Wands, Swords, Cups, Discs

[AEtheric]

Supposedly it goes like this:

Fire - Wands
Water - Cups
Air - Swords
Earth - Pantacles

It drives me nuts when I see this correspondence. I beg to differ on that correspondence. Here is my correspondence.

Fire - Swords
Water - Cups
Air - Wands
Earth - Pantacles

Fire is usually destructive, and is more representative of force, so the sword is attributed to Fire.

Air is attributed to wands becuase the wand is the director of the will and the intellect in magical operations. Additionally, in the hermetic order of the golden dawn, YHVH is Fire, Water, Air, Earth, and every time someone knocks with their stave, it says 'Vau'. Therefore, Air is the stave or wand, not Fire.


I beleive that the entire Hermetic Qabalah is one giant puzzle, and taking the Hermetic Order of the Godlen Dawn's, or Aleister Crowley's attributions or correspondences for granted is not the way to learn anything.

[m1thr0s]

Additionally, in the hermetic order of the golden dawn, YHVH is Fire, Water, Air, Earth, and every time someone knocks with their stave, it says 'Vau'. Therefore, Air is the stave or wand, not Fire.nonsense, it makes a *thumping* sound that HAS NO SPECIFIC letter/number attribution of any kind! Wands are most likely associated to fire because they burn, like torches, when ignited. In some tarot decks they even appear as burning torches. Moreover, in western qabbalistic tradition, Fire is considered the Father element which contains all other finite elements...like lava contains minerals, gases and so on...Swords are forged in Fire for instance, which comes before them in human evolution, as near as anyone can rationally determine. Fire is generally considered the first real breakthrough in the evolution of knowledge, propelling humankind to a much higher place on the food chain than it would have been without it. We might not have even survived without it. By comparison, swords are a relatively recent evolutionary development, though they have significantly advanced human enterprise, particularly if we consider their tool variations and value.

the aecletic tarot forum has a (limited) discussion going on about this here (http://www.tarotforum.net/library/16/2001-08/fire-versus-air-the-swords-wands-controversy-20010818.shtml)

In general, there will always be some who see things differently than most. This doesn't make them right...doesn't immediately endow them with any special advantage or insight somehow lost on the majority. Some organizations of ideas (or things) are rooted in consensus, while others may be based on scientific principle of one kind or another. There is no empirical reasoning that the english alphabet should be one way and not another for instance, but if you teach your kids the contrary arrangement, it will run them into conflict with the accepted norm in school and elsewhere in the society they have to function in.

For this reason, it is generally considered incumbent upon the dissenting party to show good cause that their departure from the norm should be right and true before declaring it to be *right* in opposition to the majority. If this can indeed be demonstrated then everybody profits from making the necessary adjustment. If it cannot, then their organization is rightfully considered to be *wrong* with respect to the majority consensus. That's just how things are and how reality works in these kinds of situations.

Your arguments thus far establish nothing that could reasonably be construed as proof enough to override the established norm. I think your organization is faulty personally, but moreover I do not see where it is anything worth making a big production over. It's an interesting alternative perspective, end of story. Unfortunately, the occult is generally stuffed to the gills with people who would hope to confound the progression of the whole on the basis of their unqualified negations. If you would like to challenge the established arrangement, I would encourage you to show good cause why it should matter, else just learn to live with your personal objections/frustrations.

As near as I can tell, it's a relative non-issue.

m1

[s1m0n]

The purpose of occult arrangements of this kind is to create a symbolic shorthand for the occultist's own personal convenience.

[m1thr0s]

The purpose of occult arrangements of this kind is to create a symbolic shorthand for the occultist's own personal convenience.quite. and it's also interesting to look at other people's systems, cross-reference wherever possible and all of that syncretic stuff. occasionally when we do this we may actually stumble into bona fide *principles* that might only be observable through meticulous comparisons...so it isn't wrong to look at such stuff. It is bad form to declare anything superior that may simply be divergent, however...

m1

[Byzantine]

In the Years of the Primal Course, in the dawn of terrestrial
birth,
Man mastered the mammoth and horse, and Man was the
Lord of the Earth.

He made him an hollow skin from the heart of an holy tree,
He compassed the earth therein, and Man was the Lord of
the Sea.

He controlled the vigor of steam, he harnessed the light-
ning for hire;
He drove the celestial team, and man was the Lord of the
Fire.

Deep-mouthed from their thrones deep-seated, the choirs
of the æons declare
The last of the demons defeated, for Man is the Lord of
the Air.

