding of the core values and assumptions that support the
supposed philosophy. For example, a fundamental idea in Christianity
is the equality of all human beings in the eyes of God, and therefore
the equal opportunity of all humans to receive salvation through faith
in Jesus Christ. The philosophical idea of equality can be stripped
away from the religious context, to the point where one can simply say
we are all equal in the eyes of God (regardless of his intention or
need to save us), or we could drop God from the equation altogether
and simply say: All humans are created equal. But by removing God from
the equation, one encounters an essential problem---the affirmation
loses its value and even its truth. For, one thing we can be quite
sure about, humans are not created equal in the eyes of humans. Our
skills of discrimination are developed quite early in that respect,
and certainly Thelema takes that into consideration. The point being,
as we remove the philosophy from its religious context, one changes
the meaning of it to such an extent that it risks becoming only a
highly questionable (and equally faith-based) set of affirmations.
> that can evolve
> the meaning of it from it's first principles. For such persons, it
> doesn't matter at all if the Egyptology is "correct"---
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, and in many threads over the
years that devolve into defensive last stands by various tribes, the
only people for whom such questions as these will matter are those
still interested in learning the truth. Since philosophy should be a
quest to discover that elusive creature, then Thelemites who claim to
be mainly philosophers ought to be interested in the facts and the
falsehoods of the Thelemic creation myth.
> or it was "received" from a supernatural intelligence, or if it was
> found scrawled on a bathroom wall written in Pig Latin. It's a
> maxim of logic that the truth of a proposition has nothing to
> do with its source.
That begs the question of whether there is any truth in Thelema,
especially any that can survive a divorce from the religious aspects
of it.
> Just because the biggest fool in the world says it's raining,
> that by itself does not prove the sun is shining.
It does however strongly recommend a skeptical consideration
of the fool's claim. In other words, the fact we know the person is
unreliable DOES influence our readiness to accept his reports as true.
That doesn't mean he's incapable of telling the truth, just that he is
not likely to be a reliable source for getting any truths told.
And when someone says "trust me", and then proves to be lying, one is
not reasonably advised to overlook the dishonest act. That's why when
a source such as the New York Times is shown to be providing the
public invented or plagiarized stories, the public's natural reaction
is to develop an even more skeptical attitude about the supposed
truths and facts the source is reporting. This is even more of a
problem for a religious institution. If, for example, the spiritual
guardians of the public (such as priests) are shown to be instead
monsters preying upon children, and the institution itself is shown to
be supportive of this criminal and sinful behavior, the very
assumptions underlying ideas of authority (say in the ability of the
Church to honestly interpret the faith for believers) are called into
grave question. For if the leaders of a religion do not practice what
they appear to preach, then their behaviors become instructions to
believers on how to properly interpret the true meanings of their
preachings. That's particularly true with respect to a new religion,
one where the relationship between scripture and practice is perhaps
still not in any way fixed into a traditional form.
> This is why some very useful and valid ideas about life can be derived
> from the works of fiction---
What works of fiction written by the biggest fool in the world offers
this benefit?
> , and real, living persons can be inspired by
> them.
Real living persons can be inspired by many things toward many things.
Inspiration is not in itself a virtue.
> My daughter is a big Harry Potter fan (as am I *grin*) and there
> are useful and valid teachings on the meaning of life, the universe and
> everything to be found in Rowlings's stories.
Perhaps, but she is not promoting her books as religious scripture,
nor is she claiming to have channeled the words from a preternatural
entity.
> It doesn't matter in any way whatsoever if Dumbledore was a
> real person and Hogwarts a real place or not.
It would matter if she falsely claimed these things were true. And
especially it would matter if she started collecting student tuitions
for the school, with the promise that one might meet or be taught by
Dumbledore.
> The same can be said of Lord of the Rings, Discworld, Zen and
> the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Foucault's Pendulum --
Yes, in all those examples, should the authors have committed fraud,
that would be something worth considering when reading their supposed
truths.
> and Stranger in a Strange Land, around which a group of
> people spawned a religious organization, knowing full well
> they were basing their beliefs on a fictional work.
"knowing full well" is the key distinction.
Thelemites for the most part have not known full well
about much to do with the claims of their leader or his
secret club.
> The same could be said of the Old and New Testaments of
> the Bible---
Those books were not promoted as fiction, nor did people
(in any numbers) think of them in that way until fairly recently.
> , for there is very little objective proof of the historical
> accuracy of ANYTHING in these writings.
That's not true. There is certainly cause to doubt the
supernatural origins for many reported events in the
Bible. That doesn't mean the events didn't occur.
> So what? Would Jessie indict Judaism and
> Christianity on the same grounds as s/he is indicting Thelema?
jk is an equal opportunity indicter.
> If not, s/he is merely being dishonest and bigoted---
Fortunately I am not being those things.
> , because the inconsistencies of the Bible with the
> historical record are rife.
I'm not a Christian or a Jew either.
> So while there may be something to an indictment of the PEOPLE who
> resort to promoting "fiction" as "truth"---
What is the something there is to that?
Be specific.
> , it has nothing whatsoever to do with the value of what
> philosophy they have derived from that
> fiction.
Again, you're begging a big question concerning the
presence, much less the value, of the supposed
philosophy derived from the Thelemic fiction.
> Let's just assume it's ALL fiction. So what?
Then it should be moved to a different section of the
library.
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
What wilt thou do shall be the hole in the Law.
> Love is the law, love under Will.
What does that mean?
> Every man and every woman is a Star.
As Crowley noted, most people, including the
ones attracted to Thelema, seem to be mere
penlights.
> The validity and applicability of these maxims---
What is the validity and applicability of these maxims?
And upon what are these characteristics based?
> are utterly independent of whether or not Crowley
> accurately translated the Stele of Revealing.
Crowley didn't translate the Stele of Revealing.
He couldn't read ancient Egyptian.
Crowley nevertheless attributed to a supposedly
superior being the same misunderstandings of
ancient Egyptian he himself possessed.
What philosophical value should be derived from
this fact?
> > # Because it goes to the heart and mind of the essential dishonesty
> > # at work and play in Thelema since the very start of the religion.
> > is it Thelema-as-religion per se that leads to this dishonesty?
> > or are ignorance, impressionability, and generally deceptive
> > practices prevalent throughout religion?
> Exactly. The logical fallacy being promoted here is: if it can
> be proved that Crowley's Egyptology is inconsistent, then it
> renders all of the the philosophical tenets of Thelema
> worthless.
Crowley wasn't an Egyptologist, so he didn't
possess any Egyptology whatsoever. He did possess
an understanding of the Egyptomaniacal tradition of
occultism and he certainly made heavy use of that
in Cairo in 1904. That fixed a certain mode of expression
for his successors, which weirdly they've maintained
far past the point where propriety (or even sanity) might
have suggested they should have simply boxed away their
toys and gone to knitting.
> Apply this logic to any religion, and they're ALL worthless.
That premise isn't altogether unreasonable.
If people blather they have the big TRUTH and it turns out they
instead have the big LIE, then the value they're claiming is
soured by their exaggeration.
I would definitely say that all religions, taken for what they
claim to be, are worthless (as least to me). That doesn't
mean I don't find it entertaining to read their texts, as I
often do. I have to say though that Crowley's scriptures are
some the dullest religious scribble I've encountered. There
is much better stuff in the world, including in other portions
of his own pile of scribbles.
> > what alternatives are there to Thelema-as-religion, if any?
> To separate the "religion" from the useful philosophies by separating
> "faith" from "observation".
How does that work exactly?
> I've always resisted joining such groups as the OTO---
Perhaps the OTO has also resisted you.
> , even though I self-identify as a Thelemite---
Would a real Thelemite need to do such a thing?
I don't think so.
> , because certain tenets must be accepted on
> "faith". One must "accept the Book of the Law", which is generally
> defined as investing faith in the story of it's source -- the
> "preternatural intelligence" of Aiwass. Having never observed Aiwass,
> such a belief would for me be an act of faith. I have no faith in faith,
Now you're just lying.
You're addicted to faith and you damned well know
it (or feel it anyway).
> be it damned for a dog. I "believe" in Thelema because---
Then you don't get it.
Go knit.
> Jessie ties the validity of Thelema to faith in it's origin stories.
So did Crowley.
> I do not.
So you're not interested in what Crowley said.
> But it's a sad fact that many people MUST have comfortable myths---
Then the discomfort these revelations seem to be causing
must be seen as an evil to oppose, huh?
> in order to invest belief in anything. Perhaps someday we'll all evolve
> beyond that.
Why not today?
> Jessie appears to be an expert on the Tarot.
What does being an expert on the Tarot mean?
> Does s/he rail against those Tarot practitioners who tout
> stories of it's being based on bookplates destroyed in the
> burning of Alexandria?
You literally have no idea how amusing that question is.
> Does the fact that many people who believe in the Tarot
> and its teachings---
What does it mean to believe in Tarot and its teachings?
Be specific.
> also believe in the easily disprovable legends of its origins render the
> Tarot itself invalid?
How is Tarot rendered valid?
> Here's a hypothetical question to consider: if it were suddenly proven,
> with unassailable evidence, that the Tarot as we know it was invented by
> a charlatan "fortune teller" in the 1700's to flim-flam money out of
> rich royal patrons---
Here, stop guessing:
http://jktarot.com/faq1.html
http://jktarot.com/egyptomania.html
> , would that instantly invalidate the Tarot as a
> system of contemplation and divination?
Now you're begging questions about that.
> Or does the Tarot stand or fall on its own merits---
What are those merits and how does one determine
them?
> , regardless of how the "truth" of its origins might
> contradict what people who use it tend to believe about its origins?
If these beliefs are falsely based, then perhaps the truth and
the validity are as well. Despite what many people cling to
as an essential aspect of their religious faith, bad ideas
don't generally lead to good ones, except perhaps in a
negative sense of recognizing one's error and moving
back to the drawing board. The problem with religions
however, and especially with their religious scriptures,
is that the drawing board is usually found to have been
discarded, along with any toleration of the suggestion
that it might be required in the future.
(jk)
Joseph
Fr. A.o.C. wrote:
> Jessie appears to be an expert on the Tarot. Does s/he rail against
> those Tarot practitioners who tout stories of it's being based on
> bookplates destroyed in the burning of Alexandria? Does the fact that
> many people who believe in the Tarot and its teachings also believe in
> the easily disprovable legends of its origins render the Tarot itself invalid?
