Aces

[Ophelea]

Good Morning All,

Sorry to butt in, but I have a question...

What, then, is a yod?

I always thought a yod was the hand of God. Therefore, I thought that there was a yod on each of the 4 aces. So I have considered the aces as a sort of a divine gift, or power. Ha! And we must be careful what we do with/or how we use this raw energy... The way the cards appear (upright or reversed) suggest how this energy may manifest..

I am glad this thread was started, bigcaat - thankyou

O.

 

[Imagemaker]

From the Llewellyn site:

Yod: The tenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Y. Represents the number 10. The sixth of the twelve "single letters." A Hebrew word meaning "hand." Corresponds to Virgo, the 20th Path (between Chesed and Tiphareth), and Tarot trump IX The Hermit.
source: Godwin's Cabalistic Encyclopedia

Yod: The yod is formed by two planets in sextile aspect, each forming a quincunx to a third. Also called the Finger of God, the finger is the planet receiving the two quincunxes. This configuration suggests a need to blend opportunity with an apparently discordant element, which adds a different level of vibration to the personality. Sometimes a need to develop special talents or awareness is associated with this pattern.
source: The Truth About Astrology
------

But these definitions don't tell me anything about those little drops.

 

[firemaiden]

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

Moderator speaking: it was my intervention which has caused confusion here. I removed a post which I felt was diverting the subject of this thread away from the Aces, towards discussing the people on this thread. I think Bigcat was referring to that.

Listen, friends --the willingness of those with real expertise to share their knowledge on this subject is much appreciated and is an invaluable asset to the forum.

It is customary in academic environments to be a little more rough and tumble... a little gruffer with eachother than we are used to on this forum.

We need to learn to adjust to each other.

Please try everyone, to just check the sarcasm and condescension at the door, as well as defensiveness, and I think we may all learn something.

For example -- here we learn that those little things we have become accustomed to assuming are yods, might likely be something else. Vincent tells us they are vau's.

COOL!

What's a vau? I want to learn.

 

[kwaw]

Yod or Vau?

As Vincent informs us, in Mather's public book the 'dots' are descibed as 'yods', but in the inner teachings of the GD as Vau's. Why is this relevant? Because Waite was a member of the GD, took over an offshoot of it post 1900, Smith was a member of this offshoot, and this influenced the symoblism within their deck.

Vincent mentions that according to Mathers 'public' book the symbols are 'yods', but in the inner teachings [book 't'] they are described as 'vau's.
There is an implication in vincent's post that one or the other must be true; that the secret, inner teaching is the truth therefore the outer public truth is false. I disagree. An inner teaching does not neccesarily disagree with, or make false, an outer [or public] teaching, but extends or qualifies it, even when they appear to be opposites.

For example, night and day, opposites. As opposites we may say they are exlusive [it is impossible to have both night and day HERE and NOW], but also inclusive [NIGHT here [ie, one side of the world] DAY there [the other side of the world], or night now, day tomorrow or yesterday] depending upon qualifications of time/space.

Or let us say the letter Yod symbolises the 'father', Vau the 'Son'. All fathers are sons, sons maybe fathers. They are not exclusive of each other.

Looking at Waite/Smiths Ace of Swords the six dots, three on either side of the sword, look like yods to me. Like Mathers, Waite was a member of the GD and valued his oaths. So if as Vincent says Mathers in his public statements made them Yods, but in the inner teachings of the Gd described them as Vau's; Wouldn't this apply as much to Waites? A member of the GD, having took oaths, the outer [public teaching] yod, the inner Vau? They look like yods, but there are six, which may relate to vau [the hebrew letter vau has a numerical value of six].

They lood like Yods, but there are six which may allude to an inner teaching of an attribution to Vau. So I think not Yod OR Vau, but Yod AND Vau.

Having two letters of the tetragrammaton {Yod and Vau of YHVH} makes me wonder if the the other letter {Hei, H} is also included? The sword is crowned, and the crown has 5 'tips', and 5 is the numerical value of Hei. Plus the sword with its crown is very phallic, and one of the Hebrew names for the crown [head, glans] of the phallus is 'aterah' [meaning 'crown, etymologically connected with the turban of an eastern king and the English work 'tiara', in hebrew the crown or glans of the penis, also an alternative name for the tenth sephira 'malkuth', which is associated with the last 'Hei' or 'H' of the name JHVH].

