Tarot Symbolism: Enemy of The State


by Odyn PenDragon

The core idea of Atu VX “The Devil” is that of Enjoying Any Sensory Experience that you desire. By extension, that includes Any Sensual Experience that you desire. All other considerations are auxiliary. But, to me, the primary auxiliary consideration is rather the Abandonment of Morality: to actually ‘know’ that “morality” is an artificial construct. Here there is no such thing as a “wrong” activity. Even ‘murder’ is not a “wrong” act — just merely inconvenient for the recipient.

The greatest virtue of Atus XV and XVI is that of “Change Your Mind and Attitude”, or rather “Open Your Mind and Attitude”. Ignoring this prime directive at these stages does result in “failure”. (Thus Atu XV also tends to be interpreted in terms of “incoming occult knowledge” or other similar metaphors.)

In the Crowley-Harris version of this image is blatantly displayed a grand phallus plunging its ‘head’ into “a hole”. All that Crowley says of this “hole” is that it is “the rings of Nuit”. He does not further specify “what hole” it is. It is frankly any “hole” that the phallus (or, the phallus-wielder) desires: a vagina, a mouth, an anus, even a hole in a tree — so be it.

The best in “The Devil” is “how can I take the most advantage in all that is available”.

For those obsessed with “correct” or “incorrect” behavior, this portrait is of Wanton Abandon to Pleasure. Some people choose to freely and openly exhibit “their devil” without embarrassment. Others are embarrassed by “their devil” and ‘reveal’ it only within secluded confines, but still plague their mind with the “wrongness” of the act. The other set of secret practitioners fear the reactions of otherwise surrounding moralists, but themselves do not consider it “wrong”. There is a so-called ‘fourth class’ who wantonly display “their devil” with the added sensory delight of offending the surrounding moralists who think the act is “wrong”.

It is too bad that much of the discussions surrounding this idea tend to obsess around “sexual” considerations, given the rampant “sex-embarrassment” entrenched in not just any one human culture. I re-emphasize that this matter is about Sensory Experience, not just Sensual Experience. If someone enjoys being physically hurt, it does not automatically translate into a “sexual” experience. Yes, it is sensual, i.e. sensory. If someone enjoys watching someone else ‘puking their brains out’, finds it funny, there is nothing “wrong” with that — and there is nothing inherently “sexual” about the enjoyment either (but if it is, so be it).

Atu XV happens to focus on Abandonment of the artificial construct called “Morality”. (Abandonment of all other remaining artificial constructs rather occurs with Atu XVI — thus it is a much more devastating portrayal.) If one honestly examines the nature of “morality”, with its simplistic notions of “right” and “wrong” behavior, it is not difficult to see its intimate tie to sensory experience on all levels. It is by the ‘abandonment’ of this artificial construct that one gains a perspective on the nature of “moral” construction; then, at least, you become ‘the master’ of Your Moral Behavior, rather than being a slave to some “external absolute”. Herein lies my most profound objection to any “sane” discussion of “Evil” and ‘his’ companions with regard to this page (card). “Evil” has become one of those imagined absolutes that plagues the thought processes of those who want “external absolutes”. “Good” and “Evil”, “Right” and “Wrong” (which are merely emotional tags) have been turned, by many who desperately desire a sense of order, into comparative ‘deities’: absolutes unquestionable; violations of which are met with consternation. The reader who succumbs to any rant about “inappropriate behavior” when this page (card) appears in a reading, reveals themself as still enraptured with that spectre of “righteousness”. (And then there is no wonder, in this mind, why Atu XVI appears even more “mis-translated”.)

Atus XV and XVI are not the initiation of Breaking Limitations: that initiation occurred earlier in the Trump Series. These pages (cards) happen to focus on the Breaking of Sacredly-Held Limitations.

