“…6opo6 is posting in riddles.”
Well, yes, at least that much is apparent.
“The TORA anagrams, the disguised YHVH, the gibberish to get AAA etc. it all relates to numerology, the qabbalah and crowleyanity”
It does seem as if the TORA anagrams, the disguised YHVH, the AAA etc. do relate to, as you say, “numerology, the qabbalah and crowleyanity.” However, what counts towards making it “gibberish”? Didn’t you ask in your opening post for people who were “Tarot reader[s] beyond the 'Beginner's New Age Teach Yourself Tarot in a Nutshell' level?” So how do you already know that 6opo6 isn’t a person who has “achieved a level of confidence” and that ze is “sufficient [enough] to have an informed opinion”? Or was your saying “not to be elitist” to mean the opposite?
“…and I'm sure it makes godog happy to post gematria for people to unscramble.”
Yeah, maybe ze masturbates furiously at the thought of it. But what’s more important is does it make ze happier than Crowley *cough—Book of the Law—cough*? Or happier than those “Qabbalists” who’ve led you to believe that they “…numbered the keys” and “not…the cards”? I mean, you are asking for discussion of the Tarot and it seems to me that we can recognize that any discussion of the tarot can’t help but be our own “unscrambling” of others’ “unscrambling” of others’…and so on?
Others have brought up tetragrammaton and talked about how it relates to their experiences with the tarot—how is the statement ‘you all weigh’ = ‘YHVH’ necessarily saying any less than others have said? If 6ogo6 is relating hir experience with tarot and tetragrammaton, then perhaps you might want to stop and answer your own question: what is being said about Him? If it tells you nothing, then perhaps it is not for you, but what if it tells you, or someone like very much like you (with lungs, kidneys, blood, a brain, etc.), something? Perhaps it might speak to some “lurker” out there? Perhaps there is something interesting being said about “our weight” and “YHVH”? How might it be any more or less “meaningful” than, say, Phil Hine’s Warhol/Betty-Crocker condensed signed soup for your easy bake oven?
I am finding myself drawn to this, written by Dion Fortune:
“But these words are words and nothing more unless they convey an impression to the mind, and in themselves they cannot do that. They must be related to other ideas before they have significance.”
And sure, you’re going to say, “Dion Fortune?! She’s so GD [that’s “Golden Dawn” for any of you “who aren't experienced in [these] esoteric areas]!” And you seem to be critical if we want to bring in some kinda’ arrogance of Crowley or any of his wackiness, and yet you premise this discussion of the tarot on “…the heart of the Tarot” being “the artwork. The symbols in the major arcana are the most important aspect of the Tarot, instantiated as pictures…” and you even go further to say that “the Thoth Tarot is extremely fine.” Umm…don’t you think that these images are these same people’s “riddles”? How is “crowleyanity” avoided if you are basing your experiences of the tarot on the imagery he helped design?
Moreover, have you ever really looked at the various cards? Of course, you have—I know that—but I mean looked? Many cards (yes, major arcana) of many different sorts of decks have numbers and symbols (“Planet’s gramma…r” indeed!) embedded in the imagery: whether or not there are numbers on the cards, there are numbers within them. Or perhaps you don’t see this, then maybe the message isn’t for you.
Regardless of the merit or demerit of alleged rudeness and exclusion, I still think ze asks an important question, and a question within a question. Perhaps there is an answer to both within the message?
The important question relates to how you’ve already noted that many things (“runes, hexagrams, gematria”) can be closely associated with the cards—perhaps if one “gets the message”—and you even say, “…the cards and these things reflect the same underlying reality.” So the question of “what isn’t a magickal belief system in its own right” seems to point to this idea of “the same underlying reality.” Put differently, the question becomes “what things, if any, do not reflect the same underlying reality?”
The other question is perhaps an answer to the first: “If you are beyond good and evil, then why do you escape?”
An answer appears to be found in “saaad.” The Eden thing references our own choice to become aware of good and evil, and thus, we fall. 111, “Ain Soph Aur,” the Veils are rent because we “aim so far, answer,” and here in the material world, we “suffer.” Isn’t it the tearing of so-called “negative existence” from which life springs forth, and aren’t the images of the tarot supposed to represent the bubbling of that spring?
But I’m wasting your time with trying to unscramble what 6odo6 might be saying. I’ll let you get back to trying to unscramble what Crowley might want you to discover through his images. Or whatever other images you choose to use. Let me know when you find your exploration into some different people’s riddles to be “meaningless,” and then we can discuss that!
Oh, I know, I apologize for sounding pissy, for taking the piss, or giving the piss—I still haven’t quite figured out how that all works! I suppose I am merely compensating for the good mood and love that I was feeling the other day…
eZ |
) were initially unnumbered, and although the tree of life maps onto it the system IMO is independant. Several cards have questionable numbering, and I think that Qabbalists numbered the keys, not that the cards came numbered.