Lillie said:
Ho hum.
I buy a book for 99p and moan about it, but I didn't expect to start a war.
Never mind.
But have you learnt anything you didn't know before?
If not, then it was a worthless exercise, but if you did.... well, contrary to the popular song, even wars have their uses.
Lillie said:
I am not generally a stupid person. I have spent my life reaing and finding things out. However, I only speak English. So, Vincent, if you would care to translate 'l'étoile flamboyante' for me, I might know why Waites star has 8 points.
It is not about stupidity, as much as it is about ignorance. There is no shame in ignorance. Ignorance has a simple cure, as long as it is not accompanied by laziness.
Anyway, onto
l'etoile flamboyante;
It translates into English as Blazing Star, but Waite probably has another reason for using the French.This may be in regard to some writings of a Baron Tschoudy which had that name as its title. That might also be worth reading.
The significance of the Blazing Star in Masonry cannot be explained simply; it requires a reasonably in-depth study of Masonic symbolism.
The number eight is a very important number in Masonry because it is the first (and the only single digit) cube... ie 2x2x2. One of the ideas of Masonry is that a man starts life as a rough stone, and by processes of initiation he becomes a perfect stone, a cube. This cubic stone is referred to as an "ashlar", and once the man is raised to the highest degree, he becomes a "perfect ashlar". This is signified by the number eight. You can see an example of an ashlar on Waite's chariot, (the charioteer seems to sprout from it), and you might also notice the symbol on the charioteer's forehead. You will then have to ask yourself what is Waite reasoning, why did he put this particular symbol on this particular card, and synthesise that knowledge with what you already know about the Star.
Lillie said:
But on the whole I did not find Waites book difficult to understand. And still I maintain that he does not say nearly as much as he might have.
Yes, I can find out from different sources, some by Waite, some by others, but I would have thought that Waite could have been good enough to give a full explanation of his cards in the book that he wrote about those cards.
There is not that much symbolism on each card that he could not have managed to fit most of it into his book (especially if he had cut out the bit where he says how wrong everyone else is).
I find the PKT very difficult to understand... some parts seem unnecessarily cryptic. (How's that for understatement)
I heard someone argue a while ago that if Waite had known how popular his deck was going to be, he would have written a 10 volume set to accompany it. As it was he was not only bound by his oaths but also by economics. He simply had no reason to believe that people would be that interested.
It seems that the deck was marketed towards the fortune-telling crowd, rather than anyone who might be interested in Waite's ideas of Secret Doctrine, and although the book gives tantalising clues about the underlying philosophy, most of the book concerns fortune-telling, which rather hypocritically, Waite dismisses as frivolous. That doesn't mean there is no useful information concerning Waite's use of symbolism, but sometimes you have to dig for it.
Lillie said:
The fact that I can, and probably, will search out what I see as missing info, does not make me less dissapointed in the book.
All the way through (and I did read it in full) I got the message, loud and clear, that Waite was the 'great I am', who knew things that he was choosing to keep from lesser mortals like me.
And that is one thing that is certain to get my back up.
And mine is not a PKT. It's just a KT. No pictures (and a broken spine) but what did I expect for 99p?
Yes, Waite is arrogant, condescending and obtuse. He also makes it quite clear that the esoteric knowledge contained within the deck is not going to be handed to anyone on a plate. It is, he says, for those that have "eyes to see". That the book has many shortcomings doesn't change the fact that it is still the best source we have.
Lillie said:
Oh, and by the way, why is this deck supposedly less easy to understand than anyone elses?
Crowley's for instance? Oh yes, that would be because Crowley wrote a book explaining his choice of symbols.
Have a look through Aeclectic and you will see their are a lot of people who seem to be just as disappointed in Crowley's book as you are with Waite's. Someone like Angeles Arrien seems to believe that it is better to use the Thoth deck without reference to Crowley's writings at all!
And, Crowley can be just as cryptic as Waite when he feels like it. He certainly doesn't explain everything that is going on in the Thoth deck. There are secrets in that deck that are only open to higher grades of the O.T.O. Also, Crowley claimed that his Tarot is an illustrated version of The Book of the Law. People have been arguing over what that document might mean ever since he wrote it, (or transcribed it).
They are both very difficult decks to understand without a knowledge of the Bible, Masonry, Rosicrucianism, alchemy, the Grail legends, the Golden Dawn and many other things. I don't see one as easier than the other. Where they are definitely similar is, that the best source material for either deck is written by their respective authors, no matter what claims people like Arrien make.
Of course this doesn't mean you can't read fortunes without knowing these things, just that you won't have access to the deeper ideas contained within those decks. Waite and Crowley spent just about their whole lives studying these matters, and no single book is ever going to be an exhaustive study of their ideas. The Key to the Tarot is exactly that... a key. It isn't the room unlocked by that key.
Also, both Crowley's and Waite's book are online. If you get puzzled by any of the symbology used in any particular card, it is easy to look and see what either author says about the card they designed. It is very likely to give you a starting point on where to look further.
Vincent