When this page (card) appears in a reading spread, along with whatever it may indicate for the querent (client) amidst the context of the spread, it should also serve as a reminder to the reader to carefully observe any “moral limitations” sacredly held by the reader, and to make an extra effort to not allow such to bias the reading. If I am doing a reading for a housing banker, and see indications that the client is about to foreclose on a bunch of delinquent mortgages, I have to resist the temptation to sabotage the reading that might help sabotage such an impending act — despite my “moral” objection to that act.

O-A-Hum
OPD

opdtarot.wordpress.com

Advertisements

Tarot Symbolism: The Initial Vehicle


by Odyn PenDragon

I consider Atu VII to be the first “real lesson” in the Trump Series. Atus I-VI have been of the nature of preparation. (It can be argued that Atu VI, due to the complex nature of its depiction, is the first lesson. I would simply argue that it is the last, and most important, lesson in the preparation*.)

The metaphor of “The Chariot” has been a favorite amongst many traditions as a standard for describing the status of “an ordinary being”. Even Gurdjieff, who did not subscribe to the standard “occult” retinue, unhesitatingly used the “chariot” metaphor to describe “the beginning status” to his students. The metaphor is utterly simple. There is the Main Vehicle. Added to that is the Conductor and the Moving Force. The ‘reigns’ connecting the ‘conductor’ to the ‘moving force’ is the first auxiliary metaphor-extension.

(For those who play with the Crowley-Harris version of this image, there are no ‘reigns’ connecting ‘the driver’ to ‘the driving force’. But the ‘reigns’ are apparent if you view the surrounding rings radiant from the ‘held cup’, which is like “a steering wheel”. This “steering wheel” is very much equivalent to “a scrying medium” (cup-of-water, crystal-ball, etc.).)

This icon is very much The Somatic Vehicle. It is What We Begin With!

With Atus I-VI, the initiate has been ‘prepared’ with a diet of concepts that build from “relative nothing-ness” to “relative something-ness”.

Atu VII is that “slam” of “this is actually what you have to deal with, in the beginning”. You have this Bio-Form! It has some basic intrinsic properties. It is “the first consideration” in all of your consideration(s) of “How Am I Going to Navigate ‘This’ Universe?” It is rather ‘the question from very birth’. From the very beginning of stumblings, that ‘question’ is all-pervasive. This is ‘the lesson’ of this Trump: “how do I deal with this stumbling temple?”

The “lesson” takes on properties of cognizing a kind of “visceral” cognizance. “The Body” has a kind of ‘wisdom’ of its own. We use the metaphor of “feeling my way” through “all of this”. The basic english language has the one handicap of using the term “feel” in both a bio-sensory and an emotional way. It doesn’t help that this dual definition is equally valid. (Thus the association of this Trump with the Astrological Cancer.) That is why I have chosen to use the metaphor of “Visceral Navigation” with this Trump.
But Atu VII is much more than mere “visceral navigation”. It rather epitomizes the Entire Body Sense. To actually “feel” that ‘this body’ is ‘a vehicle’. To cognize that you are “navigating a vehicle” is of supreme importance!

O-A-Hum
OPD

* Atu VI has the awesome responsibility of transmitting the most primal lesson of “The Metaphor of The Student”, who must principally cognize Two Key Ingredients in One’s Composition, which the “Gnostics” labeled ‘The Eidolon’ and ‘The Daemon’. They are “the intimate lovers” co-existing in “one house”. The average description to this image is that “a marriage is occurring” — but “the awful secret” is that “there really was never a separation”, and that “the marriage” is kind of “after-the-fact”. The metaphor of “a marriage” is based on a delusion that there was ‘a separate status’ that ‘had to be married’. The “marriage ritual” is as a formality, in the sense that “the separate two” were never really “separate” — it only appeared as such. The “marriage” has “been arranged” from the very beginning.

opdtarot.wordpress.com

Reversed Cards


By Odyn PenDragon

I had long ago abandoned using ‘reversed’ cards in my spreads because to me that distinction really meant nothing. When a card appears, it is by its relation to the other cards in the spread that helps ‘refine’ the otherwise ‘wide’ meaning intrinsic to any card, ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ and all inbetween. It is, to me, linear thinking to rely on the card’s relative orientation to decide its ‘benevolence’ or ‘malevolence’. The querent’s (client’s) actions-behaviors-reactions will determine that.