Arise, O Man, in thy strength! the kingdom is thine to
inherit,
Till the high gods witness at length that Man is the Lord
of his spirit.

Aleister Crowley

AEtheric,

are you comfortable with the associations between Cups-Water and Pentacles-Earth?

I think something to keep in mind here is that they are only symbolic at the end of the day. They serve as a "link" or "path" in your mind from the symbol to the stance. If they don't work for you, thats fine, switch them around and use what works for you. However, what "works" isn't always the best thing out there, or the most cooperative with the larger body of knowledge.

So I think what you are looking at AEtheric is the right things in an off-field way.


Fire is usually destructive, and is more representative of force, so the sword is attributed to Fire.

The reason, in my mind, that we find WANDS=FIRE is that it's speaking to the WILL and to the FORCE that it controls. Sure it can be destructive, but with fire, the things that get burned away either feed into other things, have impurities removed, or are free to begin again if they were stuck. So, the destructive fire here is almost always creative, however violent and hot it might get.

Wands traditionally have been a sign of command. Orchestral conductors being the most obvious example. It's the control, it's the direction, it's the force of will and it's channel and form. It's burning, and like m1thr0s laid out, wood wands catch fire pretty well and make excellent torches. They carry the fire and grow the spark. Much better than a sword could ever hope to.

So I would focus on contemplating other aspects of FIRE/WANDS than it's destructive nature in relation to how a sword is destructive. After all, the entirety of elemental forces are both, by nature, destructive and constructive. We wouldn't call WATER = SWORDS because of floods. See how they work in nature and avoid placing morality in them. Their uses are their uses, but their nature is something set apart.

A bit about SWORDS. Swords, to me anyways, are of AIR because of their speed, their edge, and most importantly their cut. Have you heard the expression of words cutting? "Their words cut me deep." Science is always cutting things down to their "elements". AIR is the Mind and Speech, and like SWORDS the mind can be Sharp or Dull and wielded with finesse or brute force. Debating with word-blades, something we are doing this moment in some sense, memetic combat by mental swordplay. And again, like m1thr0s said above, Swords and Metal were forged in Fire which is a really important aspect to understand, metaphorically and elementally.

So yes, please do experiment and tinker AEtheric, I do, we all do. I don't think anyone wants you to just accept things without thinking. It's the only way we can bump into new and unexpected things. And again, I'm only speaking for myself and from my own experiences. But as it seems to stand, it isn't a matter of whats "right" here, but what is best "calibrated". Don't bring a wand to a sword fight.

[m1thr0s]

another interesting thing to observe about swords is that they have a certain *voice* in action...perfectly balanced swords literally *sing* as they move and this relationship to air/sound is an inherently *magickal* characteristic.

wands do not typically display this characteristic anywhere near as much as swords do. They are more on the light/heat/energy end of the phenomena spectrum...especially those that integrate crystals in some way. Even wands that do not carry any literal fire are still distinguished as channelers of creative, or psychic energy...so much so in fact that it is generally difficult to define them as having any other practical function!

but again - these arguments do not *prove* that wands=fire and swords=air necessarily...they only serve to indicate certain precedents that may have contributed to that general conclusions. Not all magickal systems acknowledge Fire as an element at all, for instance...though most do so. When we are looking at divergent systems we always want to consider the bigger picture as much as possible.

m1

[AEtheric]

nonsense, it makes a *thumping* sound that HAS NO SPECIFIC letter/number attribution of any kind! Wands are most likely associated to fire because they burn, like torches, when ignited. In some tarot decks they even appear as burning torches. Moreover, in western qabbalistic tradition, Fire is considered the Father element which contains all other finite elements...like lava contains minerals, gases and so on...Swords are forged in Fire for instance, which comes before them in human evolution, as near as anyone can rationally determine. Fire is generally considered the first real breakthrough in the evolution of knowledge, propelling humankind to a much higher place on the food chain than it would have been without it. We might not have even survived without it. By comparison, swords are a relatively recent evolutionary development, though they have significantly advanced human enterprise, particularly if we consider their tool variations and value.

the aecletic tarot forum has a (limited) discussion going on about this here (http://www.tarotforum.net/library/16/2001-08/fire-versus-air-the-swords-wands-controversy-20010818.shtml)

In general, there will always be some who see things differently than most. This doesn't make them right...doesn't immediately endow them with any special advantage or insight somehow lost on the majority. Some organizations of ideas (or things) are rooted in consensus, while others may be based on scientific principle of one kind or another. There is no empirical reasoning that the english alphabet should be one way and not another for instance, but if you teach your kids the contrary arrangement, it will run them into conflict with the accepted norm in school and elsewhere in the society they have to function in.