>
> Here's a hypothetical question to consider: if it were suddenly proven,
> with unassailable evidence, that the Tarot as we know it was invented by
> a charlatan "fortune teller" in the 1700's to flim-flam money out of
> rich royal patrons, would that instantly invalidate the Tarot as a
> system of contemplation and divination? Or does the Tarot stand or fall
> on its own merits, regardless of how the "truth" of its origins might
> contradict what people who use it tend to believe about its origins?
>
> - Fr. A.o.C.
>
Well put Sir! Jess likes to dangle an idea that he possess some sort of "Truth"
about the "Tarot" that he regularly fails to demonstrate.
Whatever the origin and original purpose of the "Tarot" is or may have been, is
it a valid divinatory tool as well? Or, more precisely, is "Divination" valid, no
matter what tool or form is used to express this "Divination".
KKKarlin is diffident on this, sometimes he claims to be a practitioner of the art
(the very best of course, no body can read the "Tarot" cards as well as kkkarlin
has said he can) and other times he claims that any form of it or use of the
"Tarot" with it, is a fraud and more than likely, deliberate and indictable fraud.
He has referred to alt.tarot as a "whore house" on his web page and generally tells
everybody there wrong about everything. Implying as well as openly stating, from
time to time, that only the original, semi divine, near mystical level of
intelligence that "God" has graced this universe with as Jesse Karlin is capable of
the research that would lead this legendary intelligence to the only proper
conclusions possible to the literate mind about this extraordinarily esoteric
subject.. Which he wont even speak to the idea of his possessing this "Truth"
without a comment on the inquirer's lack of intelligence and inability to
understand anything, any way, so why should he waste his time on the bumptious
masses? If they really want what they cant possibly understand they can pay him
for his Augustian prose at his web site.
For which of course there are no refunds or exchanges or in-store credit
available, caveat emptor. You pays your money you takes your chances. You take the
chance of receiving a regurgitated mass of other people's "Tarot" documentation,
re worded to avoid copy right infringement issues, and some vaguely apocalyptic
thoughts on modern peoples inability to recognize the divinity that is the
kkkarlin, but nothing original about the "Tarot". Not even an opinion or a
speculation or a made up flight of fancy, or an intelligent train of thought and
speculation that has matured over years spent pondering the subject.
I can understand a researcher keeping certain aspects of their work secret until
such time as there ready to publish and go public with it, but at some point one
has to make the observation, "put up or shut up" and "publish or perish".
To constantly claim a superior understanding of anything and yet never demonstrate
it begins to make other people suspect its all bravado, or worse, something,
somewhat pathological.
I have even read of delusionals who have what they think is a complete
understanding of something that only exists in their mind, some people believe
there own lies. And then, to them, its not a lie.
Joseph
Joseph
jk wrote:
> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message news:<3EF89CB0...@slip.net>...
>
> > > taro...@jktarot.com (jk):
>
>
> > There are other proponents of Thelema as a philosophy---
>
> I'm sure there are proponents of Christianity as a philosophy. And
> certainly one can derive philosophical elements from many (and perhaps
> all) religions. But when one strips away the religious aspect of the
> ideas promoted in a religion, one loses his connection to and his
> understanding of the core values and assumptions that support the
> supposed philosophy.
Not necessarily, this is like saying only the religious are or can be moral.
> For example, a fundamental idea in Christianity
> is the equality of all human beings in the eyes of God, and therefore
> the equal opportunity of all humans to receive salvation through faith
> in Jesus Christ. The philosophical idea of equality can be stripped
> away from the religious context, to the point where one can simply say
> we are all equal in the eyes of God (regardless of his intention or
> need to save us), or we could drop God from the equation altogether
> and simply say: All humans are created equal. But by removing God from
> the equation, one encounters an essential problem---the affirmation
> loses its value and even its truth. For, one thing we can be quite
> sure about, humans are not created equal in the eyes of humans.
That is one of your own assertions and is no more demonstrable than it opposite.
And is a view not shared by every one.
> Our
> skills of discrimination are developed quite early in that respect,
> and certainly Thelema takes that into consideration. The point being,
> as we remove the philosophy from its religious context, one changes
> the meaning of it to such an extent that it risks becoming only a
> highly questionable (and equally faith-based) set of affirmations.
Human history can be seen as an attempt by mankind to transcend its bestiality.
Religion has validated mans essentially animal nature as much as it has exalted his
eventual perfectibility.
Your statement reminds me of Queen Victoria excoriating atheists as traitors,
because if one will question the validity of the "God" concept one will inevitably
question the validity of the King (or Queen in this case) and then the priests,
teachers, parents and any other form of authority, and for the sake of private
property, law and order we can't have that. Having faith in the evolution of the
human animal is different than having faith in some sort of "holy ghost", the human
animal, when you look for it, is at least there.
>
>
> > that can evolve
> > the meaning of it from it's first principles. For such persons, it
> > doesn't matter at all if the Egyptology is "correct"---
>
> As I've said repeatedly in this thread, and in many threads over the
> years that devolve into defensive last stands by various tribes,
unnecessary jibe at those who don't share your opinions.
> the
> only people for whom such questions as these will matter are those
> still interested in learning the truth.
you now what i think about that particular concept, and your ideas about it,
whether were talking abstract philosophy, tarot or thelema. You have a tendency to
bandy the word about as if you actually possessed this near mythical concept on any
subject that is mentioned to you, which in itself makes any single assertion by you
suspect.
> Since philosophy should be a
> quest to discover that elusive creature, then Thelemites who claim to
> be mainly philosophers ought to be interested in the facts and the
> falsehoods of the Thelemic creation myth.
Your assuming there not, in your scenario there all gullible fools willing to worship
the great beast as the incarnation of the new aeon, uncritically and with a faith
based reverence that easily lets them fall into the "religion" context, whether they
formally call themselves "philosophers" or not. Your assuming a degree of widespread
ignorance that you would be better served to correct by expounding on a revision of
it rather than indulging in an almost gleeful delight in pointing it out. Which,
really, says more about your arrogance than anybody else's ignorance.
>
>
> > or it was "received" from a supernatural intelligence, or if it was
> > found scrawled on a bathroom wall written in Pig Latin. It's a
> > maxim of logic that the truth of a proposition has nothing to
> > do with its source.
>
> That begs the question of whether there is any truth in Thelema,
> especially any that can survive a divorce from the religious aspects
> of it.
>
Of course there is, most of which had more than a little to do with crowleys
"borrowings" from those philosophies he was already familiar with.
>
>
> Crowley nevertheless attributed to a supposedly
> superior being the same misunderstandings of
> ancient Egyptian he himself possessed.
And eventually he admitted that he could not say whether "Aiwass" was the
praetorhuman, disincarnate intelligence he claimed, his own guardian angel, or just
another more inaccessible aspect of his own mind, his genius, or higher (or lower)
self.
>
>
> What philosophical value should be derived from
> this
That religious philosophers like to claim a divine source for their utterances. And
who knows, perhaps there is a connection to the divine in our higher self. Or even to
the "All" in the case of there being no "divine".
>
>
> > , because certain tenets must be accepted on
> > "faith". One must "accept the Book of the Law", which is generally
> > defined as investing faith in the story of it's source -- the
> > "preternatural intelligence" of Aiwass. Having never observed Aiwass,
> > such a belief would for me be an act of faith. I have no faith in faith,
>
> Now you're just lying.
>
> You're addicted to faith and you damned well know
> it (or feel it anyway).
No matter how much the physiology of existence may be bound up with "faith" it is
never the less valid for an individual to reject the concept, at least
philosophically. And strive to live with philosophical and intellectual skepticism.
To accuse them of "lying" is your own personal idiosyncrasy though not an uncommon
one on the net. It is possible to disagree with out resorting to the questionable
process of personal defamation, it tends to cast a negative light on anything else
you write.
>
>
> > be it damned for a dog. I "believe" in Thelema because---
>
> Then you don't get it.
>
> Go knit.
>
> > Jessie ties the validity of Thelema to faith in it's origin stories.
>
> So did Crowley.
>
> > I do not.
>
> So you're not interested in what Crowley said.
Perhaps he is interested in everything crowley said, crowleys personal understanding
and expression of his understanding in the writings we can refer to about Thelema and
the Book of the Law, changed, and evolved over the years of his own life.
Liber Astarte will teach you how to be a "Thelemit" in any guise you like. Or how to
throw off the unnecessary disguise and proceed boldly where no astral traveler has
gone before.
>
>
> > But it's a sad fact that many people MUST have comfortable myths---
>
> Then the discomfort these revelations seem to be causing
> must be seen as an evil to oppose, huh?
and this is one of your favorite ploy' , to make any disagreement with you serve
as an example of
1. suffering
2. worship of JKKK
3. Any other aberration you care to mention that casts the disagreement in a manner
that exults you and debases any one trying to have a dialogue with you.
>
>
> > in order to invest belief in anything. Perhaps someday we'll all evolve
> > beyond that.
>
> Why not today?
A few lines back you accuse Fr.A of being addicted to faith, and lying about his
rejection of it, oh wait, of course, how stupid of me, JKKK is beyond the need for
faith and can urge us to hope that we can evolve beyond it. By the way this is an
expression of amusement not anger.
> > Jessie appears to be an expert on the Tarot.
>
> What does being an expert on the Tarot mean?
>
> > Does s/he rail against those Tarot practitioners who tout
> > stories of it's being based on bookplates destroyed in the
> > burning of Alexandria?
>
> You literally have no idea how amusing that question is.
>
> > Does the fact that many people who believe in the Tarot
> > and its teachings---
>
> What does it mean to believe in Tarot and its teachings?
Why do you constantly ask people to explain the obvious to you, do you think its
"cute"? As an interrogatory technique it seems rather adolescent to me.
>
>
> Be specific.
>
> > also believe in the easily disprovable legends of its origins render the
> > Tarot itself invalid?
>
> How is Tarot rendered valid?
>
> > Here's a hypothetical question to consider: if it were suddenly proven,
> > with unassailable evidence, that the Tarot as we know it was invented by
> > a charlatan "fortune teller" in the 1700's to flim-flam money out of
> > rich royal patrons---
>
> Here, stop guessing:
>
> http://jktarot.com/faq1.html
> http://jktarot.com/egyptomania.html
>
> > , would that instantly invalidate the Tarot as a
> > system of contemplation and divination?
>
> Now you're begging questions about that.
>
> > Or does the Tarot stand or fall on its own merits---
>
> What are those merits and how does one determine
> them?
