VI Pentacles Interpretation

sunshineKdb

I remember this from Rachel Pollacks book

There is a measured charity.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
 

sunshineKdb

I remember this from Rachel Pollacks book

There is a measured charity.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Sorry. The universe may be in the guise of a merchant, measuring and deciding to give to each what he needs. There is a hierarchy in the beggars and they are botj given alms differently. The universe gives you what u need which may be different from what you want.
she also said this is a card where u could either be the merchant or else be the person on the receiving end.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
 

Barleywine

The 6 of Pentacles is one of the RWS cards for which I pay very little attention to the conventional narrative thrust of the scene. For one thing, I'm not sure Smith and Waite were always on the same page when merging the imagery with the underlying symbolism, and the results sometimes tie us up in all kinds of interpretive knots. As an intermediate step between the RWS and the TdM, I find the Thoth 6 of Disks and Crowley's commentary much more evocative of the concept of "transient Success," without the visual baggage.

I also like Joseph Maxwell's observation: ". . . the card has through the hallowed processes of tradition undergone a curious metamorphosis and shows, not the choice and action for the good required in a situation in order to achieve progress, but the effect of the generous choice of others on the enquirer through gifts, legacies, or the facilitation of an enterprise."
 

Ruby Jewel

The 6 of Pentacles is one of the RWS cards for which I pay very little attention to the conventional narrative thrust of the scene. For one thing, I'm not sure Smith and Waite were always on the same page when merging the imagery with the underlying symbolism, and the results sometimes tie us up in all kinds of interpretive knots. As an intermediate step between the RWS and the TdM, I find the Thoth 6 of Disks and Crowley's commentary much more evocative of the concept of "transient Success," without the visual baggage.

I also like Joseph Maxwell's observation: ". . . the card has through the hallowed processes of tradition undergone a curious metamorphosis and shows, not the choice and action for the good required in a situation in order to achieve progress, but the effect of the generous choice of others on the enquirer through gifts, legacies, or the facilitation of an enterprise."

I was always rather disillusioned with this card because I could not decide what it was saying and dreaded to see it come up in a reading....but, at this point in time, I am working on integrating astrology with the tarot, and now that I infuse the card with the Taurus personality and the "Moon in Taurus", it makes perfect sense....the Moon represents "needs" and Taurus has a big "need" for control in both money and relationships...and yet, when Taurus is generous, there is a no more generous sign in the zodiac. Taurus are often accountants as they like counting money....When I put the two together, the picture made complete sense to me. I doubt I will ever be confused by it again. Also, in a reading, the "control" thing is "spot on."

Knowing the Taurus penchant for fishing, I might see Maxwell's "generous choice" as the fisherman's "bait." It is giving with a purpose....perhaps to "appear" generous. His "attire" is hardly humble, and in fact, it is quite ostentatious. There's something about this card that has always bothered me...people interpret it as generosity, but I could never buy into that....the picture was obviously not at all about real generosity, which comes from the heart. The scales seem to deny "generosity" to me.
 

Ruby Jewel

Sorry. The universe may be in the guise of a merchant, measuring and deciding to give to each what he needs. There is a hierarchy in the beggars and they are botj given alms differently. The universe gives you what u need which may be different from what you want.
she also said this is a card where u could either be the meI rchant or else be the person on the receiving end.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Rachel Pollock is the person I "cut my teeth" on when I first picked up a tarot deck back in the 80s. I still reference her "Seventy-Eight Degrees of Wisdom" in which she states the VI of Pentacles is one of the most complex cards in the entire deck. She acknowledges in her book that there is sharing, generosity and charity on the surface, but, as a "gate" card, there are layers of interpretation and another dimension to this card besides the cursory definition. The merchant gives, but it is from a basis of superiority.....the merchant may give them just a little, but just enough to keep them from looking for something else. This is the conclusion I came to myself and I am glad to see it confirmed now in her book as well.
 

Ruby Jewel

I am new to the forum and I am just learning the cards. I like this analogy, and I was thinking along the same lines as Zephyros. There certainly hasn't been enough "giving" in the US and look at the mess now!

I just want to say welcome to the forum Element, and thanks for your input.
 

Barleywine

I have a slightly different take on the Moon in Taurus. Taurus is one of the more self-indulgent signs, as befits its Venus rulership, and the Moon is about "habits and routines." Taurus can get itself into quite a comfortable rut, and the Moon exalted in Taurus is only too happy to wallow in that rut, "happy as a pig in . . . " well, you know the rest. The location of Taurus in the "natural" zodiac is squarely in middle of the most personal quadrant. Seems to me any needs its going to fulfill are going to be its own; it's not especially interested in "balancing the ledger" in any kind of social sense, unless its in the realm of idealized human values and not its own wallet. (In other words, it talks the talk but doesn't always walk the walk.) Most of the Taureans I know don't bestir themselves enough to go too far afield with their largesse; the Moon there makes them pleasant and agreeable, but the classic Taurean insecurity tends to curtail much generosity in more than a cursory and intermittent way, and the inconstancy of the Moon exaggerates this. The scales imply a cold-bloodedness that I think just isn't there.
 