The sword a cutting tool, a blade [an instrument of circumcision]. What is the symbolism of circumcision? The glans are exposed in an uncircumsized penis when in a state of arousal, of desire and readiness for 'unificatation'. The circumsized penis, the 'aterah' is forever exposed, symbolising the constant unification between man and god [the shekinah, the bride or presence of God, Israel [mankind]].

So in the Ace of swords we have reference to all the three letters in the name of god, yod, hei and vau.

Kwaw

 

[Vincent]

Vincent mentions that according to Mathers 'public' book the symbols are 'yods', but in the inner teachings [book 't'] they are described as 'vau's.
There is an implication in vincent's post that one or the other must be true;

Yes, that is what I believe.

in Mathers' public Tarot document, he says of this Ace;

"...around it are Six Hebrew Yods"

in Book 'T' he says of the same Ace;

"...Six Vaus fall from its point."

I do find this mutually exclusive. I don't think the six symbols, in the Waite version, can be both Yods and Vaus, and I don't think that Mathers thought that either. And, I shall explain why I think that way.

that the secret, inner teaching is the truth therefore the outer public truth is false. I disagree. An inner teaching does not neccesarily disagree with, or make false, an outer [or public] teaching, but extends or qualifies it, even when they appear to be opposites.

For example, night and day, opposites. As opposites we may say they are exlusive [it is impossible to have both night and day HERE and NOW], but also inclusive [NIGHT here [ie, one side of the world] DAY there [the other side of the world], or night now, day tomorrow or yesterday] depending upon qualifications of time/space.

That is true, but we really shouldn't be mistaking night for day.

Anything is possible, but what we really should be asking ourselves is if it is probable. We could also ask ourselves if Mathers has given any other information in his publication that is at odds with Golden Dawn dogma, and it is clear that he has. For example he gives Levi's path/trump/letter attributions; something that the Golden Dawn, and Waite rejected.

For example, Mathers attributes the Fool to Shin in one publication, and to Aleph in another. Do you think that Mathers and/or Waite thought both attributions might be correct? Waite makes it plain that he thinks Levi's attribution are incorrect.

Again, as you say, it is possible that Mathers and/or Waite was trying to 'extend' or 'qualify' the path/trump/letter attributions but it hardly seems likely.

Or let us say the letter Yod symbolises the 'father', Vau the 'Son'. All fathers are sons, sons maybe fathers. They are not exclusive of each other.

I think they are exclusive of each other, but that is not to say there isn't a connection.

Yes, a man can be a son, and a father, but that doesn't mean that son=father. A man can be a fireman and a pilot, but equally that doesnt mean that fireman=pilot.

Yod can, and does, express the idea of the Father, and Vau in the same manner expresses the idea of the Son. They are both parts of the whole, but they are not exactly similar.

Looking at Waite/Smiths Ace of Swords the six dots, three on either side of the sword, look like yods to me.

Well, they are stylised symbols, and there may well be a reason they are shaped as they are. The same symbols are on the same card in earlier decks that would appear to have no connection with Qabalah. The surface is not always the content, as I'm sure you know.

Like Mathers, Waite was a member of the GD and valued his oaths. So if as Vincent says Mathers in his public statements made them Yods, but in the inner teachings of the Gd described them as Vau's; Wouldn't this apply as much to Waites? A member of the GD, having took oaths, the outer [public teaching] yod, the inner Vau? They look like yods, but there are six, which may relate to vau [the hebrew letter vau has a numerical value of six].

They lood like Yods, but there are six which may allude to an inner teaching of an attribution to Vau. So I think not Yod OR Vau, but Yod AND Vau.

As I said before, I don't agree with your conclusion, but I do find your argument interesting.

