A.e. Waite Options

I've seen in many post the mentioning of "The Book of Cerimonial Magic", IMHO, it is utter garbadge. This book was designed to be unusable. As for the writer himself, his destruction of the Golden Dawn was moronic with his bizarre ideas of seniority over ability, with his jelousy and fears put upon others because of his inadequaties. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sculacciata.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/butcher.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/diablo.gif) Redhand (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sport_boxing.gif)

This post has been edited by redhand: Oct 23 2006, 04:58 PM

A.E.Waite said that he designed it to be unusable?
or you find it unusable?

its difficult to tell from your post

A.E.Waite said that he designed it to be unusable?
or you find it unusable?

its difficult to tell from your post

As I said the book was "designed" to be unusable in other words useless. I guess you could say my post means I don't like Waite, I think he's a fraud. His Pictorial Key to the Tarot might be useable for a beginer. The Holy Kabbalah is alright if you can get past his ramblings of which he does alot of, I would perfer Fortune's Mystical Qabala (IMG:style_emoticons/default/00000047.gif)

As I said the book was "designed" to be unusable in other words useless. I guess you could say my post means I don't like Waite, I think he's a fraud. His Pictorial Key to the Tarot might be useable for a beginer. The Holy Kabbalah is alright if you can get past his ramblings of which he does alot of, I would perfer Fortune's Mystical Qabala (IMG:style_emoticons/default/00000047.gif)

thank you for your reply, however i'll rephrase my original question as it appears i havent made myself understood very well.

Is your statement: "the book was designed to be unusable "

a: an Objective statement
or
b: a Subjective statement?

a: Did A.E.Waite (as many other occultists and mystics did ) design a book that was deliberately full of erroneas or mis information? (As it is alleged did Eliphias Levi)

b: or are you saying that the execution and style of the book makes it impractical for you to use?

From your tone I am imagining its the latter but if its the former i would be interested in hearing more of an indepth review of the blinds and potential tripping points incorporated into the text. This i imagine would be of great service to those of us just beginning on the path.

thanks again

thank you for your reply, however i'll rephrase my original question as it appears i havent made myself understood very well.

Is your statement: "the book was designed to be unusable "

a: an Objective statement
or
b: a Subjective statement?

a: Did A.E.Waite (as many other occultists and mystics did ) design a book that was deliberately full of erroneas or mis information? (As it is alleged did Eliphias Levi)

b: or are you saying that the execution and style of the book makes it impractical for you to use?

From your tone I am imagining its the latter but if its the former i would be interested in hearing more of an indepth review of the blinds and potential tripping points incorporated into the text. This i imagine would be of great service to those of us just beginning on the path.

thanks again

It is true that many used the so called blinds, even today, but the material is full of erroneous information as it was designed so. One finds it better to skip this book altogether. It is much better to study Mathers, Crowley, Spare, Bardon, or Regardie. To be truthful I read the book over 20 years ago, but I still remember his ramblings, as I seem to be doing now. Plus as I said before I don't like him, I would also advise against using his material, but it would be wrong to tell anyone not to read it and to arive at your own conclusion, which I think is very important IMHO. I guess I should also state that I found his work impractical as a objective statement. I hope this answers your question and I'm sorry this turned into a rant. This is only my opinion on the subject. Have you read it ? Please give your thoughts on it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/diablo.gif) RedhandThe Text in Question

This post has been edited by redhand: Oct 24 2006, 07:13 PM

Have you read it ? Please give your thoughts on it. [/url]

No I havent read it, I generally find 19th century litrature quite a chore to plough through (never having been a fan of proseic purple prose) and only really give it a go when i have it on good authority that its worth the struggle it gives me.

Saying that, I am a big fan of Waite's Tarot which i admire for its simplicity and cleanliness of symbology (although I am aware that it does contain certain blinds) and while my deck of choice is the BOTA deck of Paul Foster Case, it is very clear that this deck is deeply indebted to the work of Waite. So it was a suprise to hear him classed a Fraud.

thanks for clearing that up for me
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)