Waite and his numerous "veils"

Richard

It is interesting that the Waite deck caught on so readily among fortune tellers, although it is an esoteric deck. Temperance 14 really worried me until I had worked out the iconography to my satisfaction. Fortune tellers probably go more with the name than the image in this card: Don't drink or eat too much, etc. Crowley probably wanted to make really sure that people didn't do boring interpretations like that with his version, Art 14.
 

re-pete-a

I really don't believe that to think is to block, and the GD didn't either. Initiates were expected to learn the system intellectually and then assimilate the information through meditation.

Not everything can be written off as intuition or natural intelligence; sometimes people need guidance. Waite should have known better, and in fact, did.

There's nothing wrong with thinking and the makers of all these decks knew it. There is a problem with it being the master controller , hence the introduction of essential meditations to assimilate...the thinking mind and it's tools has a very important place ...but not as the ruler, rather the servant.

When this point is understood the gate through the veils can be passed. This is the unshakeable foundation . It's not negoatiable...only the intellect would try, hence limiting potential.

The intellectual mind is capable of lying...the intuitive heart cannot.
 

Zephyros

There's nothing wrong with thinking and the makers of all these decks knew it. There is a problem with it being the master controller , hence the introduction of essential meditations to assimilate...the thinking mind and it's tools has a very important place ...but not as the ruler, rather the servant.

When this point is understood the gate through the veils can be passed. This is the unshakeable foundation . It's not negoatiable...only the intellect would try, hence limiting potential.

The intellectual mind is capable of lying...the intuitive heart cannot.

Of course the intuitive heart is capable of lying, otherwise we would all be rich, divining lottery numbers from Tarot. In magick the Will is focused, but it is entirely possible for it to be focused on imperfect understanding of ideas, which is exactly why the Zohar and similar commentaries were written in the first place.

In any event the intuitive argument is a type of cop-out, as it leaves the field wide open for any number of obscurantist writers justifying their half-baked ideas with the suggestion that they ought to be understood "intuitively." Not to mention that it doesn't hold up with established knowledge of where these occultists were coming from. The free-for-all intuitive approach to interpreting esoteric decks is a relatively new invention; the GD didn't subscribe to it, classifying it as "fortune telling," a practice the organization as a whole looked down upon.

While I would concede the RWS manages to convey, in many but not all of the cards, esoteric meanings exoterically, the PKT is a wholly different matter, and is the father of all overly-simplified LWBs (whatever "codes" we may read into it). It is important, when discussing the deck and book theoretically as we are, to separate later developments in Tarot and what the RWS would eventually become from their original intent. Are you suggesting Waite, a pedantic stickler in the mud, suddenly became a hippy and embraced free intuitive interpretation over the occult secrets he was sworn to protect?

Unfortunately, I fear the answer is far more prosaic and is, namely, money. While anyone can be forgiven for wanting to make a buck, what is unforgivable is Waites's practically intentional misleading of laymen by omission of information. Crowley wasn't completely open either, but he tried harder, being on a mission to disseminate the Book of Law. While his review was unnecessarily cruel, I really must agree that

Aleister Crowley said:
"Mr. Waite has written a book on fortune-telling, and we advise servant-girls to keep an eye on their half-crowns. We have little sympathy or pity for the folly of fashionable women; but housemaids need protection... hence their affection for policemen and soldiers and we fear that Mr. Waite's apologies will not prevent professional cheats from using his instructions for their frauds and levies of blackmail.
As to Mr. Waite's constant pomposities, he seems to think that the obscurer his style and the vaguer his phrases, the greater initiate he will appear.
Nobody but Mr. Waite knows "all" about the Tarot, it appears; and he won't tell.

If Waite was trying to create a deck and a book for fortune telling, he succeeded admirably; if, as an initiate he was attempting to create anything that would lead to any sort of spiritual development according to the occult knowledge he knew, he failed, and failed resoundingly and his failure has had grave repercussions on the entire occult world.
 