But there is a property from Astrology that can be projected onto this issue of reversed cards, while still retaining the intrinsic dynamic balance of “benevolence” and “malevolence” in its appearance in the spread. Even in an astrological reading, I see those who treat a Retrograde Planet is somehow “opposite” the meaning of the Direct Planet, because of its ‘apparent’ “backwards” motion. However, there is a property of Retrograde Planets that is not mere ‘appearance’: for the planets outside of the Earth’s Orbit (Mars and beyond), they appear retrograde when they are closest to the Earth itself. Thus it is suggested that Retrograde Planets should be treated as if they are “too close” and therefore there is a “lack of perspective” or “lack of objectivity”. Armed with this notion, it was not difficult for me to shift my ‘word mind’ into considering Retrograde Planets as being “Indirect” as compared to Direct Planets.

A “direct” factor can represent that which is “definite”, whereas an “indirect” factor can represent that which is “vague” and “indefinite”. (The cynic in me can easily draw a parallel of comparing a Scientist and a Politician.) At least with this ‘Direct or Indirect’ model, it is simply a matter of “perspective” or “perceptual capacity”, completely divorced from the “benevolence” or “malevolence” of the factor. The ‘good’ or ‘bad’ morality model has been removed.

Why not apply this same principle to Direct Cards and Reversed Cards in the reading spread? A Direct Card can represent a property that has a greater potential of being more easily apparent, easily noticeable. A Reversed or Indirect Card can represent a property that will require greater awareness by the querent (client) to notice its manifestation; it will be more ‘indefinite’, ‘vague’ and maybe even ‘tricky’.

O-A-Hum
OPD

opdtarot.wordpress.com

Tarot Symbolism: The Broken Prison


By Odyn PenDragon

(this is not just ‘food’ for Thoth)

Atu XVI is commonly called “The Tower” or more fully “The Blasted Tower”. My own chosen alternate title would be “The Crumbling of The Prison Walls” or more simply “The Broken Prison”. The key idea is that An Established Stable Edifice becomes Utterly Destabilized! The stability of this established edifice is our own conviction in the certainty of our given sensory data. Things Are What They Are, according to our senses; and their apparent consistency encourages our conviction in that certainty. Wobbles of that certainty are what is usually called “delusion” or “illusion” — and never for a moment is that panorama of sensory-convinced consistent certainty ever considered the “actual illusion” or “actual delusion”. Such a consideration would be utterly unnerving for “ordinary living”.

But remember, all Tarot freaks, that Atu XVI is well advanced in the Trump Series. We have gotten well beyond “ordinary living”. The ‘later’ pages (cards) of the Trump Series deal with describing factors necessary-of-consideration for those who have “done work” on themselves. Atu XVI deals with the awful revelation of The Delusion of One’s Own Self-Crafted Prison Walls. The effect does come off like “a force on-high” “descending” and “devastating the solid edifice” “below”. (The ‘above/below’ metaphor is an antique left-over.) The full effect does not require your actual Sensory Perception to “become wobbly”. The devastation is in Your Conviction of ‘Its’ Certainty. In its essence it is A Drastic Change of Mind and Attitude, and the “revelation” is equivalent to “an onslaught”. For those Addicted to Certainty, it would feel like “a violation” and “a violence”. The “breaking” of these “prison walls” is in the otherwise ordinary underlying belief in their certainty. These “prison walls” can still maintain their ‘ordinary appearance’ during this mental conversion. What is “destroyed” or “disturbed” is the resident comfort of their certainty; and the awful cognizance that “what is called real” IS a “curtain” or “veil”. And this revelation does not even have to take on ‘metaphysic’ proportions: the simple comprehension that “the perceptual curtain” is composed of only a portion of the total potential signal-energy output of even every “physical” manifestation, is sufficient.