Well folk that's as good as it gets, the kkkarlin likes to pose the obvious questions
but i defy you to find an original answer that he as provided for any of them. If
you should choose to pay his fees and access his fee based site don't be surprised
if all you find is what has gone before, older texts, some rather obscure, that the
kkkarlin has regurgitated "in his own words" standards and classics and a bit of
esoterica were all familiar with. But no original thought beyond "Jess Karlin Know
all and will tell all for a non refundable fee". Which is actually quite reasonable,
but gets to the central subject of this thread, "Dishonesty" in matters religious and
thelemic.
If some self proclaimed "Tarot Meister" promises "Truth" and delivers, for a fee,
old, or out of print books you can get elsewhere , how honest is this. When one
snake oil salesman derides or disparages another snake oil salesmans product does
this not say more about the sales men than it does the product? Why buy old antique
lies when you can get brand knew, up to date and technologically enhanced lies
faster and cheaper than ever before?
>
>
> > , regardless of how the "truth" of its origins might
> > contradict what people who use it tend to believe about its origins?
>
> If these beliefs are falsely based, then perhaps the truth and
> the validity are as well. Despite what many people cling to
> as an essential aspect of their religious faith, bad ideas
> don't generally lead to good ones, except perhaps in a
> negative sense of recognizing one's error and moving
> back to the drawing board. The problem with religions
> however, and especially with their religious scriptures,
> is that the drawing board is usually found to have been
> discarded, along with any toleration of the suggestion
> that it might be required in the future.
Again, hardly original but a good save to an otherwise standard JKKK diatribe.
Joseph
PotniaTheron
>
> For myself, the alternative is to critically engage everything I come
> across, prodding at it and trying to figure out how it fits with what
> I have previously found, instead of drawing willy-nilly from whatever
> has a surface appeal and slopping it all together into one big
> amorphous mess.
>
> Eclecticism, I have found, is too often a hiding-place for half-wits.
Ah, yes.
I admit, even for myself, it is easy to become intellectually lazy...
but I'm a total geek who can't help but analyze everything... so
there's not much danger of my becoming a pastichey new age fluff
bunny.
Before I can incorporate something, I have to understand it. Which
means taking it apart, examining it, turning it over... but also
tasting it, touching it, living with it emotionally. Sometimes I
actually adopt an idea and believe it for a bit just to see what it
feels like. (May be a few minutes, maybe a few months.)
--PT
PotniaTheron
>
> But when one strips away the religious aspect of the
> ideas promoted in a religion, one loses his connection to and his
> understanding of the core values and assumptions that support the
> supposed philosophy.
Now, this is an interesting premise.
I will have to think on it.
Because, I have found much of value in various religions, but do not
consider myself at all religious.
--PT
(going off to think)
Fr. A.o.C.
jk wrote:
> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message news:<3EF89CB0...@slip.net>...
>
> > > taro...@jktarot.com (jk):
>
> > > # My point is that Thelema is falsely promoted.
>
> > > by some, agreed. religions generally are. they are promoted by
> > > the deluded, securing the delusion of others for support of a
> > > social hierarchy and/or set of scriptures/doctrines.
>
> > My thought exactly---
>
> Really? OK, then tell us what you think he meant.
It seemed fairly well put. It meant what it says. If you don't
understand it, I leave it for 333 to elaborate further, since he wrote it.
> And what is the point of it?
Well, I don't want to put words on 333's screen, but it seems to imply
that religions (at least organized ones) in general conform to the
behavior described above.
Is there some deep hidden meaning in these seemingly simple statements
I'm missing?
> > , if we are speaking of "religion" as defined as "that
> > which is subscribed to by *faith*.
>
> Certainly that is what Crowley was speaking about with respect to
> Thelema and its creation myth.
Which is his opinion, and not necessarily any better opinion than yours
or mine. Actually, he seemed to equivocate and vacillate on the matter
throughout his life, sometimes stating that Aiwass was a separate,
self-aware intelligence, and at other times regarding Aiwass as his
personal H.G.A..
But you seem to misunderstand my point. So you can understand my where
I'm coming from, I'll give you some examples.
I've had success doing magickal Work with a variety of spiritual and
religious paradigms, some mutually contradictory. I've personally done
magickal work using the "fictional" Lovecraftian deities as invocatory
godforms. In doing so I've obtained results in keeping with the results
I've obtained working other magickal forms based on "historical"
symbolism, such as Olympian Planetary, Egyptian and Enochian.
While of course H.P. himself denied any "true" esoteric connections to
his works, there are a lot of people who disagree with that (viz.
Kenneth Grant, Michael Bertiaux, Peter J. Carroll, Anton LaVey and
Michael Aquino). Some believe he tapped into a magickal reality in spite
of himself (and his denials.)
Grant's take on it all seemed questionable -- or at least unverifiable
-- to me, so instead I applied Phil Hine's theory (described in "The
Pseudonomicon") that it ultimately doesn't matter where the symbolic
framework originates. (See: http://www.dagonproductions.com/pseudo.htm )
This theory actually goes all the way back to Iamblichus of Syria (c.
300ce), who reconciled Neo-platonism with the beliefs of pagan
religions. His Theurgy taught the ritual conjuration of cosmic forces
under the various guises of personified god-forms. But the god-forms
were not "real", just symbols of the cosmic forces being invoked.
Here's another example: I'm presently working with a Golden Dawn lodge.
There is hardly a GD practitioner alive that buys into the origin
mythology of the Order (the supposed existence of a secret German lodge
that wrote the Cipher Manuscripts, and the personal sanction of the
Lodge of Westcott and Mathers by one of their Adepts.) Most believe
either Westcott forged the Ciphers himself, or they came from his
immediate esoteric Mason connections.
And who cares? The value and validity -- the "truth" -- of the Golden
Dawn system (or any system) is shown in its performance, and deriving
predictable results from it. There is no other "proof" that has any
meaning. The attachment of a specious mythology to its origins was
perhaps in poor taste and somewhat disingenuous, but that doesn't effect
the validity of its teachings one way or the other. They stand or fall
on their own merits, regardless of "creation myths".
I don't care if the Tarot deck was invented by US Games in 1953, and a
massive conspiracy successfully undertook to falsify it's historical
record, fooling both you and me. I use it, it works for me in the way I
expect it to, I derive value from working with it, so all other
considerations are moot.
> > > # If the agents of Thelema think dishonesty is a proper means
> > > # to promote their religion, that indicates something [fundamental]
> > > # about the nature of Thelema, or of its effects upon the people
> > > # who claim to follow it.
>
> > > well said.
>
> > Indeed, if one simply substitutes the general term "religion" for
> > "Thelema".
>
> Or the general term "politics" for Thelema, or the general term
> "culture" for Thelema. But I wasn't talking about general terms, but
> very specific ones, and very specific acts and claims. And if one does
> not substitute the general for the specific, the specific meaning of
> what I wrote is not conveniently evaded.
Is the specific meaning that you indict Thelemic religionists for the
same offenses and on the same grounds as all other religionists, but
consider the Thelemic religionists the only ones deserving of your
criticism?
> > There are other proponents of Thelema as a philosophy---
>
> I'm sure there are proponents of Christianity as a philosophy. And
> certainly one can derive philosophical elements from many (and perhaps
> all) religions. But when one strips away the religious aspect of the
> ideas promoted in a religion, one loses his connection to and his
> understanding of the core values and assumptions that support the
> supposed philosophy.
Why? Christianity is a bad example, since it builds a circular logic
into accepting its historicity as a fundamental element. Buddhism or
Taoism is a better comparison. In those cases, much "religion" has been
both added on to and stripped away by different cultures and sects, but
the basic fundamentals remain intact. For the Chinese peasant, Taoism
was merged with the pagan folklore and produced a polytheistic
"religion". However, among the great philosophers and teachers, such
"myths" could be transcended.
> For example, a fundamental idea in Christianity
> is the equality of all human beings in the eyes of God, and therefore
> the equal opportunity of all humans to receive salvation through faith
> in Jesus Christ.
Not being a Christian yourself, you may not appreciate the source of
this belief in "equality". To wit, we are all equally profane. We are a
debased race, tainted by original sin, who "all have sinned and fallen
short of the glory of God." Our souls are all equally damned.
> The philosophical idea of equality can be stripped
> away from the religious context, to the point where one can simply say
> we are all equal in the eyes of God (regardless of his intention or
> need to save us),
Which underscores the point -- we "need" to be "saved". And why? Because
we're all equally disgusting and evil compared to God. We are equal in
the debased nature of our SOULS, not our external circumstance.
> or we could drop God from the equation altogether
> and simply say: All humans are created equal.
Our SOULS are created equal, not our circumstances or our capabilities
or our fitness to survive. Just the souls. Dropping Yahweh from the
equation doesn't eliminate the existence of a soul (or Body of Light, or
Khabs, or Kia or what-have-you.)
> But by removing God from
> the equation, one encounters an essential problem---the affirmation
> loses its value and even its truth.
How so? One can maintain the equality of all our souls as a
philosophical tenet without needing Yahweh & Son to justify it.
In logical discourse, what you're doing is called "complexing the
question"; two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a
single proposition. In this case, believing in "equality" (in the case
of Christian religion, that means equality of souls) and believing in
the existence of Yahweh as the sole god and creator of the universe
(along with his slain-and-risen Son) are unbreakably cojoined. Buddhism
teaches the same thing (though in a more positive manner; someday all
souls will attain equal Buddhahood or Nirvana), so your premise is insupportable.
> For, one thing we can be quite
> sure about, humans are not created equal in the eyes of humans.
Now you're mixing the planes. You're saying appearance and behavior
disparity (for what else can we really know about another person except
from appearance and behavior), or comparative circumstances of life, are
the same thing, religiously speaking, as "souls."
> Our
> skills of discrimination are developed quite early in that respect,
> and certainly Thelema takes that into consideration. The point being,
> as we remove the philosophy from its religious context, one changes
> the meaning of it to such an extent that it risks becoming only a
> highly questionable (and equally faith-based) set of affirmations.
Why is it a "risk"? What's being risked? What have I got to lose?
What's so much more "highly questionable" about it than it wasn't
before? One can believe in souls (with or without evidence), and the
soul's either "innate" or "god-given" equality regardless of belief in
the Christian tenets of salvation from sin. Either position seems
equally "questionable", as are all religious beliefs.
> > that can evolve
> > the meaning of it from it's first principles. For such persons, it
> > doesn't matter at all if the Egyptology is "correct"---
>
> As I've said repeatedly in this thread, and in many threads over the
> years that devolve into defensive last stands by various tribes, the
> only people for whom such questions as these will matter are those
> still interested in learning the truth. Since philosophy should be a
> quest to discover that elusive creature, then Thelemites who claim to
> be mainly philosophers ought to be interested in the facts and the
> falsehoods of the Thelemic creation myth.
