Reading Waite-The Doctrine Behind the Veil

[preacher37]

Sentence 32: "Such cards testify concerning themselves after another manner; and although the state in which I have left the Tarot in respect of its historical side is so much the more difficult as it is so much the more open, they indicate the real subject matter with which we are concerned."
<snip>
He seems to be comparing the difficulty of understanding what is known historically with the difficulty of understanding the "real subject matter" [i.e., Secret Tradition].

Contrasting it, actually, yes? He is saying that though he has demonstrated that the historical facts concerning the Tarot are murky, the Trumps that "testify concerning themselves after another manner" do so effectively, indicating "the real subject matter with which we are concerned."

 

[Teheuti]

He is saying that though he has demonstrated that the historical facts concerning the Tarot are murky, the Trumps that "testify concerning themselves after another manner" do so effectively, indicating "the real subject matter with which we are concerned."

I see what you mean. This is a much better reading of Sentence 32 than I gave: "Such cards testify concerning themselves after another manner; and although the state in which I have left the Tarot in respect of its historical side is so much the more difficult as it is so much the more open, they indicate the real subject matter with which we are concerned."

This is the reason why our reading Waite's work together is so helpful.

So, let me try again:
Despite the historical side of the Tarot being more open [exoterically known], it is still difficult [the original source is not clear], yet the Magician, Priestess, Wheel, Hanged Man and Tower testify [bear witness to or provide evidence concerning] the real subject matter [the Secret Tradition].

Refering back to an earlier sentence, the meanings are not imputed - simply "assigned characteristics" that may be faulty - but real. The AHED says: "Impute is often used in laying guilt or fault to another: 'We usually ascribe good; but impute evil' Samuel Johnson."

I'm still not sure I've gotten it.

Mary

 

[preacher37]

Refering back to an earlier sentence, the meanings are not imputed - simply "assigned characteristics" that may be faulty - but real. The AHED says: "Impute is often used in laying guilt or fault to another: 'We usually ascribe good; but impute evil' Samuel Johnson."

I don't think Waite was trying to go so far as to say the imputed meanings are always evil, but they can muddy the waters and add to the 'occultness' or hiddeness of real meaning. On one level for example, Waite did not believe in hell or physical resurrection, thus, for him, the Last Judgement finds inclusion only as an effect of the influence of the Christian Church. The card has no *real* (only imputed) meaning. On the other hand, Strength, clearly included because of its standing as one of the Cardinal Virtues, also "in one of its most exalted aspects, is connected with the Divine Mystery of Union". An imputed significance, yes? One should also say that the most base of the "imputed" meanings are those imputed by common divination.

I think what Waite is really after is the other way around- his intent is not so much to seperate the cards into groups, but to demonstrate that the inclusion of some can only be explained by their significance vis a vis the Secret Doctrine.

 

[Teheuti]

I don't think Waite was trying to go so far as to say the imputed meanings are always evil, but they can muddy the waters and add to the 'occultness' or hiddeness of real meaning.

The quote from Samuel Johnson was simply the example given in AHED. I think you are right on about the explanation.

On one level for example, Waite did not believe in hell or physical resurrection, thus, for him, the Last Judgement finds inclusion only as an effect of the influence of the Christian Church.

I hadn't realized that - but it makes sense. I like him more and more.

One should also say that the most base of the "imputed" meanings are those imputed by common divination.

Yes. It seems to me that he didn't have a problem with divination - but rather with a kind of slavish adherence to "imputed" meanings. Divination was intuition - "all forms of divination are simply methods of exercising the intuitive faculties. . . . The several forms of cartomancy are simply designed to awaken a dormant quality of psychic perception. Those which are exclusively concerned with the performance of a barren rite, and produce no impression on the interior nature, are either worthless impostures, or foolish, superstitious practices." _The Occult Sciences_.

True divination, however, is deeper: "Its true significance is ineffable in its sublimity. To divine (divinare) is to exercise divinity. To be a diviner in all the force of the term is therefore to be divine, and something still more mysterious . . . a [he quotes from another] 'means of communication between God and man'."

his intent is not so much to separate the cards into groups, but to demonstrate that the inclusion of some can only be explained by their significance vis a vis the Secret Doctrine.

These might be seen as the way to most direct communication with the Divine.

Mary

 

[Parzival]

Reading Waite

...

True divination, however, is deeper: "Its true significance is ineffable in its sublimity. To divine (divinare) is to exercise divinity. To be a diviner in all the force of the term is therefore to be divine, and something still more mysterious . . . a [he quotes from another] 'means of communication between God and man'."



