Aces

bigcaat

Just some thoughts as I was looking through my aces. I saw it noted here that Cups (Water,) shows water, Pentacles (Earth,) shows earthly abundance, and Swords (Air,) shows yods blowing in the wind and a barren, windblown, landscape. The only one which is far less obvious is Wands (Fire.)

What I noticed, which I thought was interesting, is that the Ace of Wands card shows a compilation of all of the other elements: It has water, in terms of a river; it shows greenery in the foreground, and the same barren mountains in the distance.

I read this as, true spiritual growth comes from a firey passion that both grows from, and leads to, the experience of all of those other elements: creatively, intellectually and earthly.

Any thoughts?

Caat
 

Vincent

bigcaat said:
...and Swords (Air,) shows yods blowing in the wind and a barren, windblown, landscape.
Why do you say that they are 'yods'?

And, if there is any wind it does not seem to be blowing them around, they seem to be in a particular pattern. Neither do the plants hanging from the crown seem to be blowing around.

There is a castle in the Ace of Wands which might be significant, especially considering the Waite comments on this card;

"Creation, invention, enterprise, the powers which result in these; principle, beginning, source; birth, family, origin, and in a sense the virility which is behind them; the starting point of enterprises..."

It is worth comparing this card with the Two, (called the Lord of Dominion by the Golden Dawn), which is where we really start to see what the suit is about.


Vincent
 

Fulgour

The number one gave the golden dawn a lot of trouble, so much
that they actually made zero equal one (1=2, 2=3, 3=4, 4=5, etc.)
One reason was because the golden dawn thought "11" was evil.
To the golden dawn, 11 was 1 and 1 together, and so blasphemy.

Confused in this way, the golden dawn magically placed the Aces
in the Major Arcana, up in Kether ~ more numerological Kabbalah.
So unless one leaves the golden dawn out of it, Aces are all a mess.

Well, since the Tarot, and thus the Aces, go way, way back, we're Ok.
An Ace is simply a One, and the magic is in the fact that Aces are the
highest cards in the Minor Arcana: higher even than the Court Kings.

*

One of the first things I noticed about Pamela Colman Smith's Aces
was that they are all held in the right hand, but the mysterious scroll
of The High Priestess is held in her left hand. And as for Wands, seen
on The Devil is a fiery Wand, burning in his left hand, pointed down...
 

Rusty Neon

Fulgour said:
Confused in this way, the golden dawn magically placed the Aces in the Major Arcana, up in Kether ~ more numerological Kabbalah.
So unless one leaves the golden dawn out of it, Aces are all a mess.

According to Ronald Decker, assigning the Aces to Kether pre-dates the Golden Dawn.

Decker, Art and Arcana, [2004], p. 155:

"For all four suits, Lévi coordinated the numerals, Ace through Ten, with the sephiroth, 1-10 (Kether through Malkuth)."
 

Fulgour

For the sake of harmony I am going to excuse myself from further
participation in this thread. My interests in Tarot are exclusive of
the golden dawn or their ideas on magical numerological astrology.

I would like to say in parting, that I truly appreciated Caat's post,
and hope that the discussion will turn again to the wondrous Aces
of Pamela Colman Smith ~ which are, to me, absolutely beautiful.
 

bigcaat

Lee said:
Dear Fulgour, I certainly hope you won't stop participating in threads just because someone disagrees with you.....I also can't help noting that you yourself didn't refrain from bringing up the Golden Dawn in your post.

I am fairly new here, and was thrilled to find the study groups discussion. I've read professionally, but have been out of it for a while because I went back to school to get my Master's degree. It was really nice to find a place to discuss this and even inspired me to look at the cards like I haven't in a while....hence, my starting this thread.

Never in a million years would I dream of arguing the interpretation of another reader. What we see in the cards is extremely personal and is what makes us individually unique in our readings. I might not see the same thing; I might offer what I *do* see; but who am I to argue what they see, when it is obviously something that drives their readings?