So, when this card appears in an “ordinary reading”, the reader should be compelled to break the news to the client that some “sacred cow of certainty” is at risk. The usual tactic appears to have been to merely give some ‘frightening trepidation’ about “a violation”, without indicating “the real victim” of “this violation” — a sacredly-held ‘certainty’. For those readers who have dared such, I applaud you.

All of this gives a clue as to why I question the now-classic attribution of this page (card) to only the astrological planet Mars. The much more preferable attribution would be directly that of the astrological planet Pluto. Pluto may be commonly given the metaphors of “death & resurrection”, but the seed idea is that of “transformation” — and, especially read “TransFormation”. The “death & resurrection” metaphors are attempts to give markers-of-definitiveness to a process that rather actually reeks of “in-between-ness”. And it is not unwarranted to say that when the Sense of Certainty has “been violated” or becomes rather abrogate, a feeling of “in-between-ness” ensues. In the Trump Series, Atu XVI represents when the Construct of Certainty has been Torn Asunder, but as yet no “alternative” has been offered (that is the ‘later’ Trumps).

(There are those who also associate the astrological planet Uranus to this page (card), which I cannot wholly disagree yet for one key exception, that I tend to view Uranus as much more ‘purely’ of ‘mental’ orientation — the archetype of “Change Your Mind” in-and-of-itself.)

To me, the astrological planet Mars is much more appropriately associated with Atu IV “The Emperor”. The now-classic astrological attribution to Atu IV is the zodiacal sign Aries; which in my outlook is also valid. Mars is in its core a rather “defiant” stance of “Selective Independence”. There is an insistence on “Me, Myself, and I” (the three ‘truly’ best friends). But this “defiant” stance of Mars is not a matter of ‘pushing away others’; it is simply the extreme perspective of Insisting on Self. Both Mars and Atu IV are merely the notion of “in the wholistic context of Nature, What Is My Place?” Atu IV is the “awful” revelation of a cognizant entity, co-involved in the collective concourse of Nature, to dare to ask such an heretical question as “how do I fit into all this?” Atu IV is distinguished from Mars due to ‘the animal factor’ (of which ‘the human factor’ at this stage is a sub-set).

The core idea of Mars as “Selective Independence” becomes rather abrogate with Atu XVI. “Selective Independence” requires a Sense of Certainty in that notion of “Independent Existence”; a ‘Sense of Certainty’ in that ‘Sense of Separation’ from the surrounding ‘Co-existing Context of Nature’. Atu IV is the most primal act of “I Am I”. With Atu XVI, the sense of “I Am I” is not violated. What is violated at Atu XVI is any certainty of “what is this that Surrounds ‘I’?” What is violated at Atu XVI is “how do I define what Separates ‘I’ from the rest of the surrounding?”

As those who are consistent with “wholistic cognition” do cognize, eventually that “sense of separation” evaporates. But not yet here at Atu XVI.

O-A-Hum
OPD

opdtarot.wordpress.com

[added May 15]

There is another factor, concurrent but only appears to be a ‘separate’ consideration.
The devastation of “The Blasted Tower” is very much connected to the Separation of Identification with One’s Temple-Shell. The “Be Here Now” of Atu XIX is the completion of this indicated separation; Atu XVI is the so-called ‘real beginning’ of this separation. To use metaphors from cinematic stories, Atu XVI is The Initial Unplugging from The Matrix, and The Separation from The Avatar. You cease to attach your Sense of Identity with the Vessel, the Machine, the Vehicle that You Are Piloting or Driving. Then, the statements such as “IT Moves” and “IT Feels” and “IT Thinks” become actual, and not merely novel notions. All external descriptions of this attitude pale in comparison to actually experiencing this attitude.

