THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.tarot,alt.magick,alt.divination,alt.pagan.magick From: nagasivaSubject: Critical Review of Waite's PKT Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:55:00 GMT 50031121 vii om questions about the general text of Waite (in his "The Pictorial Key to the Tarot") and some speculation as to answers to these questions beyond Waite's own. nagasiva: # ================================================================== # --------------- # Secret Doctrine # --------------- # ----------------------------------------------------------------- # I. # THE VEIL & # READER ITS SYMBOLS MEANING # ----------------------------------------------------------------- # |H # i| # III. |s II. # Outer Method t| (Secret) # of |o Doctrine # Oracles r| # |i Behind the Veil # (divinatory c| # meanings) | (trumps and # c| meaning) # |a # r| # |d # s| # ----------------------------------------------------------------- # Illustration 1. -- The Picture Waite Portrays in His Key Book # ----------------------------------------------------------------- # # by virtue of Waite's Preface and the content of this book in # its portions, it is easily possible to derive greater meaning # from its particulars in the construction of Illustration 1 # above, implying the means by which the Secret Doctrine might # be obtained, and how the Tarot itself constitutes a Key to an # encounter with this Doctrine Behind the Veil. issues which immediately become apparent: * Is the meaning described above projected or inherent? for example, Waite might be projecting it there, with or without reference to previous meanings or expressions, and perhaps presenting it as inherent to the symbols. contrariwise, the Book of Thoth may be identified as that which *attains* to the proper Secret Doctrine's meaning, so described and/or pointed to by Waite. or, it may be only derived via *abstraction* from cross- cultural comparisons in mystical disciplines. * Does this meaning change over time, regardless? if projected, it is pretty easy to see why the meaning might change over time, or from one individual to another (and therefore account for variation in its identification by those expressing things about it). if inherent, then variation of identification as to its nature might be as a result of relation to the real, clarity of perception, and the means one uses to interpret the symbols of the Veil. * Is there a Foolproof (pun!) means to interpret it? Waite seems to imply there are techniques for this, and many mystics give the impression that they are confident that the way that *they* are interpreting the symbol-set yields something less than arbitrary. * Are there repercussions of comprehending the meaning, or of engaging the means to interpret it? either the means or the active comprehension are at times ascribed transformative effects upon the reader or mystic who encounters the magical device. these tend to be associated with wisdom, spiritual maturity, or insight into the real (whatever the real is presumed to be by the interpreter). # within Part II, therefore, we may find the explanation as to # what the Secret Doctrine consists and how it relates to the # rest of the cosmos. Waite describes therein qualities which # may be attributed to the Secret Doctrine, in that it: # # * is universal how can we tell what is and what is not universal? what, exactly, can we examine to determine universality? symbols? Waite says that the symbols are multicultural, but doesn't explain how differences of culture are in some way reconciled when they are apparently at odds. meaning? Waite doesn't explain how to rank meanings as described by individual interpreters such that their differentiation of their expression can be adequately explained (i.e. all those who agree with a particular perspective are correct, perhaps based on some unknown standard, while those who disagree are mistaken). # * has always existed what gives ground for considering the reality of the doctrine behind the Veil? isn't this identical to presuming "meaning has existence regardless of whether there are symbols to represent it"? why is this presumption, if so, self-evident or compelling? what might we examine that will demonstrate or exemplify its inherent rather than its figmentary existence? one answer to these questions may be found in a comment by Waite included below: *experience or practice behind the Secret Doctrine* justifies it somehow (how?), and those who attain to that experience can discern the truth (match) amongst cross-cultural mystical symbols. one might compare this with Huxley's 'Perennial Philosophy' (which also has its difficulties/virtues). # * was perpetually secret isn't this an explanation for why it is unrecognized or unimagined, rather than somehow demonstrated? is this another way of saying that "experiences are essentially ineffable"? if so, is 'secret' a very clear way of saying this? or is 'inexpressible' an improvement? secret -- this seems to imply that it *could* be expressed but it is not; secrecy often includes intentionality, whereas ineffability restrains regardless of intent or interest. ineffable -- inabililies or impossibilities are so difficult to ascertain; it might be valuable to presume that something is impossible or ineffable rather than that some elite can do what we cannot. # * was recorded in secret literatures (particularly: # a) Alchemy (esp. its emblematic pictures); does this obtain regardless of cultural context? i.e. is Waite's expression only applicable to European alchemy here, or are there REALLY cross-over truths which extend amongst types of alchemy (Persian, Chinese, and European, the latter of which is derivative, as far as I know)? # b) Kabalism [sic]; same question as regards varying QBLs. are there truths that extend throughout Jewish Kabbalah, Christian Cabala, and hermetic Qabalah? are these represented by the same symbols? does it matter that experts on Kabbalah (e.g. Scholem) say that Waite's motives and method were good (scholarly but that his knowledge of Kabbalah was miniscule? # c) Rosicrucian Mysteries; and # d) Craft Masonry). these seem to be resident to European culture. does that mean that Waite and those like him *unable* to expand their perceptions and comprehensions