The reason I believe there are six Vaus are to draw our attention to Tiphareth, and all the symbolism that goes with it; colour of the Vaus, Ruach, The Son (and Sun) and especially the idea of the Princes (or Kings, in the Waite deck) place on the Tree.

(excellent theory snipped)
So in the Ace of swords we have reference to all the three letters in the name of god, yod, hei and vau.
Kwaw

Certainly, the phallic symbolism should not be ignored, but I cant see that it inexorably leads to the your stated conclusion. Nevertheles, anything is possible.

One problem for this theory might be that there is no mention in Book 'T' of any of the symbolism you mention regarding Yod and Heh. If we take your theory as correct, we would surely have to wonder why Mathers thought it not worth mentioning to initiates in the document they received for study of the Tarot. In Robert Wang's Golden Dawn deck, which I admit may not be the best example, the symbols are clearly Vaus, but otherwise the cards are remarkably similar.

Why do you think it isn't mentioned in Book 'T'?

Vincent

 

[kwaw]

Anything is possible, but what we really should be asking ourselves is if it is probable. We could also ask ourselves if Mathers has given any other information in his publication that is at odds with Golden Dawn dogma, and it is clear that he has. For example he gives Levi's path/trump/letter attributions; something that the Golden Dawn, and Waite rejected.

For example, Mathers attributes the Fool to Shin in one publication, and to Aleph in another. Do you think that Mathers and/or Waite thought both attributions might be correct? Waite makes it plain that he thinks Levi's attribution are incorrect.

Vincent

Hi Vincent

You are perfectly correct, but it is not my point that an inner or secret teaching cannot contradict a public teaching, as you show the inner attributions are at variance with the public, which we know they rejected. Only that it is not necessarily so in all cases.

As stylised as the symbols are, if we take them to represent Hebrew letters I see no ambiguity in them, they look like Yods, not Vaus. However like yourself I think the tifareth symbolism [son and bridegroom etc] is important to this card; perhaps this is being referenced in there being six of them.

Also I think there are limitations on the extent to which we can make Book T a definitive authority for what Waite may or may not have intended. Certainly it was a primary source for Waite, and while it may be that he agreed with some, many or even most of its attributions we do not know that he agreed with them all. Indeed I think reading what he says about hebrew letter attributions in various writings that it is possible he rejected the GD attributions as much as he did the Levi continental system. He was a man with ideas of his own and did not blindly accept the teachings of the GD en bloc, in fact we know he disagreed with many of their teachings and changed much in his own offshoot; and his knowledge of Kabbalah was arguably more extensive than levi, westcott, mathers and crowley put together and he was not prone to fall into their errors.

Whatever, even if Waite did accept the 'secret' teaching that they should be Vau's, the drops drawn on the waite/smith AS are clearly yod shaped, and nothing we care to quote can transform them into vau shapes; whatever we think they should be will not alter what they are.

As for fool being aleph or shin, I don't know about Mathers, but it is possibly
the case that Waite did consider that the letter Shin corresponds to the Fool, but which nonetheless should go onto the path of Aleph. This has been argued by some, for example see the miscellaneous notes at Adepti.com [not a point though that I would neccesarily agree with myself].

Kwaw

 

[Vincent]

Hi Vincent
Indeed I think reading what he says about hebrew letter attributions in various writings that it is possible he rejected the GD attributions as much as he did the Levi continental system.
Kwaw

Yes, it is possible, but is it probable?

Do you believe that he rejected Golden Dawn attributions?

If so, what attributions do you think he made.

I think it can be conclusively proved that Waite did accept the GD path/letter attributions. This however probably deserves a thread of its own, but are you suggesting that if I could provide you with a convincing argument that Waite did indeed accept the Golden Dawn letter/path/trump attribution, then you would then accept that he followed their symbolism on the Ace of Swords?

He was a man with ideas of his own and did not blindly accept the teachings of the GD en bloc, in fact we know he disagreed with many of their teachings and changed much in his own offshoot;
Kwaw

Yes he did, but what really concerns us is what, if any, changes did he make to the Golden Dawn system of attributions regarding Tarot?