I didn't see Fulgour bring up the Golden Dawn in his post, I saw him respond to a post. I also appreciate his bowing out of a discussion if he feels it might get contentious. Imho, this is different than simply disagreeing.

I was looking forward to reading the responses on this thread. And since this study group is on the RWS deck, and since I am not familiar with the Golden Dawn deck, the discussion on it didn't mean all that much to me, except I found it interesting what Fulgour said about the numbering and the aces.

The internet is a funny thing. We don't get the advantage of body language, intonation and facial expression. It's quite easy to misinterpret someone's meaning. My hope, like Fulgour, is that this will return to it's original intent of the Aces. I find them facinating and very meaningful when I read.

Caat
 

Vincent

bigcaat said:
What we see in the cards is extremely personal and is what makes us individually unique in our readings.
I don't agree.

How we interpret the symbols on the cards, or how we might interpret those sets of symbols might be personal, but these symbols are the same for everyone. And, sometimes people make mistakes as to what those symbols are and what they represent. Which is why I asked you why you believed there are 'yods' on the Ace of Swords. One of us is probably wrong as to what they are. If it is me, then I want to know so that I don't make the same mistake again. No-one likes being told they are wrong, and I am the same as most people in that respect, but I find it far more preferable to not being told.

So, if someone makes a specific claim, that can be checked, then I see no reason not to ask them for the proof. For example, if someone claims that the Golden Dawn believed the number eleven was evil, then surely we should be able to ask them of proof of this assertion, and if they can provide no proof, then its veracity should be treated, and dismissed, accordingly.

If I were to venture into the historical forum and claim that Tarot was invented by an Egyptian priest of the Middle Kingdom, then you can be sure that I would be jumped on and asked for proof. Why should the standards be any less here?

bigcaat said:
I was looking forward to reading the responses on this thread. And since this study group is on the RWS deck, and since I am not familiar with the Golden Dawn deck, the discussion on it didn't mean all that much to me, except I found it interesting what Fulgour said about the numbering and the aces.
The RWS deck contains much symbolism and structure from the Golden Dawn, and without knowing anything about the Golden Dawn, it is impossible to understand the ideas that Waite tries to convey in his deck. Just as it is impossible to understand the deck without knowing about Christianity, or alchemy, or the Grail legends. Of course, it is possible to impose your own system on the deck, and make up whatever meanings you like for the symbols, but it seems to me that Waite's system should be studied, if only to have a firm base from which to later disagree with it.

After all, there should be some respect that it is his deck and ideas that are represented. Otherwise we might as well be discussing the Baseball Tarot.
bigcaat said:
My hope, like Fulgour, is that this will return to it's original intent of the Aces. I find them facinating and very meaningful when I read.
Whose "original intent of the Aces"... yours, Waite's... someone else?

And, in what way do you think that the thread has turned away from this?



Vincent
 

bigcaat

Vincent said:
How we interpret the symbols on the cards, or how we might interpret those sets of symbols might be personal, but these symbols are the same for everyone. And, sometimes people make mistakes as to what those symbols are and what they represent. Which is why I asked you why you believed there are 'yods' on the Ace of Swords. One of us is probably wrong as to what they are. If it is me, then I want to know so that I don't make the same mistake again. No-one likes being told they are wrong, and I am the same as most people in that respect, but I find it far more preferable to not being told.

"The Ace of Swords is a Sword surmounted by a Crown, from which depend on either side an olive and a palm branch, symbolic of mercy and severity; around it are Six Hebrew Yods, recalling the Six days of the Mosaic Creation. "
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/mathers/mtar01.htm

"Ace of Swords:
Image: A heavenly hand holding forth a sword upright, the tip of which is crowned. The crown is garlanded with two branches, one of which has red berries. Solar 'Yods' are also in the card."
http://www.artrosengarten.com/lexicon1.htm

"ACE OF SWORDS -.... Wisdom leads us beyond illusions and limitations to the spiritual truth contained in life. Laurels of success. The mountains: rules of existence, man's aspirations. Six yods: the continuous cycle of reincarnation..."
http://home1.gte.net/darrowmp/TouchofTarot.htm


Yods are symbols. Seeing how they move is interpretation. I know a yod when I see one and I also know a person who is just interested in arguing, rather than having a courteous, informative, discussion. So, like Fulgour, I will bow out of my own thread. It's a shame. I was looking forward to intelligent discussion on the matter.