For this reason, it is generally considered incumbent upon the dissenting party to show good cause that their departure from the norm should be right and true before declaring it to be *right* in opposition to the majority. If this can indeed be demonstrated then everybody profits from making the necessary adjustment. If it cannot, then their organization is rightfully considered to be *wrong* with respect to the majority consensus. That's just how things are and how reality works in these kinds of situations.

Your arguments thus far establish nothing that could reasonably be construed as proof enough to override the established norm. I think your organization is faulty personally, but moreover I do not see where it is anything worth making a big production over. It's an interesting alternative perspective, end of story. Unfortunately, the occult is generally stuffed to the gills with people who would hope to confound the progression of the whole on the basis of their unqualified negations. If you would like to challenge the established arrangement, I would encourage you to show good cause why it should matter, else just learn to live with your personal objections/frustrations.

As near as I can tell, it's a relative non-issue.

m1


Would you rather associate what directs the will and thought with a sword or with a wand? Would you rather associate an element that is very energetic and strong with a weapon of war or with a wand? Woudl you rather associate a weapon of war with intelligence, or with a wand?

In Buddhism they associate fire with red and swords, in an esoteric occult tradition far older than western occultism. Here's the full correspondences:


Vairochana "Intensely Luminescent" - Agni "Fire" - Red - Dhyana Mudra- Vajra "Adamantine" - Sword or Double Vajra- Simha "Lion" - Krodha "Wrath [anger]" - Pratyaveksha Jnana "Discriminating Insight" - Samjña "Discernment" - Rupa "Sight" - East - Prajna "Wisdom"
Additionally, in one of the most used occult books of all time, the Bible, the Tree of Life is guarded by a sword of fire.

I think it's quite simple and the answer is obvious. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I really see no sense in choosing fire for the wand. Unless you like to light your wand on fire during rituals. :p

And no, if you have Isreal Regardie's The Golden Dawn, you would know that the sign for the knock of the stave is vau. It specifically says in the transcipt of each ritual when they knock: Vau.

The only reason the established norm is the established norm is becuase magicians and the like enjoy scrambling their work and then publishing it hoping that somone intelligent enough will come along and say "Hey. Look at this. When I swtich this with this, it makes sense!". For instance, look at crowley's tree of life. Or the lurianic tree of life. All of those are absolutely ridiculous. None of it makes any sense unless you enjoy doing rituals that you get an intuitive feel for the correspondences, which I find to be a very very poor way of going about validating the correspondences that crowley or any other magician has outlined.

[m1thr0s]

For instance, look at crowley's tree of life. Or the lurianic tree of life. All of those are absolutely ridiculous. None of it makes any sense unless you enjoy doing rituals that you get an intuitive feel for the correspondences, which I find to be a very very poor way of going about validating the correspondences that crowley or any other magician has outlined. and again, your arguments are not arguments at all...just a lot of blanket charges rooted in nothing mature or substantial. So you don't like Crowley and you don't like Luria and you find it all *ridiculous*...who cares? No one here is insisting that you have to embrace these people or their ideas. As far as *validation* is concerned, where is it written that there is only one way to go about this? I'm not quite as familiar with Luria's actual methodology but I know that Crowley was not the least concerned with dictating the *how* people should go about validating things. Some approximate combination of study and practice is pretty much the universal recommendation of most Masters of most Schools all over the world. Why are you so agitated with Crowley? Why should it even matter, and what the fuck has any of this got to do with your central argument? Just because you call something *ridiculous* doesn't make it ridiculous...you're not posting to idiots here AEtheric - you'll have to do better than that.


And no, if you have Isreal Regardie's The Golden Dawn, you would know that the sign for the knock of the stave is vau. It specifically says in the transcipt of each ritual when they knock: Vau.yeah? big fucking deal...who cares? What the Golden Dawn does or doesn't do in certain ritual applications does not define what things are in any sort of universal sense. A *magickal knock* can be performed with any tool whatsoever or none at all for that matter...with your hand, or with a thought...it's more about approaching the circle with a certain formality that serves primarily to clear the mind of excess baggage. It does not even begin to imply anything about the nature of wands and swords in itself.

your arguments are overtly emotional and hostile. they are not clear and rational and therefor they are not even remotely convincing.