...and his knowledge of Kabbalah was arguably more extensive than levi, westcott, mathers and crowley put together and he was not prone to fall into their errors.Kwaw

I agree with that, tentatively, as long as you are not arguing that "the symbols on the Ace of Swords represent Yods, because Waite was the greater Kabbalistic scholar"

Whatever, even if Waite did accept the 'secret' teaching that they should be Vau's, the drops drawn on the waite/smith AS are clearly yod shaped, and nothing we care to quote can transform them into vau shapes; whatever we think they should be will not alter what they are.
Kwaw

Maybe, but we shouldn't be ignoring one of the fundamentals of symbolism; that things are not always what they seem. And to ignore the symbolism of Vau in this card, as the original poster did, is a serious mistake.

I found a picture of the Ace from the Cicero Golden Dawn deck;
http://www3.sympatico.ca/terrir/cicero.html

and you can see that some of the Vaus there are stylised. Much more yodlike than the Wang version. This does not mean that they are 'yods'.

Another exercise might be to look at Waite's Ace of Wands and search for some Yod symbolism. Is there any?

At the risk of repeating myself, we should not mistake the symbol, for that which is being symbolised.

Waite follows the GD symbolism in a very similar manner throughout his deck. So when we see one of Waite's cards that is so strikingly similar to what is mentioned, and depicted, by, Golden Dawn members, what is needed is not proof that he followed their symbolism, but proof that he did not.

As for fool being aleph or shin, I don't know about Mathers,
Kwaw

Really?

You have read Book 'T', and you know that Mathers wrote it, and you know for what purpose he wrote it, and yet you are unsure of whether he attributes the Fool to either Aleph or Shin?

but it is possibly the case that Waite did consider that the letter Shin corresponds to the Fool, but which nonetheless should go onto the path of Aleph. This has been argued by some, for example see the miscellaneous notes at Adepti.com [not a point though that I would neccesarily agree with myself].
Kwaw

Yes, it can be argued, (anything can be argued), but not very convincingly. I suspect that is why you don't necessarily agree with it.

I have seen Mr Grinder's notes on the subject, and am familiar with his views on this, but whenever these views have been subjected to robust criticism, they have fallen down.

He also had the irrational beliefs that Pamela Smith put in most of the GD content, and that only 'occasionally' did Waite assign cards to paths. He makes errors of fact, and logic, in his arguments, and most of them have been demolished.



Vincent

 

[kwaw]

I think it can be conclusively proved that Waite did accept the GD path/letter attributions. This however probably deserves a thread of its own, but are you suggesting that if I could provide you with a convincing argument that Waite did indeed accept the Golden Dawn letter/path/trump attribution, then you would then accept that he followed their symbolism on the Ace of Swords?

Vincent

I need little persuasion, just playing devil's advocate here. However, a thread in which such proof is provided I personally think would be very interesting and useful, especially if one wishes to use Book T as a reference to the symbolism of Waites deck as I feel such use is limitated if such a case is left undetermined or unproven. It would also be a useful link to refer to when similar questions and issues come up in other threads in the future. Such may also include of course the contrary views and proofs of others such as Mr Grinders, though of course without in any way trying to personalise them, and any answers that may be had to them.

 

[Vincent]

I need little persuasion, just playing devil's advocate here. However, a thread in which such proof is provided I personally think would be very interesting and useful, especially if one wishes to use Book T as a reference to the symbolism of Waites deck as I feel such use is limitated if such a case is left undetermined or unproven. It would also be a useful link to refer to when similar questions and issues come up in other threads in the future. Such may also include of course the contrary views and proofs of others such as Mr Grinders, though of course without in any way trying to personalise them, and any answers that may be had to them.

Ok. I shall try and put something together soon. And, of course, contrary views, and correction of facts, even from Devil's Advocates, would be most welcome. I believe that is the best way to learn.


Vincent

 

[Lurea]

Perhaps Vincent should start a thread on the Golden Dawn symbolism in the RW?

I was hoping to find a thread about the aces, instead of a somewhat argumentative thread about the Golden Dawn. Not enlightening. And I do not agree that the meaning of the cards are set in stone. That has not been my personal experience.