Does anybody else find the house system in the second operation of the tarot extremely tedious? IMHO, the house system seems flawed. Attributing money matters to the second house, which is ruled by Taurus, seem ludicrous to me. Money and business surely would be more suited in the first house, ruled by Aries.
Should I just skip the second operation and go straight to the third? What are everybody else's thoughts?
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"What colours would you use if you where to invoke the Sephiroth with the unicursal hexagram?"
You don't. There are no such attributions. (You could, of course, follow the model Regardie made up, but that's not authentic to the original attributions.) The other four points are attributed to the four elements, not planets."
Putting Regardie's method aside, can you not use the unicursal hexagrams to invoke Tiphareth or Yesod?
Hi Jim,
In your book you state that the unicursal hexagrams should be drawn in gold for the Sun, and silver for the moon. Why use queen scale colours, for the Sun & Moon, instead of the king scale like the other planets? Are the colours for Sun and Moon not meant to be blue and orange?
What colours would you use if you where to invoke the Sephiroth with the unicursal hexagram?
What colour (flashing colours, like red and green for Mars) would you have as a background for silver and gold?
Thanks Jim,
I tested this out this morning and got fantastic results. Before I was using the formula in Tiphareth, which was "effective", but, using the formula in Chokmah was "ecstatic"; and I prefer ecstatic over effective, it gets the holy juices going. 
Cheers
On page 94, there is the wonderful version of the INRI formula in a Thelemic style. I was just wondering, do you employ the N.O.X or L.V.X signs when doing this, and at what point?
Thank you.
A new book that some of you might be interested in: blackmoonpublishing.com/webstore/women-babalon.html
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Mr Menth said
"Was Regardie not an A.'.A.'. student at the time? How is taking money off Regardie not a violation of the A.'.A.'.'s policy on taking money for personal gain?"
You are misunderstanding the rule. Crowley did not charge him per se for A.'.A.'. instruction, mentorship, etc. It wasn't quid pro quo. He just asked him for quid without offering a quo in exchange.
Here is the exact quote from One Star in Sight: "There is however an absolute prohibition to accept money or other material reward, directly or indirectly, in respect of any service connected with the Order, for personal profit or advantage."
No service was exchanged."
Ah, I see where I went wrong, thank you.
Does the quote from One Star in Sight only apply to A.'.A.'. members offering services to other members, or would there be a violation if a member accepted money for, lets say, a lecture about the Order to non members?
I've just started reading Gerald Suster's book, Crowley's Apprentice: The Life and Ideas of Israel Regardie. In chapter 4, Gerald depicts a story where Crowley asks Regardie for money, which he then goes out and spends it on champagne and brandy. Was Regardie not an A.'.A.'. student at the time? How is taking money off Regardie not a violation of the A.'.A.'.'s policy on taking money for personal gain?