But my position is that the mythology is irrelevant, so it's a moot
point. I'll gladly concede to you that the "Thelemic creation myth" is
factually flawed. Stipulated. So what? It doesn't change a thing
regarding the application of Thelemic principles to my life or my
magickal work.
> > or it was "received" from a supernatural intelligence, or if it was
> > found scrawled on a bathroom wall written in Pig Latin. It's a
> > maxim of logic that the truth of a proposition has nothing to
> > do with its source.
>
> That begs the question of whether there is any truth in Thelema,
I think what you mean here is "raises the question". "Begging the
question" is defined as the "fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis
that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself." [viz. Fowler]
Examples include paraphrasing of the statement to be proved ("Telepathy
cannot exist because direct transfer of thought between individuals is
impossible"), and arguing in a circle ("The Bible must be true, because
God wouldn't lie to us; we know God is trustworthy, because it says so
in the Bible").
Don't feel too bad, it's a common misuse of the expression. But anyway...
> especially any that can survive a divorce from the religious aspects
> of it.
Why not? Taoism, which shares a lot of attributes with Thelema, can
survive quite well without appeal to a transcendental "god" to validate
it. Its teachings were laid out by a quite mortal man, Lao Tsu, and the
story of how he came to write the Tao Te Ching is almost certainly a
"mere myth." So I suppose if Lao Tsu never really stopped at a guard
house on the border of China and got persuaded by the sentry there to
write down his teachings -- meaning the myth surrounding the Tao Te
Ching's origin is a lie --then all of Taoism is worthless, since it's
origin myth is not of provable historicity?
Why pick on Thelema? Is it something personal?
> > Just because the biggest fool in the world says it's raining,
> > that by itself does not prove the sun is shining.
>
> It does however strongly recommend a skeptical consideration
> of the fool's claim. In other words, the fact we know the person is
> unreliable DOES influence our readiness to accept his reports as true.
>
> That doesn't mean he's incapable of telling the truth, just that he is
> not likely to be a reliable source for getting any truths told.
So the way to determine validity is to test it for yourself. This is the
Work of Magick. Religion requires faith. Magick seeks direct gnosis. Do
the Work. Nothing else matters, all else follows.
(Your ridiculous comparison of Crowley and some of his followers fudging
on a creation myth, with the sexual molestation scandals of the Catholic
priesthood, is [SNIPPED] due to it's sheer hyperbolic absurdity. In the
end, sir, have you no shame?)
> > This is why some very useful and valid ideas about life can be derived
> > from the works of fiction---
>
> What works of fiction written by the biggest fool in the world offers
> this benefit?
You're confusing the issue. The overall point here is that validity of a
magickal philosophy is found in its application, not its origins. The
Golden Dawn's validity is found in it's application, whether Westcott
made up its mythology or not. Wicca's validity is found in it's
application, whether Gardener made up its mythology or not. "The proof
is in the pudding." And if you don't like a particular flavor of
pudding, you're not obligated to eat it. So I don't understand what
you're complaining about.
> > , and real, living persons can be inspired by
> > them.
>
> Real living persons can be inspired by many things toward many things.
> Inspiration is not in itself a virtue.
>
> > My daughter is a big Harry Potter fan (as am I *grin*) and there
> > are useful and valid teachings on the meaning of life, the universe and
> > everything to be found in Rowlings's stories.
>
> Perhaps, but she is not promoting her books as religious scripture,
> nor is she claiming to have channeled the words from a preternatural
> entity.
>
> > It doesn't matter in any way whatsoever if Dumbledore was a
> > real person and Hogwarts a real place or not.
>
> It would matter if she falsely claimed these things were true. And
> especially it would matter if she started collecting student tuitions
> for the school, with the promise that one might meet or be taught by
> Dumbledore.
I wasn't aware that any Thelemic group was promising people they might
meet or be taught by Crowley.
> > The same can be said of Lord of the Rings, Discworld, Zen and
> > the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Foucault's Pendulum --
>
> Yes, in all those examples, should the authors have committed fraud,
> that would be something worth considering when reading their supposed
> truths.
Why? The validity of their teachings could be tested by experiment and
confirmed by experience.
> > and Stranger in a Strange Land, around which a group of
> > people spawned a religious organization, knowing full well
> > they were basing their beliefs on a fictional work.
>
> "knowing full well" is the key distinction.
>
> Thelemites for the most part have not known full well
> about much to do with the claims of their leader or his
> secret club.
Using the example of the Golden Dawn again, my Order (which incorporates
a whole lot of Thelemic symbolism and philosophy into our Work, by the
way) knows full well that Westcott's origin mythology of the GD is
almost certainly false, and we inform our Aspirants of this in no
uncertain terms. (See:
http://www.osogd.org/library/biscuits/history.html ) So by doing this,
have we "restored" the validity of the system? Or was it's validity so
"severely called into question" by Westcott's slight-of-hand that it is
therefore forever tainted? Are you saying that EVEN IF the Cipher
Manuscript contained truly useful and valid teachings (including their
promulgation of the Tarot -- if it weren't for the Golden Dawn nobody
would be interested in buying your books today), by making up a story
about how he found it Westcott DESTROYED its usefulness and validity forever?
I see no other conclusion to your premise, if I understand it correctly.
We have to apply it fairly to other manifestations of the Western
Mystery Tradition, right? So by your strict rules of "if you tell lies
about your sources, your entire philosophy is invalid", then we must
toss the Golden Dawn and everything it taught (including the Tarot) in
the trash heap. It's "based on a lie" (it didn't come from "Secret
Chiefs" of an ancient occult order like Westcott claimed), so therefore
it's all entirely useless.
That DOES seem to be what you're saying.
> > The same could be said of the Old and New Testaments of
> > the Bible---
>
> Those books were not promoted as fiction, nor did people
> (in any numbers) think of them in that way until fairly recently.
>
> > , for there is very little objective proof of the historical
> > accuracy of ANYTHING in these writings.
>
> That's not true. There is certainly cause to doubt the
> supernatural origins for many reported events in the
> Bible. That doesn't mean the events didn't occur.
>
> > So what? Would Jessie indict Judaism and
> > Christianity on the same grounds as s/he is indicting Thelema?
>
> jk is an equal opportunity indicter.
No you are not, unless you've also posted lengthy screeds denouncing the
Golden Dawn and Taoism. Have you?
> > If not, s/he is merely being dishonest and bigoted---
>
> Fortunately I am not being those things.
On the contrary, your prejudice is plainly obvious.
> > , because the inconsistencies of the Bible with the
> > historical record are rife.
>
> I'm not a Christian or a Jew either.
>
> > So while there may be something to an indictment of the PEOPLE who
> > resort to promoting "fiction" as "truth"---
>
> What is the something there is to that?
>
> Be specific.
OK -- people who promote false mythologies are not very nice.
> > , it has nothing whatsoever to do with the value of what
> > philosophy they have derived from that
> > fiction.
>
> Again, you're begging a big question
Again, you're misusing the expression "begging the question".
See: http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2000/10/03/fp21s1-csm.shtml
> concerning the presence,
I don't understand your use here of the word "presence", as in "the
state or fact of being present, as with others or in a place" [Webster's
Unabridged]. It seems like you're saying "it calls into question the
fact of Thelema being present", but I can't figure out what you mean by that.
> much less the value, of the supposed
> philosophy derived from the Thelemic fiction.
>
> > Let's just assume it's ALL fiction. So what?
>
> Then it should be moved to a different section of the library.
And what would be the practical result of this, outside of the library?
> > Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
>
> What wilt thou do shall be the hole in the Law.
Do what keeps thou from wilting shall be the loophole in the law!
> > Love is the law, love under Will.
>
> What does that mean?
There's more than enough discussion of this topic available, so there's
little need to go into it here. But for a good exposition, see: http://maroney.org/CrowleyIntro/index.html
> > Every man and every woman is a Star.
>
> As Crowley noted, most people, including the
> ones attracted to Thelema, seem to be mere
> penlights.
As previously noted, your snide prejudice and bigoted attitude is
clearly obvious.
> > The validity and applicability of these maxims---
>
> What is the validity and applicability of these maxims?
Rather than enter into an argument of Thelemic principles that is sure
to go nowhere, I'll stipulate "The validity and applicability of these
maxims, OR THEIR LACK THEREOF..."
> And upon what are these characteristics based?
Experience. There is no other valid proof but results.
> > are utterly independent of whether or not Crowley
> > accurately translated the Stele of Revealing.
>
> Crowley didn't translate the Stele of Revealing.
>
> He couldn't read ancient Egyptian.
Picky, picky. Allow me to clarify: The validity and applicability of
these maxims, OR THEIR LACK THEREOF, is utterly independent of whether
or not Crowley PROMULGATED AN ACCURATE TRANSLATION OF the Stele of
Revealing. So, can you address the point now?
> Crowley nevertheless attributed to a supposedly
> superior being the same misunderstandings of
> ancient Egyptian he himself possessed.
>
> What philosophical value should be derived from
> this fact?
It's all very simple, really.
Let's assume for the moment that the "superior being" actually existed
in some way or another. If this being undertook to speak to Crowley in
the language of ancient Khemet, Crowley wouldn't understand it. If that
being used forms of Egyptian idiom unknown to the scholars Crowley had
access to at the time, Crowley would also not understand it. "Aiwass"
wasn't delivering an Egyptology lecture. "Aiwass" was delivering a
philosophical and religious treatise to Crowley in "words and images"
that Crowley, with his particular background and limited access to
knowledge, would understand and interpret as it was intended. This is
demonstrated by the fact that Liber AL is undeniably composed using
symbology based on the teachings of the Golden Dawn, from which Crowley
obtained his esoteric training. That's why the GD symbology was used to
communicate to Liber AL to him -- he spoke the lingo.
It's as if I were sending a message to you, and I used the phrase "begs
the question" to mean "calls into question". Since you think both
phrases mean the same thing (even though I can show expert documentation
that they don't), I can use "begs the question" and YOU understand what
I mean, even if it's not TECHNICALLY correct by the strict rules of
English usage. If I used the much more accurate Latin form, "petitio
principii" (postulation of the beginning) and you don't understand
Latin, it would communicate nothing to you. What matters is getting the
message across accurately TO YOU, with your flawed knowledge of the
English language, not to an English or Latin scholar. Since I am a
superior being (or a facet of your own "higher genius", it doesn't
matter), I have access to your mind and it's vocabulary, so can
determine what words and images to use that will get the message across
to you, so you will understand they way I wish you to understand.