m1

[AEtheric]

and again, your arguments are not arguments at all...just a lot of blanket charges rooted in nothing mature or substantial. So you don't like Crowley and you don't like Luria and you find it all *ridiculous*...who cares? As far as *validation* is concerned, where is it written that there is only one way to go about this? I'm not quite as familiar with Luria's actual methodology but I know that Crowley was not the least concerned with dictating the *how* people should go about validating things. Some approximate combination of study and practice is pretty much the universal recommendation of most Masters of most Schools all over the world. Why are you so agitated with Crowley? Why should it even matter, and what the fuck has any of this got to do with your central argument? Just because you call something *ridiculous* doesn't make it ridiculous...you're not posting to idiots here AEtheric - you'll have to do better than that.

m1

I'm more concered with you replying to the content of my post rather than the aside, as that was just what I said it is, an aside. :(

[AEtheric]

and again, your arguments are not arguments at all...just a lot of blanket charges rooted in nothing mature or substantial. So you don't like Crowley and you don't like Luria and you find it all *ridiculous*...who cares? No one here is insisting that you have to embrace these people. As far as *validation* is concerned, where is it written that there is only one way to go about this? I'm not quite as familiar with Luria's actual methodology but I know that Crowley was not the least concerned with dictating the *how* people should go about validating things. Some approximate combination of study and practice is pretty much the universal recommendation of most Masters of most Schools all over the world. Why are you so agitated with Crowley? Why should it even matter, and what the fuck has any of this got to do with your central argument? Just because you call something *ridiculous* doesn't make it ridiculous...you're not posting to idiots here AEtheric - you'll have to do better than that.

yeah? big fucking deal...who cares? What the Golden Dawn does or doesn't do in certain ritual applications does not define what things are in any sort of universal sense. A *magickal knock* can be performed with any tool whatsoever or none at all for that matter...with your hand, or with a thought...it's more about approaching the circle with a certain formality that serves primarily to clear the mind of excess baggage. It does not even begin to imply anything about the nature of wands and swords in itself.

your arguments are overtly emotional - even hostile. they are not rational and therefor they are not even remotely convincing.

m1

The Golden Dawn is a great repository of occcult knowledge, and I recommend everyone who starts the occult to start there. They were the ones that aleister crowely got his ideas from, and they are the ones who have established much of western occultism on the shoulders of giants.

Point out a single point where I flamed or anything like that and then you can say my posts were overtly emotional or even hostile. And if you look at what I bolded in your quote, I think you are projecting atm. :(

[m1thr0s]

Point out a single point where I flamed or anything like that and then you can say my posts were overtly emotional or even hostile.I don't need to do that AE...it's evident in the tone of your posts that you are trying to use your distaste of a couple of individuals as the basis for your assertions.
The tactic is fallacious on its face. Crowley built his system from MANY sources...any moron could tell you that. He didn't just steal shit from the GD and repackage it, etc. It is part of the GD system that individuals develop their own systems as they mature...that's exactly what he did.

m1

[AEtheric]

I don't need to do that AE...it's evident in the tone of your posts that you are trying to use your distaste of a couple of individuals as the basis for your assertions.
The tactic is fallacious on its face.

m1


Yeah. Becuase my post said "Aleister Crowley and the Golden Dawn are stupid, therefore, my attribution is correct."

[m1thr0s]

Alright then...you're a belligerent asshole AE and you know virtually nothing so I have no need of you here.
easy come easy go.

m1

[izi]

Becuase

It's B-E-C-A-U-S-E, you ignoramus!

[m1thr0s]

I'll leave the thread open since I do think it's useful to consider alternatives to conventional thinking...one needs to do better than bitch about the weather though, as though this would somehow produce a glorious day all by itself...

m1

[s1m0n]

Air = East, dawn, in front of you
Fire = South, noon, your right hand
Water = West, dusk, behind you
Earth = North, night, your left hand

[fr.novumorganum]

i don't even think he was reading the GD material correctly. oh well.

[JamesK3]

Well that was a turbulent thread to read. As I was reading, though, I had an interesting thought. If the concept of illusion as stemmed from da'ath can make any strict-science person fall down the hole of narrow-mindedness, it must be the same for any religion or philosophy. How ridiculous of me to have not seen before.
Anyways, I've personally always attested the swords concept of air to be from quick-wittedness and being able to be sharp in the mind. Almost a mantra of sorts. As for fire and wands, you could choose to see the two ends of the wand. One being the spirit, and the other of the body and their connectedness when the will is of the same nature.
Just a thought I had after reading this intriguing piece.