Ruby Jewel

I have a slightly different take on the Moon in Taurus. Taurus is one of the more self-indulgent signs, as befits its Venus rulership, and the Moon is about "habits and routines." Taurus can get itself into quite a comfortable rut, and the Moon exalted in Taurus is only too happy to wallow in that rut, "happy as a pig in . . . " well, you know the rest. The location of Taurus in the "natural" zodiac is squarely in middle of the most personal quadrant. Seems to me any needs its going to fulfill are going to be its own; it's not especially interested in "balancing the ledger" in any kind of social sense, unless its in the realm of idealized human values and not its own wallet. (In other words, it talks the talk but doesn't always walk the walk.) Most of the Taureans I know don't bestir themselves enough to go too far afield with their largesse; the Moon there makes them pleasant and agreeable, but the classic Taurean insecurity tends to curtail much generosity in more than a cursory and intermittent way, and the inconstancy of the Moon exaggerates this. The scales imply a cold-bloodedness that I think just isn't there.

Well, Barleywine, I love your take on Taurus, and agree with you wholeheartedly....Venus is notoriously "lazy" and self-indulgent. I feel there are 2 types of Taureans....either generous or tightwads....or maybe generous on certain occasions only. The Moon as representing "needs" that I mentioned are, as you say, personal needs...one's own needs, which seems a given to me. Nor do I see any special gifts or attributes gained by the Moon being exalted there other than it adds a certain Venusian charm to the personality. I really do not see us as differing in our opinion here except in your interpretation of the scales. I don't see anything cold-blooded in the scales necessarily.....just that the scales defy the idea of generosity....the card itself does not have an especially positive feel to it....so I don't feel it is a card of beneficence....but rather one that says, "someone is trying to control the situation" which is no doubt a result of their insecurity....and which becomes very significant when it comes to relationships....Venus, after all is about relationships.
 

Barleywine

Well, Barleywine, I love your take on Taurus, and agree with you wholeheartedly....Venus is notoriously "lazy" and self-indulgent. I feel there are 2 types of Taureans....either generous or tightwads....or maybe generous on certain occasions only. The Moon as representing "needs" that I mentioned are, as you say, personal needs...one's own needs, which seems a given to me. Nor do I see any special gifts or attributes gained by the Moon being exalted there other than it adds a certain Venusian charm to the personality. I really do not see us as differing in our opinion here except in your interpretation of the scales. I don't see anything cold-blooded in the scales necessarily.....just that the scales defy the idea of generosity....the card itself does not have an especially positive feel to it....so I don't feel it is a card of beneficence....but rather one that says, "someone is trying to control the situation" which is no doubt a result of their insecurity....and which becomes very significant when it comes to relationships....Venus, after all is about relationships.

I've been thinking that this sort of conceptual disconnect may be one reason why Waite chose not to adopt the Golden Dawn's astrolological correspondences directly into the deck. Maxwell talks about the Sixes being about choice (and I believe one of the pagan meanings is "path") as well as balance, Here the "choice" seems to be that one of the beggars is in the favor of the rich man and is being showered with money, while the other is left empty-handed. So there may be a "feast-or-famine" connotation to it (Crowley does talk about the transient or temporary nature of the Moon's benevolence in Taurus). I might have preferred to see the scale a little more "tipped" or unbalanced in that regard, which is basically what the tableau shows. A few of the other cards that don't "do it" for me in a straightforward narrative sense are the 6, 7 and 4 of Swords, the 6, 7 and 3 of Cups, the 5 and 3 of Pentacles and the 4 of Wands. I wouldn't say that Waite and Smith "missed the point," exactly, just that they weren't laboring entirely under the Golden Dawn's astrological paradigm. But maybe I 've just been steeped in the Thoth's numerical, astrological and qabalistic model for too many years to align seamlessly with the RWS vision.
 

Ruby Jewel

I've been thinking that this sort of conceptual disconnect may be one reason why Waite chose not to adopt the Golden Dawn's astrolological correspondences directly into the deck. Maxwell talks about the Sixes being about choice (and I believe one of the pagan meanings is "path") as well as balance, Here the "choice" seems to be that one of the beggars is in the favor of the rich man and is being showered with money, while the other is left empty-handed. So there may be a "feast-or-famine" connotation to it (Crowley does talk about the transient or temporary nature of the Moon's benevolence in Taurus). I might have preferred to see the scale a little more "tipped" or unbalanced in that regard, which is basically what the tableau shows. A few of the other cards that don't "do it" for me in a straightforward narrative sense are the 6, 7 and 4 of Swords, the 6, 7 and 3 of Cups, the 5 and 3 of Pentacles and the 4 of Wands. I wouldn't say that Waite and Smith "missed the point," exactly, just that they weren't laboring entirely under the Golden Dawn's astrological paradigm. But maybe I 've just been steeped in the Thoth's numerical, astrological and qabalistic model for too many years to align seamlessly with the RWS vision.

The charm and significance of tarot, at least for me, lies in its elusive nature.....which precludes being "pinned" to a particular belief structure or philosophy, and yet, includes them all. Rather than becoming an anachronism, the RW deck has become a "living" entity you might say.... taken on a life of its own, far beyond Waite's definitive strictures....as I am certain he would be proud to know. Once a reader of the tarot has absorbed the "traditional" meanings as perpetuated in the repetitive literature, the connections grow exponentially to encompass it's fellow "perennial philosophies" such as astrology, numerology, the quabala, mythology, and I believe that is a natural phenomenon of the intellectual tradition. The interconnections between and among knowledge and the history of ideas make up the many paths that lead to the mountaintop. I can appreciate that Waite decided not to incorporate astrology into the RW deck, but I don't feel compelled to abide by that decision inasmuch as he did not invent the tarot....just carried on an historical tradition that was already intact, and no doubt included astrology.

I am interested in looking into the other cards you mention as eluding a "straightforward" interpretation as I am very respectful of your apparent skill with the tarot...and I, still a novice, am curious to investigate. Thanks.