Understand?
> > > # Because it goes to the heart and mind of the essential dishonesty
> > > # at work and play in Thelema since the very start of the religion.
>
> > > is it Thelema-as-religion per se that leads to this dishonesty?
> > > or are ignorance, impressionability, and generally deceptive
> > > practices prevalent throughout religion?
>
> > Exactly. The logical fallacy being promoted here is: if it can
> > be proved that Crowley's Egyptology is inconsistent, then it
> > renders all of the the philosophical tenets of Thelema
> > worthless.
>
> Crowley wasn't an Egyptologist, so he didn't
> possess any Egyptology whatsoever. He did possess
> an understanding of the Egyptomaniacal tradition of
> occultism and he certainly made heavy use of that
> in Cairo in 1904.
Basically, he understood the "Egyptomaniacal tradition of occultism" he
learned from the Golden Dawn (who learned it in turn from E. Wallis
Budge, so it's not entirely their fault.) So Aiwass used that vocabulary
to communicate to him -- a language Crowley already understood.
It really isn't that hard a concept to grasp. If Aiwass wanted to
communicate with a Beat poet, then he'd use an idiom like an Alan
Ginsberg poem. If it was a rapper from east Oakland, he would use
Ebonics.
> That fixed a certain mode of expression
> for his successors, which weirdly they've maintained
> far past the point where propriety (or even sanity) might
> have suggested they should have simply boxed away their
> toys and gone to knitting.
Your prejudiced attitude shows through clearly again.
But I'm sorry, the historic or archeological accuracy of the translation
is utterly beside the point. It only shows that Aiwass (assuming Aiwass
existed) used Crowley's inculcated vocabulary of words and images to
communicate to him, rather than imposing some "correct" idiom that
Crowley would possibly misunderstand or misinterpret. Aiwass spoke to
Crowley in Crowley's native idiom, flawed though that idiom may be.
> > Apply this logic to any religion, and they're ALL worthless.
>
> That premise isn't altogether unreasonable.
>
> If people blather they have the big TRUTH and it turns out they
> instead have the big LIE, then the value they're claiming is
> soured by their exaggeration.
You still haven't explained how a misuse of an Egyptian idiom
extrapolates to the invalidation of everything that was expounded using
that idiom. Or would that be begging the question?
> I would definitely say that all religions, taken for what they
> claim to be, are worthless (as least to me). That doesn't
> mean I don't find it entertaining to read their texts, as I
> often do. I have to say though that Crowley's scriptures are
> some the dullest religious scribble I've encountered. There
> is much better stuff in the world, including in other portions
> of his own pile of scribbles.
>
> > > what alternatives are there to Thelema-as-religion, if any?
>
> > To separate the "religion" from the useful philosophies by separating
> > "faith" from "observation".
>
> How does that work exactly?
See the previous message. The part you snipped in this reply explained
it in detail.
> > I've always resisted joining such groups as the OTO---
>
> Perhaps the OTO has also resisted you.
You don't know me or them very well. *grin*
> > , even though I self-identify as a Thelemite---
>
> Would a real Thelemite need to do such a thing?
>
> I don't think so.
You don't appear to me to be qualified to draw any objective conclusions
on the subject, given your blatant prejudices.
> > , because certain tenets must be accepted on
> > "faith". One must "accept the Book of the Law", which is generally
> > defined as investing faith in the story of it's source -- the
> > "preternatural intelligence" of Aiwass. Having never observed Aiwass,
> > such a belief would for me be an act of faith. I have no faith in faith,
>
> Now you're just lying.
Prove it.
> You're addicted to faith and you damned well know
> it (or feel it anyway).
Ah, so you read minds? Well, I say again, prove it.
> > be it damned for a dog. I "believe" in Thelema because---
>
> Then you don't get it.
I don't accept you as an authority on the subject, given your clear lack
of understanding demonstrated here.
> Go knit.
Should I make a scarf, or mittens?
> > Jessie ties the validity of Thelema to faith in it's origin stories.
>
> So did Crowley.
>
> > I do not.
>
> So you're not interested in what Crowley said.
I'm interested (so are you, judging by your obsession), but I don't
elevate Uncle Al to godhood, or proclaim his writings infallible.
Crowley's primary contribution to Thelema was that he wrote it down
first. That's about it, IMHO.
As my friend Tim Maroney puts it (and I agree):
"[Crowley] was psychologically naive; his history and politics were
uneducated and facile; he failed to make any real contribution to
philosophy or even to grasp it at a baccalaureate level; it would have
been a nightmare if he had achieved secular power. To consider only MTP,
it leads off with an absurd philosophical claim to have reconciled
nihilism, monism and dualism by simply attributing each to one to the
Thelemic trinity of gods. MTP is riddled with megalomaniacal passages
and specious philosophical observations. Yet when Crowley simply
explains how he thinks rituals work, what feelings he associates with
particular points of ritual, styles appropriate to particular points,
and how the parts integrate into the whole, he presents a comfort with
and knowledge of Western occult modes that would be difficult to find
anywhere else.
"Crowley was a poet, perhaps only of second or lower rank, but a poet by
nature nonetheless, and the grace and beauty of the poetic sentiment
infuses all his rituals and meditations, in contrast with the awkward,
didactic, stentorian or pompous style of many occult rituals. While one
could find much to criticize in his overall corpus - poems choked with
purple, two-dimensional fictional characters, megalomaniacal essays
proposing ultimate answers to questions he did not understand - there is
none of this in his ritual instructions. Their style is beautifully
sparse, like watermarks on rice paper, with just a gentle touch of
purple and a hint of that which cannot quite be put into words. The
flaccid prose of the Golden Dawn has been put aside. The result is a
genuineness and sincerity of aspiration and experience which is not only
beautiful to read but compelling to perform... concerns about
originality, anti-Christianity and gender aside, the power and majesty
of the Gnostic Mass and OTO initiation rituals when 'rightly performed
with joy & beauty' can hardly be denied."
These were the particular gifts that Crowley possessed that made him the
perfect person to write Thelema down first. And if he hadn't, someone
else would have. It was an "idea whose time had come."
> > But it's a sad fact that many people MUST have comfortable myths---
>
> Then the discomfort these revelations seem to be causing
> must be seen as an evil to oppose, huh?
>
> > in order to invest belief in anything. Perhaps someday we'll all evolve
> > beyond that.
>
> Why not today?
Some have, some still are working toward it. Instantaneous mass
revelation is rather rare.
> > Jessie appears to be an expert on the Tarot.
>
> What does being an expert on the Tarot mean?
Writing books on the subject, charging money for them, with a lot of
heavy self-promotion? Composing a Tarot FAQ? To take those duties on
oneself implies one feels "expert" enough to do so. You certainly don't
suffer from false modesty (or any other kind.)
> > Does s/he rail against those Tarot practitioners who tout
> > stories of it's being based on bookplates destroyed in the
> > burning of Alexandria?
>
> You literally have no idea how amusing that question is.
But I notice you didn't answer it.
> > Does the fact that many people who believe in the Tarot
> > and its teachings---
>
> What does it mean to believe in Tarot and its teachings?
>
> Be specific.
I was using an idiom I thought you'd understand. It wasn't the important
part of the statement, but I'll re-state for you: "Does a the fact that
many people who use the Tarot for purposes of divination and esoteric
knowledge, and derive value from this use..."
> > also believe in the easily disprovable legends of its origins render the
> > Tarot itself invalid?
>
> How is Tarot rendered valid?
Do you always respond to questions with other questions when you can't
think of an answer? You go first this time.
> > Here's a hypothetical question to consider: if it were suddenly proven,
> > with unassailable evidence, that the Tarot as we know it was invented by
> > a charlatan "fortune teller" in the 1700's to flim-flam money out of
> > rich royal patrons---
>
> Here, stop guessing:
I wasn't guessing, I was (as I clearly stated) posing a hypothetical question.
> http://jktarot.com/faq1.html
> http://jktarot.com/egyptomania.html
I see you DO think very highly of yourself.
> > , would that instantly invalidate the Tarot as a
> > system of contemplation and divination?
>
> Now you're begging questions about that.
*sigh* never mind... so you don't have an answer. You should just say so.
> > Or does the Tarot stand or fall on its own merits---
>
> What are those merits and how does one determine
> them?
The specifics are beside the point. Pick any merits you like. Then try
answering the question.
> > , regardless of how the "truth" of its origins might
> > contradict what people who use it tend to believe about its origins?
>
> If these beliefs are falsely based, then perhaps the truth and
> the validity are as well.
And perhaps not. Try the pudding and find out. And if you don't like it,
you can't have any.
- Fr. A.o.C.
"When the speaker and he to whom he is speaks do not understand, that is
metaphysics." -- Voltaire
Sue
taro...@jktarot.com (jk) wrote:
> I'm not a Christian or a Jew either.
You sound a lot like Madonna.
--
"...I confess I was lost in the pages of a book..."
Hieronymous707
>But when one strips away the religious aspect of the
>ideas promoted in a religion, one loses his connection to and his
>understanding of the core[y] values and assumptions that support the
>supposed philosophy.
The [y], of course, is an attempt at self-depricating humor.
...
One minus one equals zero.
>The point being, as [...] we [...] remove the philosophy from its religious
>context, [...] one [...] changes the meaning of it to such an extent that it
>risks becoming only a highly questionable (and equally faith-based) set
>of affirmations.
Please pardon the pointed ... pauses inserted for emphasis only.
It's the we/one thing I found interesting.
>As I've said repeatedly in this thread, and in many threads over the
>years that devolve into defensive last stands by various tribes, the
>only people for whom such questions as these will matter are those
>still interested in learning the truth.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
I am the best that's ever been
at what you see, and what I've said.
By that I mean the words just read,
and these you are about to read,
provide the proof in word and deed
of what's been said, and what I meant.
Affirmed as self-evident,
a one and only last ditch stand -
apologia de core [y] man.
Faith in this, and that alone,
so questionably set in stone
as works of God so often are,
like penlight men and shooting stars,
provides the impetus to move,
to follow course, to change the groove,
to test one's fate, investigate
for signs of lines that syncopate.
>It does however strongly recommend a skeptical consideration
>of the fool's claim. In other words, the fact we know the person is
>unreliable DOES influence our readiness to accept his reports as true.
As you well know, the presentation and/or perception of "the facts we know" are
often distorted and/or unreliably reported despite and/or because of the best
of intentions.