These might be seen as the way to most direct communication with the Divine.

Mary

So the Tarot images for Waite are meditative windows into the invisible, into the Divine -- not paintings for formulaic, fixed interpretive analysis. More like alchemic emblems or icons. Victor Hugo said that to love another person is to see him or her as transparent, not as opaque. Same with Tarot. Behind the coloration and form is the Reality.

 

[Teheuti]

So the Tarot images for Waite are meditative windows into the invisible, into the Divine -- not paintings for formulaic, fixed interpretive analysis.

Exactly - or at least that's how I understand what he's saying. They can, of course, be used to jump-start an experience, but they are merely leaping off places for a deeper communication/communion to take place.

Mary

 

[preacher37]

So the Tarot images for Waite are meditative windows into the invisible, into the Divine -- not paintings for formulaic, fixed interpretive analysis.

Exactly - or at least that's how I understand what he's saying. They can, of course, be used to jump-start an experience, but they are merely leaping off places for a deeper communication/communion to take place.

It's more complicated. Waite is saying that some elements- even some cards (those that 'testify concerning themselves') were purposefully included by some anonymous adept(i) to suggestively lead the uninitiated in such an intuitive experience.

 

[Teheuti]

It's more complicated. Waite is saying that some elements- even some cards (those that 'testify concerning themselves') were purposefully included by some anonymous adept(i) to suggestively lead the uninitiated in such an intuitive experience.

I agree. I think Frank and I were responding here to Waite's statements about divination (at least I was). When we include the sentences from PKT that we've just been reading then we have the additional perspective of which you are reminding us.

There is a question as to just how conscious and deliberate was the inclusion of the cards Waite refers to as particular to the Secret Tradition. Waite seems to feel that, as you say, an adepti was involved. With our current understanding of Tarot history it seems apparent that all the cards can be explained without recourse to an adept or to a Secret Tradition. But we are trying to ferret out Waite's POV here.

Mary

 

[preacher37]

There is a question as to just how conscious and deliberate was the inclusion of the cards Waite refers to as particular to the Secret Tradition. Waite seems to feel that, as you say, an adepti was involved. With our current understanding of Tarot history it seems apparent that all the cards can be explained without recourse to an adept or to a Secret Tradition. But we are trying to ferret out Waite's POV here.

Well, the thesis is sort of his life's work. The Graal cycles (at least in part), alchemy and Rosicrucianism certainly support the, uh, interventionist view. Mainstream Masonry maybe less so, though some of the outer degrees are clearly the work of mystical/hermetic adepti. Tarot may seem a reach, but (especially) the HP and the Hanged Man keep bringing me back.

 

[Teheuti]

Re: deliberate intervention by adepti in creation of Tarot

Well, the thesis is sort of his life's work. The Graal cycles (at least in part), alchemy and Rosicrucianism certainly support the, uh, interventionist view. Mainstream Masonry maybe less so, though some of the outer degrees are clearly the work of mystical/hermetic adepti. Tarot may seem a reach, but (especially) the HP and the Hanged Man keep bringing me back.

Yes, it also seems to me that Waite believed in both the conscious and unconscious transmission of the Secret Tradition through all the areas you mentioned. I don't think Waite was familiar with Jung's theories, but he probably would have welcomed the idea of archetypes in the collective unconscious - albeit giving it his own mystical twist.

As to the HP and Hanged Man being clear indicators of the Secret Tradition - I would say that's so only when considering them as depicted by Waite. Historically, both cards - Popess and Hanged Man - have clear sources in standard 15th century North Italian iconography. The Hanged Man was unambiguously a traitor/Judas figure and the Popess has several different, yet related, iconographic sources - Ecclesia (personified Church), Fides (Giotto's personified Faith), the Flaminica Dialis (priestess of Jupiter in Rome), a Sibyl, the Borgia Hermetic Isis, the Gugliamite popess, Pope Joan, etc., etc.

Of course, for Waite, the High Priestess was primarily the highest (closest to the Supernals) manifestation of the Shekinah. This is not far off from the Renaissance concepts but, given by Waite a specifically mystical and Kabbalistic understanding.

The Hanged Man, for Waite, was the Beatific Vision, where consciousness is opened to the inner truth of the Divine through an indrawn state in which consciousness enters the Absolute. It is the ideal man of the Kabbalists (Adam Kadmon) who reflects the Image of God. Waite described it as 'the Microprosopus or God of Reflections in the so-called Great Symbol of Double Triangle of Solomon'. This is significantly different than traditional meanings (as you, Preacher, have indicated).

Mary