Rosanne

If Waite was trying to create a deck and a book for fortune telling, he succeeded admirably; if, as an initiate he was attempting to create anything that would lead to any sort of spiritual development according to the occult knowledge he knew, he failed, and failed resoundingly and his failure has had grave repercussions on the entire occult world.
Indeed. As I said earlier he needed money and the gullible buy. I have been gullible in my time- but the amazing thing is that the cards have become to have a 'life of their own'.
Whether one agrees with that life or not seems to be beside the point.
~Rosanne
 

re-pete-a

Of course the intuitive heart is capable of lying, otherwise we would all be rich, divining lottery numbers from Tarot. In magick the Will is focused, but it is entirely possible for it to be focused on imperfect understanding of ideas, which is exactly why the Zohar and similar commentaries were written in the first place.

In any event the intuitive argument is a type of cop-out, as it leaves the field wide open for any number of obscurantist writers justifying their half-baked ideas with the suggestion that they ought to be understood "intuitively." Not to mention that it doesn't hold up with established knowledge of where these occultists were coming from. The free-for-all intuitive approach to interpreting esoteric decks is a relatively new invention; the GD didn't subscribe to it, classifying it as "fortune telling," a practice the organization as a whole looked down upon.


Those are interesting words but ... they don't come from the heart intelligence.



Dion Fortune says of A.Crowley that he was a a magician but was very naughty and even evil for deliberatly misleading his followers.
She says of the GD that it went to pieces when Mathers died of influenza in Paris... From here others started to disband that included Waite and Crowley..The MSS book(??) was kept secret and hidden by different members of the inner circle.
 

Zephyros

Indeed. As I said earlier he needed money and the gullible buy. I have been gullible in my time- but the amazing thing is that the cards have become to have a 'life of their own'.
Whether one agrees with that life or not seems to be beside the point.
~Rosanne

I completely agree. The deck stands on its own, and all the occult information is there, in some form or another, for anyone who's willing to take the time and effort to study it. As I said in the beginning of the thread, the deck is genius. :)

Those are interesting words but ... they don't come from the heart intelligence.

How do you know? What does that even mean??

re-pete-a said:
Dion Fortune says of A.Crowley that he was a a magician but was very naughty and even evil for deliberatly misleading his followers.
She says of the GD that it went to pieces when Mathers died of influenza in Paris... From here others started to disband that included Waite and Crowley..The MSS book(??) was kept secret and hidden by different members of the inner circle.

Fortune was a wise woman, and I would recommend her excellent books to anyone and think she should be read widely, but not blindly. It is true Crowley was and is a controversial figure, and I know of nobody who is completely comfortable resolving his inspired writings with his strange life. But firstly, his credentials are not up for debate, and I fail to see what his being "naughty" has to do with an informed review he wrote. Secondly, it is true the he was instrumental in the dissolution of the organization, but evil is a point of view. If I think secret wisdom should be available to the public, I will inevitably be called evil by that wisdom's guardians, but am I really?

As to the Golden Dawn falling apart, again, what's the relevance? The RWS is a GD deck; it follows its teaching and its rules. Does the fact that the Golden Dawn no longer exists negate all the legitimacy it ever had?

If you can show me Waite's words in which he admits to not sharing anything so people use their "heart intelligence," the debate will be over, and you will have solved the biggest riddle of 20th century occult. Please, show me. Or am I supposed to use my "heart intelligence" in this case as well?
 

sworm09

I completely agree. The deck stands on its own, and all the occult information is there, in some form or another, for anyone who's willing to take the time and effort to study it. As I said in the beginning of the thread, the deck is genius. :)



How do you know? What does that even mean??



