Zephyros
Well, thankfully I don't get to decide, even if I'm sure it wouldn't be. Carry on.
Well... there seems to be some repetition, and 'inability to hear', if not comprehend, differing viewpoints. In my experience, practical demonstrations can be illuminating, and helpful in furthering understanding. Doesn't have to be a full reading... just where the 6 of Cups has been significant. I'm sure, given the wide-ranging nature of the discussion to date, this would be pertinent?
I offered up information to be considered from a book well-known to Waite. All of Waite's books are full of references to Masonic, alchemical, Grail, Hermetic, mystical and occasionally Kabbalistic symbolism. It would be strange if his Tarot did not contain some references to his chief interests. The meaning of many of his Tarot symbols are elucidated in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry.I think you are seeing it as a masonic glove to support your idea that the RW tarot cards are full of Masonic symbolism ... they aren't , althought hey may be full of masonic associations for you.
"It [the Secret Doctrine] is contained also in . . . Craft Masonry a living summary, or general memorial, for those who can interpret its real meaning. Behind the Secret Doctrine it is held that there is an experience or practice by which the Doctrine is justified. It is obvious that in a handbook like the present I can do little more than state the claims, which however, have been discussed at length in several of my other writings, while it is designed to treat two of its more important phases in books devoted to the Secret Tradition in Freemasonry and in Hermetic literature."
There is no rule that says that theoretical examples meant to elucidate the meaning of a RWS card (versus personal readings) are not allowed here. This seems to be a ploy to avoid demonstrating how RWS meanings are to be applied. Perhaps some theorists have no idea how to apply their theories of reading, so an example can be educational.I see no reason, plus that belongs in UTC. In fact, all personal interpretations ought to be relegated there. That's what it is expressly for. Why, when researching Waite, should there be any interest in how a card is used?
There is no rule that says that theoretical examples meant to elucidate the meaning of a RWS card (versus personal readings) are not allowed here. This seems to be a ploy to avoid demonstrating how RWS meanings are to be applied. Perhaps some theorists have no idea how to apply their theories of reading, so an example can be educational.....
I offered up information to be considered from a book well-known to Waite. All of Waite's books are full of references to Masonic, alchemical, Grail, Hermetic, mystical and occasionally Kabbalistic symbolism. It would be strange if his Tarot did not contain some references to his chief interests.
The meaning of many of his Tarot symbols are elucidated in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry.
In fact, Waite says in Pictorial Key to the Tarot, in his chapter on "Tarot and the Secret Tradition":
"It [the Secret Doctrine] is contained also in . . . Craft Masonry a living summary, or general memorial, for those who can interpret its real meaning. Behind the Secret Doctrine it is held that there is an experience or practice by which the Doctrine is justified. It is obvious that in a handbook like the present I can do little more than state the claims, which however, have been discussed at length in several of my other writings, while it is designed to treat two of its more important phases in books devoted to the Secret Tradition in Freemasonry and in Hermetic literature."
Note, the boy is handing the girl a gift. In Masonry, the initiate gifts his beloved with a set of gloves, representing "pure hands." She is also wearing an apron, representing a "pure heart." "The investiture with the gloves is very closely connected with the investiture with the apron, . . . both are allusive to a purification of life."
None of this is conclusive proof. However to anyone who has read several of Waite's books on "The Secret Tradition in . . . " the references are clear.
There is no rule that says that theoretical examples meant to elucidate the meaning of a RWS card (versus personal readings) are not allowed here. This seems to be a ploy to avoid demonstrating how RWS meanings are to be applied. Perhaps some theorists have no idea how to apply their theories of reading, so an example can be educational.
For example, to a theorist who is asked:
1) A 28-year-old married man in an upwardly mobile career wants to know what he should do to get a raise at work.
2) A 35-year-old single woman wants to know why none of her relationships don't last longer than a year.
3) A 45-year-old divorced man wants to know if he should move from Rochester NY to San Diego CA.
He might respond: "Ah, you've received the Six of Cups, the 2nd decan of Fixed Water: Sun in Scorpio. Tiphareth in Briah. Pleasure. The past. Yes, isn't it obvious?"