beyond their own cultural context, or is this all he knew about, and so we should try to extend his assertions and draw parallels ourselves? can it be achieved, realistically? # he states further: # # Behind the Secret Doctrine it is held that there is # an experience or practice by which the Doctrine is # justified. what experience or practice is Waite talking about here? is it something we can identify so as to more completely understand what the Secret Doctrine includes? my impression is that the experience or practice which Waite is talking about here is mysticism, the practice or experiential fruits thereof. i.e. he's talking about ecstasy, awe, profound insight and reflective intuition, wisdom, etc., which are often associated with the results of mysticism. # and # ...it is the presentation of universal ideas [of which # Tarot is a particular emblematic presentation] by # means of universal types [of presentation, exemplified # by Alchemy, Kabalism, Astrology, or Ceremonial Magic] # and it is in the combination of these types -- if # anywhere -- that it presents Secret Doctrine. # -------------------------------------------------------- # "The Pictorial Key to the Tarot", A.E. Waite, # U.S. Games, Inc., 1971; pages 60, 62. # ================================================================== what is so necessary about the combination of types here? i.e. is a comparison across disciplines important to the study and/or comprehension of the Secret Doctrine? does it matter that some who profess this Doctrine have drawn bad conclusions from their cross-cultural comparisons? e.g. the Egyptomania which inspires the presumption of ancient pedigree for the occult device we call 'Tarot' (variously TARO, or The Book of Thoth, etc.) appears to have given impetus to romantic conclusions without the benefit of evidence to support it. like other invisible, not-apparent-to-senses-or- measurement devices, the variability across cultures in reflection of what is being described would seem to support the supposition that it is a subjective projection, rather than that we are talking about a clear perception of that which can be ascertained without cultural conditioning. # ----------------------- # Expanded Contents Table # ----------------------- # A. The Cards in Their History. # 6. Sources. Waite comes down very hard on fortune-telling and, to a very limited extent, divination, within this text. at the same time he makes reference to a "Manual of Cartomancy" which he does little more than source to 'Grand Orient' and derive some ideas. he does not list this title in his Bibliography, despite listing other works on fortune- telling/divination. within the Manual (according to Decker and Dummett), Grand Orient refers to the Tarot as the *Book of Thoth*. within PKT he so refers to Tarot in this way, while proclaiming that it is only one of a number of emblematic occult devices (comparing Mutus Liber -- an alchemical emblem text). why does he put forward this charade? doesn't this give anyone concern about his reliability otherwise, when he is willing to deceive the reader about not being the author of the book? his words clearly indicate that he doesn't know the interests or knowledge of 'Grand Orient', so we are left with explanations about this such as multiple-personality disorder or some serious duplicity and deception on his behalf. Grand Orient *is* Arthur Edward Waite. is this any better than what he says about Eliphas Levi and his alleged charlatanry? how much can we attribute of this to his feelings of obligation to oaths of secrecy and how much to a willingness to avoid criticism and condemnation by his contemporaries? nagasiva # B. The Speculative Aspects. # 1. Court de Gebelin. # 2. Alliette. # 3. Eliphas Levi. # 4. Conclusion. his sections here do not include an analysis of Papus (Gerard Encausse), only the Bibliography. this is presumably because, as Waite makes plain in this text, this work is a kind of extension or elaboration upon his presentation of Papus' "Tarot of the Bohemians (/Gypsies)", which was in print and recently published as of his publication of PKT. # PART II -- THE DOCTRINE BEHIND THE VEIL # # The symbolism according to its higher # aspects and introduction to the complete # and rectified Tarot. Waite did not, anywhere that I saw, indicate a means by which to measure this 'rectification'. he seems to want to merely be believed as to its proper adjustment, though he at times qualifies his expression as akin to de Gebelin as expressions without justification. these unjustified assertions are not always pointed out or clearly qualified by Waite. like his predecessors, he seems content to point out the ill-foundation of past expressions while providing some of his own. is this one of the important aspects of Tarot writing? so many within Tarotic tradition seek to be seen as skeptical, rational, and incisively critical of their predecessors and/or competitors. is this a kind of magician's trick to get us convinced of their critical character so that when they make outrageous claims that only they seem able to confirm we will accept them without question? # PART III -- THE OUTER METHOD OF THE ORACLES # 7 -- An Ancient Celtic Method of Divination. is there any precedent for this "Celtic" method? why does Waite call it 'ancient' and what does he mean by this? how much does this translate into the Scotto-Brito-Irishomania to which Mathers fell prey? # ================================================================== # # Index For Non-Divinatory Concepts and Card Cross-Reference # ---------------------------------------------------------- # Mangetus 60. who was this? # Sons of the Doctrine 5. is this some comparable to 'Children of God'? # ================================================================== # # Major Errors in The Pictorial Key to the Tarot # ----------------------------------------------- # # page 32 # the historical suit correlates # are incorrect; they should be: # # Wands => Clubs # Cups => Hearts # Swords => Spades # Pentacles => Diamonds was he reflecting some derivation of his time period here, which has, through the course of research, become more clearly known to us? or was this an oversight on his part? thanks! nagasiva
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|