There is yet another concurrent factor, even ‘weirder’ than the above.
There is a genuine sense of how All The Surrounding Construct is A Collection of Information. The “Tower” Crumbles not because chunks of material mutually separate and dissociate from each other — the bodily form remains intact. It is “the reality” of those ‘building blocks’ and of ‘the overall structure’ that is utterly thrown into question, the Sense of Their Stability. To have the vision of how All This is “Congealed Information” is more devastating to The Old Sensibility than can be imagined for ‘ordinary living’. You do not question the movements and happenings of “reality”; but while you observe yourself and your surroundings, your “view” of it has been drastically altered. And it is a “view” that cannot be shared with others, unlike when two people can point to a rock and agree on ‘its’ existence — even if you happen to be with another who also has shifted “view”. I that case, at best, the two “view”-shifted individuals can mutually chuckle over the “it’s just information” humor.

How I use the 3 Card Spread


By Odyn PenDragon

If I am not mistaken, the common view of the 3-Card Spread has the basic model of a “Before / During / After” methodology. The method is entrenched in a time-based causal-linear mode. One flanking card is described as “leading up to” or “preceding”, and the other flanking card is described as “following after” or “succeeding” — or otherwise similar metaphors.
But I have found it more ‘profitable’ to take the mind out of such a causal-linear model in the initial stage, and then subsequently consider a causal-linear image to make the possibilities of the ‘prediction’-picture “fuller”.

“What the hell does he mean by all this?”
There is a way of viewing the Houses of Astrology in terms of four clusters of three phases (yes, I get that this is not new, but just be patient), and the three phases can be described with ideas that lend to divorcing from a causal-linear mind-set, even though the ideas in that context still do apply to an “input / output” model. The three metaphors used are an “Entry phase”, an “Assimilation phase” and a “Preparation phase”. What I found fascinating was to shift the mind from the “input / output” model to a “condensation / evaporation” model. (Fans of classic alchemical metaphors will find a parallel by taking “solve et coagula” and inverting it to “coagula et solve”.) There is a “coalescing” and a “dissolution”. This process is intimately bound to my own conception of YIN and YANG in terms of “enfolding” and “unfolding“. To steal terms from ‘wave dynamics’, there is a “compression” and there is an “attenuation”.

The central card still retains its description as “the central consideration”. It is the focus of the theme. The flanking cards are auxiliary to this “central theme”. That does not change. What changes is the beginning assumption that the flanking cards describe “before / after”, “preceding / succeeding” causal-linear determination. This is where the reader’s mind is challenged. How does the “condensation” to the “central issue” not “precede”, and the “evaporation” of the “central issue” not “succeed”? The reader is forced to face an intrinsic time-based causal-linear bias; which, in my opinion, ‘limits’ the possibilities of what can be delivered with the reading. The reader can still eventually consider a time-based causal-linear description — it just might best not be the primary mode.

“So how do you get out the time-based causal-linear mind-set?”
I do no have a convenient ‘cookbook’ answer to that. (Actually, I do, but that is way beyond the simple considerations here.) The key is simply “change your mind”. You do not have to go into any “cosmic jim/jane” mode to get there. Just dare to consider a way of viewing the picture without a “before / after” model. The best way to describe the mind-set is to really take the “Be Here Now” attitude to heart. The entire event is concurrent. It is like sending a message, and getting a response ‘before’ the message-receiver might have received the message, but ‘after’ you sent the message; or, receiving ‘the response’ just as you ‘send the message’ — as if “they read your mind” (or some similar soothing explanation). When Uncle Einstein described the ramifications of ‘general relativity’, he described how when the vehicle “slows down” and the passenger’s body ‘falls forward’, it is caught in a ‘gravitational field’. The usual causal-linear mind-set thinks “brakes applied”=”make gravitational field”. What really messes with the causal-linear mind-set is to first consider “gravitational field”=”brakes applied”, then to wonder “did ‘gravitational field’ make the ‘breaks applied’ phenomenon?” Now you are getting closer, but no less confused.

I choose to view the flanking cards as if one of them is like an enfolding to the “central issue”, and the other is like an unfolding of the “central issue”. As with any Card Spread, it is up to the reader how to determine which card ‘means’ which. If you choose to do a ‘controlled spread’ and have the cards placed ‘side-to-side’, or ‘above-to-below’, is entirely up to you as the reader. If you choose to discretely place a card before you and call that one “the central issue”, and then wildly fling one card one way in the room and call that one “the enfolding“, and then wildly fling another card another way in the room and call that one “the unfolding” — so be it!