Caat
 

Vincent

bigcaat said:
"The Ace of Swords is a Sword surmounted by a Crown, from which depend on either side an olive and a palm branch, symbolic of mercy and severity; around it are Six Hebrew Yods, recalling the Six days of the Mosaic Creation. "
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/mathers/mtar01.htm
This is really the only quote of the three that you mention that is worth quoting, since Mathers was the source of most of the Golden Dawn Tarot papers, and the Golden Dawn is where Waite learned Tarot.

It may, or may not, interest you to know that Mathers wrote another document called Book 'T'. And here is the relevant part of the document, concerning the Ace of Swords;

"A WHITE Radiating Angelic Hand, issuing from clouds, and grasping the hilt of a sword, which supports a White Radiant Celestial Crown; from which depend, on the right, the olive branch of Peace; and on the left, the palm branch of suffering.
Six Vaus fall from its point. It symbolizes "Invoked," as contrasted with Natural Force: for it is the Invocation of the Sword. Raised upward, it invokes the Divine crown of Spiritual Brightness, but reversed it is the Invocation of Demonic Force; and becomes a fearfully evil symbol. It represents, therefore, very great power for good or evil, but invoked; and it also represents whirling Force, and strength through trouble. It is the affirmation of Justice upholding Divine Authority; and it may become the Sword of Wrath, Punishment, and Affliction.
"

Now, the obvious questions are;

Which attribution is correct?

Why did Mathers give two different attributions?

Firstly, the document you quote "The Tarot, Its Occult Significance, Use in Fortune-Telling, and Method of Play, Etc." was published by Mathers in 1888, and it was available to the general public. It mostly followed the attributions of Eliphaz Levi. Waite himself mentions it in his PKT bibliography and says of it rather scathingly;

"It is a mere sketch written in a pretentious manner and is negligible in all respects."

Of course, this on its own wouldn't serve as proof that the symbols are not 'yods', but it does cast some doubt as to the wisdom of taking what Mathers says in this booklet, as being definitive for Waite's Tarot. Mathers was also under oath not to reveal any of the secrets of the Order to the public.

Book 'T', however, does provide convinving proof because it is the booklet issued to Golden Dawn initiates, (and thus Waite), to provide them with the 'true' attributions of the Tarot. So when he says that they are 'vaus', rather than 'yods', this is almost certainly what Waite intends them to be.

And, there does seem to be a good reason, within Golden Dawn Dogma, for them being 'vaus'.
bigcaat said:
Yods are symbols. Seeing how they move is interpretation. I know a yod when I see one
Are you certain? It seems from the evidence, that you might not.
bigcaat said:
and I also know a person who is just interested in arguing, rather than having a courteous, informative, discussion. So, like Fulgour, I will bow out of my own thread. It's a shame. I was looking forward to intelligent discussion on the matter.
Caat
So when you say there are 'yods' in the Ace of Swords, and I say I think you are probably wrong, you believe that is discourteous, uninformative, and unintelligent?

You are right, that is a shame.

Whereas had I replied to your post by saying "Thank you for sharing that wonderful, intuitive and empowering insight with us", then presumably that would be both courteous, informative and extremely intelligent.

It certainly wouldn't have been honest.

For anyone who is interested in an intelligent debate, there is a question that has been raised by this whole exchange and that is why would 'vaus' be more appropriate than 'yods' for the Ace of Swords, or indeed whether they are appropriate at all.


Vincent
 

kwaw

The six vau's co-relate to the correspondence of swords with air [The Vau of the tetragrammaton corresponding to the element air], six because the Vau of the tetragrammaton corresponds to the sixth sephira Tifareth [and also of course, becuase the numerical value of Vau is six].

Kwaw