>That doesn't mean he's incapable of telling the truth, just that he is
>not likely to be a reliable source for getting any truths told.
Putting "you" or "I" in place of "he" in exemplification
provides one the paradox of personification.
>And when someone says "trust me", and then proves to be lying, one is
>not reasonably advised to overlook the dishonest act.
It gets better ... trust me.
-hi-
jk
> taro...@jktarot.com (jk) wrote in message news:<ba8efff9.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> Because, I have found much of value in various religions, but do not
> consider myself at all religious.
Finding value in religions, in the ideas of them for example,
while keeping a distance from faith in their claims about
absolute things (such as the nature of God) is not so
difficult really. But, at some point, as you would do at a
movie, you must suspend your disbelief to get the most
out of it. In other words, accept what people say as if it
were true. In that way, for example, you can read Crowley's
writings, understand he's playing a complex psychological
game by constantly dancing around the Thelemic Maypole
of fiction, and yet still appreciate it when he says something
interesting. And that doesn't require you to imagine yourself
a "philosopher" instead of a believer. It just requires you to
be an interested and attentive reader. On the other hand,
it's helpful to recall at some point that it's just an
entertainment of the lights, not necessarily the truth. And
when the facts don't fit, and the true believers throw one
when you ask a simple question, just recall you're not
employed by their mania (no matter how many little dolls
they poke pins into).
(jk)
************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
Hieronymous707
>And
>when the facts don't fit, and the true believers throw one
>when you ask a simple question, just recall you're not
>employed by their mania (no matter how many little dolls
>they poke pins into).
...
Simple question ... throw one what?
I'm thinking you mean to throw something like what I'd call throwing a hissy
fit, but that might not be what you mean at all. For all I know, you could
mean that you think the true believers actually, physically, throw things when
you ask a simple question.
As a true believer, I can tell you that I, for one, rarely if ever throw
things, including hissy fits, in response to simple questions, unless of course
the question is simply, "Hey, could you throw me that thing?", which in fact is
not an uncommon question in my line of work.
-hi-
jk
seperate"
---ma...@slip.net
"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> begged a lot of
questions:<3EFA5077...@slip.net>...
> jk wrote:
> > > My thought exactly---
> > Really? OK, then tell us what you think he meant.
> It seemed fairly well put. It meant what it says.
Perhaps, but your evasive affirmations are not arguments
concerning your own ability to understand the nature and
quality of his comments.
> If you don't understand it---
My question to you does not suggest I don't understand it.
I merely asked you to demonstrate the truth of your claim.
> , I leave it for 333 to elaborate further,
> since he wrote it.
If Tyagi expressed your thought exactly, as you claim, you should not
need him to answer for you.
Once again, tell us what you think Tyagi meant.
> > And what is the point of it?
> Well, I don't want to put words on 333's screen---
And again, that should not be your concern, since you claim to possess
his thought exactly.
> , but it seems to imply---
"seems"?
You claimed you had an exact understanding of the thought (and
therefore presumably the point) of his words.
> that religions (at least organized ones) in general conform to the
> behavior described above.
What behavior is described above?
> Is there some deep hidden meaning in these seemingly
> simple statements I'm missing?
Perhaps so, since you evade answering simple questions regarding them.
> > > , if we are speaking of "religion" as defined as "that
> > > which is subscribed to by *faith*.
> > Certainly that is what Crowley was speaking about with respect to
> > Thelema and its creation myth.
> Which is his opinion, and not necessarily any better opinion than yours
> or mine.
But you do not believe that. Did you not write to me later here: "You
don't appear to me to be qualified to draw any objective conclusions
on the subject, given your blatant prejudices."
Now, there is no question that Aleister Crowley drew conclusions about
Thelema based on blatantly prejudicial assumptions. And you accuse me
of suffering from that same problem. So, let's see, out of the three
of us are you claiming that only YOU are qualified to offer "objective
conclusions" on the subject? Or is it that you simply contradict
yourself at leisure and hope the person you're attempting to con
doesn't notice?
A lot of people seem upset that they didn't write Liber AL(eister),
and that their own opinions about it and its meaning probably are not
as pertinent as those of Aleister Crowley. Oddly, only Crowley seemed
willing and able to pawn off its authorship on something else. Perhaps
that was his way of providing the ultimate critique of the article.
> Actually, he seemed to equivocate and vacillate on the matter
> throughout his life, sometimes stating that Aiwass was a separate,
> self-aware intelligence, and at other times regarding Aiwass as his
> personal H.G.A..
How are those views equivocations or vacillations, especially with
regard to questions of Thelema as a faith-based religion?
> But you seem to misunderstand my point.
Probably that self-contradiction thing you do.
> So you can understand my where I'm coming from, I'll give you
>some examples.
You mean some affirmations posing as arguments.
Yes, I saw those before. They remain impertinent blocks of text.
> I've had success doing magickal Work---
What success? And what evidence do you have that this "magickal Work"
yielded these results?
> I've personally done magickal work using the "fictional"
> Lovecraftian deities---
OK, but your willingness to employ your imagination in fictional
role-playing games is not an argument for why anyone should believe
that Thelema has any value, especially any philosophical value, and
especially not with regard to the question of whether that value can
be derived divorced from the mythological and religious claims made
for Thelema by Crowley.
> While of course H.P. himself denied any "true" esoteric connections to
> his works---
Such denials should not be irrelevant considerations.
If Crowley had ultimately admitted that Aiwass was only a fraud, and
that Liber AL was nothing but a piece of lousy fiction, would the OTO
exist at all? That's doubtful. But Crowley would never and could never
do such a thing, because his whole life's work was wrapped around the
basic premise that the Cairo events had been real metaphysical
interventions and that he had truly been the channel of revelation of
the law of the New Aeon. So, the first thing an interested person,
even a Thelemite, should wish to know is whether the story of those
events in Cairo almost 100 years ago has been honestly reported.
You, and others here, demand that the truth of that story is
irrelevant to the games you wish to play with what you admit may be
nothing more than fictional characters. You say, in defense of that
view, that the facts should not thwart your "work". But the facts
should thwart or at least influence people's willingness to accept the
nature of Liber AL as claimed by Crowley or his followers (organized
or not).
Indeed, as I've pointed out, very few Thelemites are familiar with the
facts behind the creation myth, but I doubt that's because of a lack
of interest on their part. There has simply been a lack of willingness
on the part of people playing leadership roles in the Thelemic RPG to
honestly explain these facts to the faithful. And their lack of a true
and honest will in that regard is not because they think these facts
irrelevant, but because they necessarily fear the implication of them.
> Some believe---
What "some believe" with respect to their devotion to the supposed
spiritual employment of fictional characters is a faith-based
affirmation, not a rational argument demonstrating the validity of the
claimed "work".
> Grant's take on it all seemed questionable --
So does yours.
> Here's another example: I'm presently working with a Golden
> Dawn lodge. There is hardly a GD practitioner alive that buys
> into the origin mythology of the Order...And who cares?
People who care about the truth.
> The value and validity -- the "truth" -- of the Golden
> Dawn system (or any system) is shown in its performance---
That chant is made over and over again by people whose performances
seem quite lacking.
> , and deriving predictable results from it.
If only you weren't trying to be serious, you might be accused
of having a wry wit.
> There is no other "proof" that has any meaning.
That's a religious affirmation, not a reasoned argument.
> I don't care if the Tarot deck was invented by US Games in 1953, and a
> massive conspiracy successfully undertook to falsify it's historical
> record, fooling both you and me. I use it, it works for me---
How does Tarot work for you?
Be specific.
> > Or the general term "politics" for Thelema, or the general term
> > "culture" for Thelema. But I wasn't talking about general terms, but
> > very specific ones, and very specific acts and claims. And if one does
> > not substitute the general for the specific, the specific meaning of
> > what I wrote is not conveniently evaded.
> Is the specific meaning that you indict Thelemic religionists for the
> same offenses and on the same grounds as all other religionists---
How would such a thing be a fair indictment?
If "Thelemic religionists" should be called to task for their claims
and behavior, one should apply to the facts pertaining to things they
themselves have said and done..
The defense that one shouldn't criticize Thelema unless he also
criticizes other religions, and in exactly the same way, is obviously
flawed reasoning. It is in part an attempt to shield Thelema from ANY
criticism by claiming "everybody else does it". But, as pointed out
earlier in this thread, THAT is precisely the kind of defense that
would have negated what Crowley claimed about Thelema's distinguishing
quality---that Thelema WASN'T supposed to be like all the other
religions.
> but consider the Thelemic religionists the only ones deserving of your
> criticism?
So you don't think Thelemic religionists should be criticized, even if
they have been lying?
> > But when one strips away the religious aspect of the
> > ideas promoted in a religion, one loses his connection to and his
> > understanding of the core values and assumptions that support the
> > supposed philosophy.
> Why? Christianity is a bad example---
You mean it's an example which serves to validly illustrate my point.
Precisely. And since Thelema is a Christian heresy, it is also a
relevant example.
> since it builds a circular logic into accepting its historicity
> as a fundamental element.
Thelema's historicity is also bad, laughably so. So what
is the distinction you're hoping to make?
> Buddhism or Taoism is a
> better comparison. In those cases, much "religion" has been
> both added on to and stripped away by different cultures and sects---
The same is true of Christianity. You have not made any distinction.
> , but the basic fundamentals remain intact.
The basic fundamentals of what? The religion? Then it's still about
religious fundamentals.
> For the Chinese peasant---
How relevant is a Chinese peasant's experience of the religious
content of his beliefs compared to the Thelemic matrixite's?
> Taoism was merged with the pagan folklore and
> produced a polytheistic "religion".
That's often the case with Christianity as well. Again, you're not
showing any pertinent distinction here.
> However, among the great philosophers and teachers, such
> "myths" could be transcended.
Give an example of how that works, and how that relates to what you
think is being done by Thelemic philosophers?
> > For example, a fundamental idea in Christianity
> > is the equality of all human beings in the eyes of God, and therefore
> > the equal opportunity of all humans to receive salvation through faith
> > in Jesus Christ.
> Not being a Christian yourself---
Are you a Christian?
> , you may not appreciate the source of
> this belief in "equality".
I might appreciate it, and furthermore know it, better than you wish.
> To wit, we are all equally profane. We are a
> debased race, tainted by original sin, who "all have sinned and fallen
> short of the glory of God." Our souls are all equally damned.