I happen to have another novelty, which really gets in touch with “random Mercury”. I am the one who does the thorough shuffling, and then the querent is the one who divides that shuffled deck into three sections. When the querent divides the deck into the three cuts, I “mentally determine” which segment is which group. Then from each of those sections, I randomly choose a card thereof, by ‘wildly’ poking my finger into each of the designated groups, and pulling the according card.

I must emphasize that nowhere am I claiming that a time-based causal-linear interpretation is ‘incorrect’. I simply feel that it is a limitation of an otherwise richness that can be offered even by a simple 3 Card Spread.

O-A-Hum
OPD

opdtarot.wordpress.com

“Timing?” with Tarot?


By Odyn PenDragon

Time-based predictive behavior is an inherent capacity in Astrology. Time-based predictive behavior with any other form of divination is tricky at best, and is entirely dependent upon “intuition” or “other-vision” — which reeks of subjectivity, so it is fine for self-reading, but gets sloppy when reading for others.

Before going any further with this, let’s get something out of the way. It is utterly useless to attempt to derive any “timing” with the Trumps and the Courts. Their intrinsic “meaning” does not lend to any “quantification”. This examination will focus on using the Number Cards as “timing” devices.

So what is to be “quantified”? Humans have gotten into the habit of measuring “time” with discrete “time-measuring” devices — clocks, calendars, etc. These are artificial constructs of artificial constructs, derivative of derivatives. Those devices in particular are derived from the Sequential Recurrence of the apparent Solar Cycle, which is the original artificial construct. (Yes, yes, “it” is considered a “natural phenomenon”; just follow along for now.) So let’s say you pull the 7 Wands. Do you disregard that it is a Wand card, focusing on the 7, so that you might as well have pulled any other 7 card? Fine — then 7 what? Minutes, hours, days, months, years? Let’s say you decide to determine that one Suite represent one type of “time-period” and another Suite represents another type. Do you see how you are getting deeper and deeper into artificial constructs of artificial constructs? Given that the presiding ‘deity’ of tarot divination is “Mercury”, “he” will have a blast with this technique, completely befuddling the reading. Sure, you will get a ‘definite’ reading, but will it match “real-time” events?

There is a way out of this swamp: go back to ‘original’ artificial constructs that are much more “intimate” — Actual Living Occurrences.

The numbers themselves, of course, provide the “quantification”. So it is up to the Suite to determine the type of ‘event’ to be “sequentially measured” or “quantified”.

I propose these four ‘classes’:

Wand = a “high-impact” experiential moment or instant;

Disc (Pantacle) = a discrete physical condition (bodily and/or environmentally);

Sword = a “thought-package” or discrete mindset;

Cup = an “emotion-package” — but better, a discernible Cycle or Period (this one is the trickiest).

All of these qualify as discernibly discrete ‘events’ that can be “sequentially measured” ‘in time’. They serve as a much better “personal clock” (if you will). This tactic will be much more effective with a self-reading; and yet, by direct contrast, all the more difficult with reading for another!

Then, amidst the general spread, the Trumps and Courts, by juxtaposition, can serve as “qualifiers”.

I hope this moment of entertainment may prove ‘useful’.

O-A-Hum
OPD

opdtarot.wordpress.com

Tarot Symbolism: The Ultimate Pilot – Thoth Tarot


By Odyn PenDragon

Atu XX is called “The Aeon” in the Crowley-Harris Tarot. Crowley’s use of the term is difficult and misleading, especially for “the beginner”. He ‘distorted’ the idea of “an epoch” to conform to his desire to ‘create a new religion’ (a huge mistake in my opinion). One is better off investigating the use of that term with regards to “Gnosticism”. (I have yet to read Jung’s book by that title.) The ‘classic’ full title is “The Last Judgment”, which is infinitely superior to the foreshortened “Judgement”; but one is much better off dissociating the “X-tian connection” to that phrase.
Crowley’s design of Atu XX, even by his own description, is claimed to be a portrait of “the Hierarchy of the New Aeon”, which is technically correct but, again, misleading by the presented wording. Instead of “back-pedaling” and then “forward-pedaling”, I’ll just jump right in.