Fortune was a wise woman, and I would recommend her excellent books to anyone and think she should be read widely, but not blindly. It is true Crowley was and is a controversial figure, and I know of nobody who is completely comfortable resolving his inspired writings with his strange life. But firstly, his credentials are not up for debate, and I fail to see what his being "naughty" has to do with an informed review he wrote. Secondly, it is true the he was instrumental in the dissolution of the organization, but evil is a point of view. If I think secret wisdom should be available to the public, I will inevitably be called evil by that wisdom's guardians, but am I really?

As to the Golden Dawn falling apart, again, what's the relevance? The RWS is a GD deck; it follows its teaching and its rules. Does the fact that the Golden Dawn no longer exists negate all the legitimacy it ever had?

If you can show me Waite's words in which he admits to not sharing anything so people use their "heart intelligence," the debate will be over, and you will have solved the biggest riddle of 20th century occult. Please, show me. Or am I supposed to use my "heart intelligence" in this case as well?

This is really the heart of the matter for me. I know that Waite took an oath of secrecy, but the fact that he made an exoteric deck with all of the exoteric meaning hidden is sort of shady. I don't want to look down on Waite, the man was a genius without a doubt, but it seems that his primary motivation was getting a deck out to the gullible public. If it wasn't for Golden Dawn texts being released and Crowley, we would know little to nothing about the deeper aspects of the RWS and I'm almost certain, looking at Waite's personality, that he would have been against intuitive reading. Despite my criticisms, I still love the deck. I think it's a work of genius BUT only because I know about the occult side of the deck. Furthermore, for those that feel that each deck has a "flavor" or "personality", the RWS even seems to communicate in a veiled manner. It may just be me, but the RWS often "speaks" in hints, suggestions, and even riddles. This reflects the very nature of the deck. In comparison, Crowley's deck, as open as it is, "speaks" very directly, it's open and it's direct. As I said before, this reflects the very nature of the deck.
 

Richard

It has not been mentioned yet that the original Golden Dawn Tarot, which initiates had to make for themselves, is no less 'veiled' than the RWS, nor is P. F. Case's B.O.T.A Tarot, which is closely related. Moreover, although everything may be out in the open in the Crowley Thoth, its occult meaning is no more transparent than that of the RWS or GD or BOTA to anyone who has no acquantance with its Qabalistic foundation.
 

sworm09

It has not been mentioned yet that the original Golden Dawn Tarot, which initiates had to make for themselves, is no less 'veiled' than the RWS, nor is P. F. Case's B.O.T.A Tarot, which is closely related. Moreover, although everything may be out in the open in the Crowley Thoth, its occult meaning is no more transparent than that of the RWS or GD or BOTA to anyone who has no acquantance with its Qabalistic foundation.

You're absolutely right, but it's important to examine who is looking at the deck and the information provided with the deck. The Golden Dawn Tarot, as you said, had to be created by the initiates themselves. They knew what they were doing, and they knew what the symbols meant. They had the Qabalistic foundation. They were no veils because they knew what everything meant. The B.O.T.A Tarot is meant to be used with Case's book, once again giving a foundation to work from. When you're coloring that deck and following Case's book, you get an understanding of the occult symbolism in the deck. Crowley's deck was undoubtedly meant to be used with his book, the Book of Thoth, where Crowley lays out the meanings of nearly (but not completely) everything. The RWS? You get Waite's Pictorial Key to the Tarot, which has little to no explanation of what the symbols even mean. The "veils" aren't the cards themselves, but the lack of information given about them by the creator. Waite's vow of secrecy left us with a deck that we have to explore basically on our own where most of the other Golden Dawn members that published decks explained themselves rather thoroughly. :)
 

Richard

While an adequate companion book was not feasible at the time RWS was published, we now have Book T, Case, Crowley, Regardie, etc., to provide all the background we need. The inadequacy of PKT must be acknowledged, and as closrapexa has observed, misleading information, whether deliberate or not, can impede one's spiritual progress. However, PKT no longer has to be an impediment (and may even serve as a corrective to misconceptions about the origins of Tarot, concerning which, BoT's subtitle is resoundingly misleading to the laity:)).