That is not the source of the equality that is presumed and promised
by Christianity. Paul is quite explicit about this, and it has nothing
whatsoever to do with "original sin", which is a concept developed in
the later Church and not mentioned at all in the NT. While Paul
acknowledges that Adam is responsible for introducing sin into the
world, and thus effectively condemning all people to judgments which
they can not help but fail, Paul doesn't ever suggest this is because
of the essential or inherent depravity of people, but suggests that
the Law itself is the cause of their failure, because it demands too
much from them---indeed it demands a perfection in behavior that none
can satisfy save through the help of God himself through the sacrifice
of Jesus Christ. So, it is nonsense to say that all are equally
profane. The quote you supply from Romans 3:23 comes in a long
discussion of the relationship of the law to sin. and nowhere is it
suggested that all people under the law are equal in their sin, but
that sin itself is a condition by which one comes under judgment. Even
the least sinful, and most righteous person thus can not be saved by
his righteousness, by his deeds, but only by faith. And it is THAT
aspect of the message, that ALL are equally worthy in the eyes of God
to be justified by faith that is the source of the belief in Christian
equality.
> > The philosophical idea of equality can be stripped
> > away from the religious context, to the point where one can simply say
> > we are all equal in the eyes of God (regardless of his intention or
> > need to save us),
> Which underscores the point -- we "need" to be "saved".
No, it illustrates the point that when one begins removing the
philosophy from its context, he changes the message, and exposes the
philosophy to a critique concerning its validity against which it
might otherwise be immune (at least for people of faith).
> And why? Because we're all equally disgusting and evil compared
> to God.
Perhaps if you bathed more often. It is a problem of comparison with
God (or at least human perfection) which provides the opportunity for
Grace to do its work, but it is not because we are all equally (and
inherently) imperfect. The point you're missing is that, according to
Christian scripture, we are still condemned on the basis of our acts
(but saved on the basis of faith), and so what we are inside as we
begin is not the direct cause of our being unable to be justified at
the end. If what you're claiming were true, there would be no need for
the law at all. People would simply be damned from birth, regardless
of what they did. And that is not what the Bible says.
> We are equal in the debased nature of our SOULS, not
> our external circumstance.
You just made another mistake, which serves to demonstrate my
point---you just imposed a religious interpretation of a philosophical
concept because you NEED the secular idea to mean something other than
what it simply says. "souls" are not necessarily required for all
humans to be created equal, and if they are then the philosophy breaks
at the point of the departure of God.
> > or we could drop God from the equation altogether
> > and simply say: All humans are created equal.
> Our SOULS are created equal, not our circumstances or our capabilities
> or our fitness to survive. Just the souls. Dropping Yahweh from the
> equation doesn't eliminate the existence of a soul
Why can't you go further and eliminate the soul from the equation?
> > But by removing God from
> > the equation, one encounters an essential problem---the affirmation
> > loses its value and even its truth.
> How so?
You just demonstrated how so, as you clung desperately to an
unnecessary soul.
> One can maintain the equality of all our souls---
Why should one have to do that if one is talking about the equality of
all humans?
> as a philosophical tenet without needing Yahweh & Son to justify it.
But you need a soul to justify it. Why?
> In logical discourse, what you're doing is called "complexing the
> question";
But what if what I'm doing is something other than that and indeed
isn't illogical at all? Then that would suggest you aren't a reliable
logician, or reader, wouldn't it? Let's see.
> two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a
> single proposition.
Before we begin, when you're quoting someone else's work, as you are
here, it's good to note that. Otherwise you'll be subject to the
accusation that you're a plagiarist (of the cut and paste sort).
> In this case, believing in "equality" (in the case
> of Christian religion, that means equality of souls)---
So here you admit that the very meaning you're using is, in your
understanding, religious. And that is precisely what I pointed out,
that religious ideas couldn't be made purely philosophical without
risking losing something central or core in its meanings. And you
agree with me.
> and believing in the existence of Yahweh as the sole god and
> creator of the universe (along with his slain-and-risen Son)
> are unbreakably cojoined.
Well, they are conjoined (if that is the word you meant to use) by you
in your characterization of what I said, but also it would be fair to
say these points are unbreakably conjoined (or claimed to be) in the
Bible as well, so I am not the one doing the "complexing", am I?
> Buddhism teaches the same thing---
Well that's great, no need then for any Christian to worry himself
about Buddhism---it's the same thing.
No, it is not.
> (though in a more positive manner; someday all souls will attain
> equal Buddhahood or Nirvana), so your premise is
> insupportable.
Isn't the manner in Buddhism a religious one?
So, wouldn't you face the same problem if you attempted to remove the
Buddhist promise, and assumption of equality, from its religious
context?
The philosophy wouldn't be saying the same thing any longer, would it?
Thanks again for so unreservedly demonstrating my point.
That's very accommodating of you.
> > For, one thing we can be quite
> > sure about, humans are not created equal in the eyes of humans.
> Now you're mixing the planes.
No, I'm just talking about the equality of humans, in the eyes of
humans, which is what happens to equality if we're not talking about
it in the eyes of God.
> You're saying appearance and behavior disparity (for what else can
> we really know about another person except from appearance
> and behavior), or comparative circumstances of life, are
> the same thing, religiously speaking, as "souls."
I actually didn't mention "souls", you did. I also didn't attempt to
define the secular meaning of "All humans are created equal", but
instead pointed out that when God is removed from the equation the
meaning of the phrase becomes less clear and more open to subjective
(and perhaps misleading) complexing---as you have demonstrated.
> > Our
> > skills of discrimination are developed quite early in that respect,
> > and certainly Thelema takes that into consideration. The point being,
> > as we remove the philosophy from its religious context, one changes
> > the meaning of it to such an extent that it risks becoming only a
> > highly questionable (and equally faith-based) set of affirmations.
> Why is it a "risk"?
Because the latter often poses itself as the rational alternative,
when it's really just another version of the old irrational (and in
many cases dishonest) tradition.
> What's being risked? What have I got to lose?
The truth.
> > As I've said repeatedly in this thread, and in many threads over the
> > years that devolve into defensive last stands by various tribes, the
> > only people for whom such questions as these will matter are those
> > still interested in learning the truth. Since philosophy should be a
> > quest to discover that elusive creature, then Thelemites who claim to
> > be mainly philosophers ought to be interested in the facts and the
> > falsehoods of the Thelemic creation myth.
> But my position is that the mythology is irrelevant---
But you've admitted that you have what could be described as a
prejudiced motive for claiming that.
> so it's a moot point. I'll gladly concede to you that the "Thelemic
> creation myth" is factually flawed.
How is it factually flawed?
Be specific.
> Stipulated. So what? It doesn't change a thing
> regarding the application of Thelemic principles to my life or my
> magickal work.
Then the truth has no bearing in your life or work. OK.
> > > or it was "received" from a supernatural intelligence, or if it was
> > > found scrawled on a bathroom wall written in Pig Latin. It's a
> > > maxim of logic that the truth of a proposition has nothing to
> > > do with its source.
> > That begs the question of whether there is any truth in Thelema,
> I think what you mean here is "raises the question".
No, that is not what I meant. OK, once again we see logic being abused
as a cheap wand. You are inept at waving it. Just stop.
> "Begging the question" is defined as the "fallacy of founding
> a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as
> the conclusion itself." [viz. Fowler]
It has more definitions than that. For example:
"The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises." That's
quoted from the same list of logical fallacies that you plagiarized
earlier.
And here, this is a good one:
"the fallacy begging the question…is usually said to occur when an
argument assumes what it attempts to prove."
In fact you do that so often you should have a little tin cup with a
question mark on it.
And yes, that's an appeal to humor, which this thread sorely needs,
but it is not by that fact alone an ill-advised suggestion.
From this same source:
"The argument that we should not listen to the metaphysical arguments
of someone who has accosted us, on the grounds that he is
psychotically disturbed and doesn't know what he is taking about, is
an instance of ad hominem, but it is not fallacious. Assuming these
premises are true, this is reasonable practical advice."
> Don't feel too bad, it's a common misuse of the expression.
Thanks, I don't feel too bad at all, since you clearly don't know what
you're talking about, and "reasonable practical advice" suggests you
shouldn't be listened to.
> > especially any that can survive a divorce from the religious aspects
> > of it.
> Why not? Taoism, which shares a lot of attributes with Thelema---
Like what?
> , can survive quite well without appeal to a transcendental "god"
> to validate it.
It does however demand a transcendental quality or power in the
Universe. So, if it doesn't call it God, that's OK, it's still
religious in view and application.
We've been over this. As noted, you've already illustrated the problem
I was pointing out.
> Why pick on Thelema? Is it something personal?
Well, I don't have an Order, secret or otherwise, to promote.
> So the way to determine validity is to test it for yourself.
Life is short. Probability serves to save us from doing unnecessary
tests. That's why scientists don't waste a lot of time trying to
disprove UFO's or astrology. It's not required that they do this to
maintain a reasonable attitude toward what is probably true about the
claims of those who promote these pastimes.
> (Your ridiculous comparison of Crowley and some of his
> followers fudging on a creation myth---
You mean Crowley and some of his followers lying about it, correct?
And this dishonesty and deception has continued up to the present
time. And that fact doesn't concern you, correct? I note you also
snipped the comparison regarding "invented or plagiarized stories",
but then you have very personal reasons for not wanting to deal with
that kind of critique, don't you?
> , with the sexual molestation scandals of the Catholic
> priesthood, is [SNIPPED] due to it's sheer hyperbolic absurdity.
Oh, is this like that "plainly obvious" stuff you faithfully feel.
How exactly is it "sheer hyperbolic absurdity"? In fact, one could
reasonably argue that the acts of Crowley and the OTO leadership are
actually more fundamentally perverse in this matter than that of the
priests and the Church in the child molestation scandal, for the
latter dealt with the failure of people to live up to the promise of
the scripture. The failure of Thelema is---let's see---an original
sin.
> In the end, sir, have you no shame?)
Are you selling some? Not interested.
> > > This is why some very useful and valid ideas about life
> > > can be derived from the works of fiction---
> > What works of fiction written by the biggest fool in the world offers
> > this benefit?
> You're confusing the issue.
No, I'm just not following your stupid lead. I don't have to do that
either.
You didn't answer the question.
If that's because you can't think of any work of fiction, authored by
the biggest fool in the world, that offers any useful and valid ideas,
just say so. But then where are we going to locate these benefits in
the works of the biggest fools in the world? You said we might be able
to do this. So demonstrate how.
> The overall point here is that validity of a
> magickal philosophy is found in its application, not its origins.