The Developing Human has gone through the entire adventure as described by the Trump Series — from the initial “Abandonment of the Previous” of Atu 0 unto the eventual “Discovery of the Fuel Chamber” of Atu XIX. Atu XX is a portrait of A New Vehicle of Incarnation (a schematic if you will), and is “the rebirth” unto “a new human”. (I want to say “new being”, but let’s keep this within ‘humanity’.) The Seated Central Deity is “the new person” placed at the Captain’s Chair of the New Space-Time Vehicle. The “Wand of Power” in one hand is “the shifting-stick of the transmission gear-box” controlling “the velocity”. The other hand is “steering the vehicle” controlling “the orientation” (the phrase “I have crushed an universe, and nought remains” is a groovy technical phrase). The Ghostly Twin Sibling is what is commonly called “the astral body” of the physical pilot. In another sense, this is the gnostic Daemon in relation to the seated Eidolon. The Surrounding Goddess (Nuit) is not only the Shell of the overall Vehicle, but also the Distortion of Space-Time about that Vehicle, whereby “point A” and “point B” are ‘curved’ into coincidence. The Basic God-Focus (Hadit) is multi-aspect: the “point A+B” coincidence, the “fuel source”, and (to use a ‘disneyland’ metaphor) the monorail track of the Vehicle.

The complex image at the very base of the portrait, the “hebrew-letter-shin” with the “three children”, and the flames surrounding, I will not get into except that they refer to the ‘classic’ version of this card — yet beyond the average considerations (‘why the three fetal icons?’). The presiding image is a complex re-image of the ‘classic’ Trumpeting Angel.

For those not acquainted with “space-time travel”, I simply invite you to search for the presentation given by ‘the heretic-scientist’ Bob Lazar, who actually ‘back-engineered’ one of the “extra-terrestrial vehicles” (so he claims, by one faction; or so he lies, by another faction; or so, ‘who do you believe?’ (and that is a trick question)).

This “New Vehicle” is a complete violation of “what we are supposed to be” according to Nature. (Atu VII “The Chariot” is the Vehicle “we are supposed to be” according to Nature.) For those who pretend that “human evolution” is “better”, you should double-check with Nature “who prefers you that you subscribe to ‘her’ parameters”. Nature does not want the “new human” described in this portrait. The stage depicted with this portrait requires a “real grown-up attitude”, when you are cast out of the gestating house and unto a real ‘wild abandon’. “You are now A God.” This is very different from ‘answering to a god’. The “Children of Nature” have a much ‘easier’ time with the matter of ‘living’.
All you have to do is “stay asleep” within the ‘bed-chamber’ of “mother’s choosing”. Animals are very much friendly with this tactic. And “sleeping humans” are very much entrenched in animal life.

I was reluctant to use the term “resurrection” with this card, rather than “rebirth”, so I ran to my ‘trusty’ dictionary. The following three definitions are offered: a) “the act of rising again after death” (ok); b) “a bringing back into use” (ok); c) “a body snatcher” (HA! There It Is!). Atu XIV also qualifies as a “resurrection” of sorts; so how was that to be distinguished from Atu XX? Actually, in the “long analysis”, there is definitionally “no difference” — so the difference is only to be cognized within the Trump Series. But there is a huge difference between the “Temperence” stage and the “Aeon” stage, given the various ‘trans-terrestrial’ stages between those two (Atus XVI, XVII, XVIII and XIX).