You have not demonstrated that this is true. Furthermore, if Thelema
is valid in this respect (in its application) as a "magickal
philosophy", whatever that's supposed to mean, are you saying it isn't
valid as a religion?
> The Golden Dawn's validity is found in it's application---
You've repeated that chant over and over again, and it's still not a
convincing argument.
If you tell me that God showed you how to drive with your eyes closed
and you can show me how to do this as well, and then it turns out that
God didn't show you how to do this and that you lied about it, but you
then claim it doesn't matter because "validity is found in its
application" and "hey, you haven't had one wreck driving with your
eyes closed", is that actually an argument suggesting anyone but a
plain fool should listen to you about ways to drive with eyes tight
shut---or about much of anything else?
> ,"The proof is in the pudding."
Not if the package is empty.
> > > It doesn't matter in any way whatsoever if Dumbledore was a
> > > real person and Hogwarts a real place or not.
> > It would matter if she falsely claimed these things were true. And
> > especially it would matter if she started collecting student tuitions
> > for the school, with the promise that one might meet or be taught by
> > Dumbledore.
> I wasn't aware that any Thelemic group was promising people
> they might meet or be taught by Crowley.
Thelemic groups certainly employ fake histories and continue to claim
(or imply) that their "translations" of the stele are accurate:
http://www.lvx-oto.org/stele.shtml
There is no "Hadit, the great god, lord of the sky." on the stele. And
note they are explicit: "The Stele of Revealing is especially sacred
to Thelemites because it is through this artifact that the Law of
Thelema was revealed to Aleister Crowley in 1904 e.v., inaugurating
the New Aeon of Horus."
There is no suggestion there that this is a myth, and one whose facts
are poorly understood even by Thelemites. Propspective members are
presented this information as if it were history, which it is not.
And then there is this:
http://oto-usa.org/theology.html
Note the name of the page, "Thelemic Theology":
"In the Book of the Law, the divine Principles are personified by a
trinity of ancient Egyptian Divinities: Nuit, the Goddess of Infinite
Space; Hadit, the Winged Serpent of Light…"
Except, there is no Egyptian divinity called Hadit, the Winged Serpent
of Light, and there is no such name or divinity on the Stele of
Revealing (which is displayed on this page to suggest an ancient
authority for the false claims).
Now, it really isn't reasonable to think that the leadership of OTO is
simply ignorant or confused about this, since it's clear Crowley
became aware of the problems with the translation of the stele and
sought in some way to reconcile them. Unfortunately, the
reconcilliation became another silly myth, or lie, chanted over and
over again to people, such as myself, who asked the simple
question---"Where is Hadit?"
Again, why is that question so bothersome, so capable of striking such
fear in the hearts and minds of Thelemites?
> > > The same can be said of Lord of the Rings, Discworld, Zen and
> > > the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Foucault's Pendulum --
> > Yes, in all those examples, should the authors have committed
> > fraud, that would be something worth considering when reading
> > their supposed truths.
> Why? The validity of their teachings could be tested by experiment and
> confirmed by experience.
You mean affirmed by expedience. There's a difference.
> > Thelemites for the most part have not known full well
> > about much to do with the claims of their leader or his
> > secret club.
> Using the example of the Golden Dawn again, my Order
> (which incorporates a whole lot of Thelemic symbolism
> and philosophy into our Work---
Is that an ad? And does this not suggest you are then blatantly
prejudiced and incapable of delivering an objective opinion about the
subject of Thelema?
> , by the way) knows full well that Westcott's origin mythology of the
>= GD is almost certainly false, and we inform our Aspirants of this
> in no uncertain terms.
You are lying.
"However, nothing can be proven either way."
You use a common occult hysteria technique (and one used by people
peddling various swindles) of offering a number of possible
explanations for what you claim to be the facts and then asking the
ignorant reader to choose the one which he likes most. You affirm
"nothing can be proven either way", which means you DO NOT take the
position that the origin mythology is "almost certainly false."
Now, what do you say on your website about Thelema's origin myth?
Nothing, correct?
> So by doing this, have we "restored" the validity of the system?
As with most postmodern managers of occult orders, you're not much
concerned about the validity of some system, but only your ability to
get people to purchase your brand of occultism.
> I see no other conclusion to your premise---
Get some reading glasses.
> > jk is an equal opportunity indicter.
> No you are not, unless you've also posted lengthy screeds
> denouncing the Golden Dawn and Taoism. Have you?
Aren't you complexing the question?
Again, you don't get to dictate the terms of the critique.
> > > If not, s/he is merely being dishonest and bigoted---
> >
> > Fortunately I am not being those things.
>
> On the contrary, your prejudice is plainly obvious.
Again, my failure to obey your irrational demands is not evidence of
my dishonesty or bigotry. You are substituting unjustified ad hominem
attacks for reasoned arguments.
Furthermore, I have been known for many years, by other people who
also had a kneejerk reaction to what they felt I was saying, as a
prejudiced agent FOR Aleister Crowley and Thelema. So your accusation
is baseless (or at least highly questionable).
> > > So while there may be something to an indictment of the
> > > PEOPLE who resort to promoting "fiction" as "truth"---
> > What is the something there is to that?
> > Be specific.
> OK -- people who promote false mythologies are not very nice.
In fact it might be fair to say they could be criminally "not very
nice", isn't that correct?
[much repititive stuff snipped]
> It's all very simple, really.
> Let's assume for the moment that the "superior being" actually existed
> in some way or another. If this being undertook to speak to Crowley in
> the language of ancient Khemet, Crowley wouldn't understand it.
The being supposedly spoke English. It could have explained to Crowley
there wasn't any "Hadit" on the stele. I doubt that would have hurt
Crowley's feelings or confused him..
> "Aiwass" wasn't delivering an Egyptology lecture.
He wasn't delivering an Egyptology anything. But he should have been
able to get the god names correct.
> "Aiwass" was delivering a philosophical and religious treatise
> to Crowley in "words and images" that Crowley, with his
> particular background and limited access to knowledge,
> would understand and interpret as it was intended.
Why would it be intended to get the word "Hadit" wrong?
Be specific.
> This is demonstrated by the fact that Liber AL is undeniably
> composed using symbology based on the teachings of the
> Golden Dawn—
So you're claiming Aiwass read and copied the faked cypher manuscript
so that when he started delivering to Crowley the faked New Aeon
revelation it would be in the dishonest terms of engagement Crowley
was used to?
That's not a very convincing argument for the supposed truth and
validity
of Thelema.
> It's as if I were sending a message to you, and I used the phrase
> "begs the question" to mean "calls into question".
No, it would be more like the example I gave above about driving with
eyes tight shut, which is obviously the method you recommend for trips
made through the occult.
> What matters is getting the message across accurately TO YOU—
Then you shouldn't lie.
> Understand?
Yes, you're hopelessly ignorant and dishonest.
[rest of same stupid maxxshit snipped]
(jk)
Jason Michael Rubino
> potnia...@yahoo.com (PotniaTheron) wrote in message
news:<f41e1be4.03062...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > taro...@jktarot.com (jk) wrote in message
news:<ba8efff9.03062...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Because, I have found much of value in various religions, but do not
> > consider myself at all religious.
>
> Finding value in religions, in the ideas of them for example,
> while keeping a distance from faith in their claims about
> absolute things (such as the nature of God) is not so
> difficult really. But, at some point, as you would do at a
> movie, you must suspend your disbelief to get the most
> out of it. In other words, accept what people say as if it
> were true.
An excellent point. Have you read, ' Meditations,' by Descartes?
> In that way, for example, you can read Crowley's
> writings, understand he's playing a complex psychological
> game by constantly dancing around the Thelemic Maypole
> of fiction,
Personally, and this is how I approached Crowley, I would start with what
Hinduism and Buddhism has to offer stripped clean of the dogma. If you can
climb and dance around Hindu thought until you reach a point where even
without dogma you still can find an end to their philosophy, then you can
begin to understand what Crowley meant by "Thelema." A decent place to
start, to my taste, is, 'The Bhagavad Gita,' 'Upanishads,' and,
'Dhammapada;' all translated from Sanskrit and Pali by Juan Mascaro --
Penguin Classics. There are numerous others of course though synchronicity
will lead you to which is right for you according to what you've gleaned in
knowledge found in the above.
> and yet still appreciate it when he says something
> interesting. And that doesn't require you to imagine yourself
> a "philosopher" instead of a believer. It just requires you to
> be an interested and attentive reader. On the other hand,
> it's helpful to recall at some point that it's just an
> entertainment of the lights, not necessarily the truth. And
> when the facts don't fit, and the true believers throw one
> when you ask a simple question, just recall you're not
> employed by their mania (no matter how many little dolls
> they poke pins into).
Show your eruditeness of Eastern classics otherwise it's your mania that
shines even brighter than sheep's wool. Most concerning Thelema are
hoodwinked, I'll grant you this, but by reading some of your own work
concerning Tarot, specifically the relation of the Gunas to the Fortune
Trump, I'd think to expect more from you in this thread. You tested the
waters. You now know there's a fellow in the ocean. Offer a cigar or
consider the case closed.
J.M.R.
PotniaTheron
> potnia...@yahoo.com (PotniaTheron) wrote in message news:<f41e1be4.03062...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > taro...@jktarot.com (jk) wrote in message news:<ba8efff9.03062...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Because, I have found much of value in various religions, but do not
> > consider myself at all religious.
>
> Finding value in religions, in the ideas of them for example,
> while keeping a distance from faith in their claims about
> absolute things (such as the nature of God) is not so
> difficult really. But, at some point, as you would do at a
> movie, you must suspend your disbelief to get the most
> out of it. In other words, accept what people say as if it
> were true. In that way, for example, you can read Crowley's
> writings, understand he's playing a complex psychological
> game by constantly dancing around the Thelemic Maypole
> of fiction, and yet still appreciate it when he says something
> interesting. And that doesn't require you to imagine yourself
> a "philosopher" instead of a believer. It just requires you to
> be an interested and attentive reader. On the other hand,
> it's helpful to recall at some point that it's just an
> entertainment of the lights, not necessarily the truth. And
> when the facts don't fit, and the true believers throw one
> when you ask a simple question, just recall you're not
> employed by their mania (no matter how many little dolls
> they poke pins into).
This is actually very much like my own process in understanding a new
idea. After an initial intellectual engagement, I more or less adopt
it, and live inside it, to really see how it works... but always with
the ability to disengage. And after that, there is a sort of synthesis
of the useful parts with my overall perspective. I have found that
without that step, the synthesis never really occurs.
--PT