O-A-Hum
OPD

opdtarot.wordpress.com

Desperate Planning – Thoth Tarot


By Odyn PenDragon

We humans (animals) tend to perceive structure (eye, ear, etc.), and from those, many tend to project from that a desire for some fantasy of “pattern”, and even further, the fantasy of “design”. Some passively accept this “design” model; but many others go further to then fantasize that there MUST BE A “DESIGNER”.

This Search-Desire for “A Designer” takes on many fascinating models, which unfortunately for many humans has produced the Fantasy of “A God”. Even my legacy-organization The Freemasons attempted a ‘renaming’ of that method by the term “The Grand Architect” — a desperate attempt to separate the “Great Designer” metaphor from the stupid ‘Control Freak’ monster they saw destroying the idea. But even they made a miss by clinging on to some ‘Grand Planner-Coordinator’ metaphor mixed in with some idea of centralized ‘control’.

Return to the ‘simplified’ method of ‘the’ YIN-YANG process: Enfolding & Unfolding. Sub-Atomic Processes enfold into Atomic Structure, and thereby unfold unto some ‘endurance’. Atomic Structure enfolds-combines into Molecular Structure, and thereby unfolds unto some further ‘endurance’ for those otherwise virtual sub-atomic ‘particles’. Molecules enfold into Cellular Structures, which even further unfold the ‘endurance’ of those very virtual sub-atomic ‘particles’ so deeply resident in the now growing complex structure. This “ladder” continues to cascade unto more complex structuring by serial enfoldings-combinations of the scale elements, and thus further unfolding of ‘endurance’.

Does this process describe “pattern”? Yes, according to our perception. Does this process describe “order” and/or “design”? Not necessarily ! The above described processes do not require any imaginary “Grand Planner”. Just because some “sentient being” perceives pattern and then projects a preconceived notion that such pattern MUST involve so-called “intelligent design”, is no proof of such a “Grand Planner”. It is simply proof of The Prover’s Obsession with their Model of Control. This all must, must, must make sense, yea?

This is where many make a miss in interpreting Atu III: The Empress. “She” is the Pure Happenings, which precede all considerations of the desperate attempts of all so-called ‘cognizant entities’ to make sense of the perceived patterns; and precedes the phase of Atu IV: The Emperor, who then attempts to configure his world as “Ruler” — ironically, “ruler” = “measurer”, “interpreter”. This newly-enthroned Emperor-of-one’s-own-empire MUST evaluate, coordinate, consolidate the vast array of otherwise non-sensical data into some semblance of order. The poor fool is now entirely dependant upon the ‘instructions-from-above’, to properly construct the empire.

This is here the danger of Atu V: The Hierophant. This figure has the awesome responsibility to properly instruct the Young Emperor on how to construct and conduct His Empire. If this figure-head has been poisoned with some Dæmon of Deception, the Young Emperor is now summarily cursed with the same poison, and the Empire is summarily distorted into that configuration. And this Hierophant does not get simple pass for ‘misunderstanding’. To achieve the Role of An Hierophant is not a light matter, and to bring poison to all the Young Emperors is HIGH CRIME. The simple Emperion of one’s own Empire is the business of that Emperor. Manipulation by the Hierophant deviant to the success of an Individual Empire, in favor of some Trans-Empire Poisonous Imagination is, again, High Crime in the Hierophantic Art.

All the “Priests of Plan” are Criminals, in the opinion of this ‘humble’ Mad Wizard. To promote the deception of any necessity for some “Grand Designer” to the Young Emperor desperately constructing one’s empire, is a direct violation of the time-honored Hierophantic Art. The tools of some ‘basic coordination’, and some hints at self-acceleration are the principal instruments — and then watchful instructions as the youngling stumbles.
And by the way, I would go so far to say that the Genuine Hierophants might be watchful of the Abberants who would poison the Young Emperors, and maybe take a blade to the necks of those Pretend Hierophants who would so joyously corrupt the Young Emperors into some Blind Allegiance with Their Dæmon. To be very clear — the “false path” is any ‘belief’ in some ‘Controlling Deity’.

O-A-Hum
OPD

opdtarot.wordpress.com