Osho Zen Tarot Vs RW Clones

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 21 Feb 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Joywalker	21 Feb 2003
Recently,I bought the Osho Zen tarot and began to study each card along with the others.(World Spirit & Halloween-bought 1 month ago.) I know that Osho Zen does not have the usual majors and minors.My question is: does the cards' meanings coincide with the usual tarot decks or are they totally on their own? (eg.I-The magician vs I-Existence) *scratch her head* did I confuse everyone?? *lol* :D

Mimers	21 Feb 2003
I feel the Osho Zen does not stray far from the RW type decks. There is not the typical symbolism though. This deck brings out the meanings in an entirely fresh and beautiful way. A few perhaps are different, or emphasize different aspects of the meaning than RW, but not too much. I love the Osho Zen deck. And the World Spirit. I hope you enjoy them also. Mimers

Jewel	21 Feb 2003
Hi Joywalker, I agree with Mimer. My personal experience with the Osho Zen was that it gave me new perspectives, from a zen point of view, rather than being new meanings all togther. I love the Osho Zen. You might want to check out some of the past threads we had on this deck where this was discussed ... would attach them for you, but I am technologically challenged and don't know how *LOL*

Phoenix	21 Feb 2003
There is supposedly a new book comming out that is suppposed to help RW users get to know the Osho-Zen better.

Joywalker	21 Feb 2003
Thank you Mimers and Jewel!! :D I do see some similarities in them, but I guess I can't just lump them altogether, you know like,1 size fits all!!*lol* Osho zen is quite unique on its own.I'll keep on exploring the cards and learn as I go along! ;)

Khatruman	21 Feb 2003
Hi Joywalker, I think Mimers hit it right in saying that they are essentially the same, but from a different perspective. It is from a Oriental Zen perspective, which deeply appeals to me since it gets away from the stereotypical Christian viewpoints, most importantly that the world is a constant clash of good vs. evil. Zen is more about the moment and about the essential internal ideal and balance, the yin and yang, the light and dark, that they coincide rather than clash. I will stop myself from going on, but say that the essence of the cards in the Osho Zen are the same as those of the RW group. This can be beneficial in helping you see what the core of the meaning of each card is, stripped of the rigors of the particular religion that the card ascribes to. You might want to look at an RW card next to a Osho Zen card and meditate on where the similarity lies, where the core of the message is, and jot some ideas in a journal. Seems you know enough book meaning now to simply look and see where each card's energy is. Peace!

Lee	21 Feb 2003
I'm afraid I have to disagree with some of the folks here... in my opinion, some of the Osho Zen majors are simply not able to be correlated with their RWS or Marseilles counterparts. So cards like Existence (Magician), No-thingness (Hierophant), or Breakthrough (Justice) really don't have anything to do with their RWS counterparts but are instead completely new concepts. Of course, if you spent time thinking about it you could probably come up with some connection between, for example, Breakthrough and Justice, but it seems to me that it's not anything more than the connections you could find between any two Major cards in any deck, if you thought about them long enough. This is why I don't use this deck. When the concepts of some of the cards stray too far from the traditional, then it just seems like an oracle deck to me. There are other Osho Zen majors that *do* make sense to me, like Innocence for the Sun. But there are too many that don't, and so for me this deck is not a "real" Tarot. -- Lee :)

Silverlotus	21 Feb 2003
I haven't really gone through my Osho Zen deck yet. But from the few cards I have studied, I see some similiarities with "traditional" tarot. What I'm planning/hoping to do is spread out the Osho Zen deck along with maybe my Robin Wood and Tarot of the Old Path, and maybe Hanson-Roberts if the mood strikes me, and see how all the images combine. I'm sure there will be many cases where they don't, but I'm bound to gain some new insight into some of the cards. I think this sort of plays on the thread I started a while back about seeing the corresponding card of deck A when reading with deck B. If relating Osho Zen to RWS works for you, go for it I'd say. :) You might learn a lot from the cards that don't fit. Why is RWS Hierophant and Osho Zen No-thingness? Maybe it is possible to learn something about both cards by compairing them and figuring out why there is this difference. I think I've got my project for next week. :)

Mimers	21 Feb 2003
I understand where Lee is coming from. It is true that for some of the majors, you would really have to work to see a similarity to the traditional RW deck. And if this is the same Lee that did the review that is on tarot passages, I agree with his feeling about the clouds (traditionally swords) being way to negative. This is my only disapointment with this deck. I would put the link here, but I don't know how to do that. Regardless, of those 2 things, it is still my one of my favorite decks. Mimers

Khatruman	21 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Silverlotus You might learn a lot from the cards that don't fit. Why is RWS Hierophant and Osho Zen No-thingness? Maybe it is possible to learn something about both cards by compairing them and figuring out why there is this difference. And this is exactly my point. What Lee says about it being "non-traditional" and thus not a tarot deck kind of says that Lee believes tarot MUST be Judea-Christian in its belief system. Take, for example, the Hierophant vs No-thingness. The Hierophant represents the religious guide, the one who knows the path to the highest order of spirituality. In Zen, the highest order is to see the nothing. This is what meditation is about, to clear the mind of thoughts, which are ruminations of the past and also wishes for what are not there. To the Zen master, the highest order of spirituality is to be clear, to see what is before you, without the muddiness of thoughts that obscure it. The Hierophant also offers the path of spirituality. So the concept is the same; it is the spiritual belief system which changes. And thus I come to the essence of the card, involving a path to higher spirituality, without being limited to the Judea-Christian limits of understanding. I am sure I could do this for the others that you say are "new" concepts. To anyone raised in zen tradition, your magician and hierophant are new. Please do not be so quick to rule out connection is all I say, by seeing why there are differences. There is something to learn from it. One of the major themes of my folklore class involves differences and similarities. Seems there are many differences in details, but many times there are incredible similarities in the story. There are recorded over 345 different Cinderella stories through cultures as diverse as Serbia, Viet Nam, Norway, Germany, Miqmaq native american tribes, etc. They do have different details, but they all tell roughly the same story. Or take creation stories. There are very extreme differences in depictions of creation of the universe, but I have gathered stories from Egypt, China, Inuit Eskimos, Guatemala, Hebrew, Etc. and what is striking is that, before the supreme entity created anything, there were the waters... in practically EVERY creation story, before the creation, the waters existed...hmmmm, what's the connection? All I want to say is that one shouldn't be too narrow minded in ruling out belief, by connecting them instead, and including, rather than excluding, one can come to a much deeper understanding of what the central message, what the human message, is. Peace!

Joywalker	21 Feb 2003
Thank you Khatruman,Silverlotus and Lee for your input. :D I've been using RWS for several years now and the reason I bought Osho Zen is because it gives me different insights about stuff. If I could make some connections,great! ;) If I can't,then perhaps I may see a new perspective on things and help me to understand better. At this moment,I'm working on my 3rd card now-Inner Voice vs The High Priestess.They do connect! :D

Aerin	22 Feb 2003
This is an interesting thread. I was able to make connections with the RW meanings as well, so long as I held on to the importance of being in the moment and acceptance of what is. That's why Swords/ Clouds is negative: the belief system is such that suggestions of objectivity and analysis are anathema. I can read with the deck most usefully by letting go of the RW first when I've done a spread, and then after a first cut interpretation by going back and relating to RWS to get even more insights and meanings. For me personally, the deck is particularly useful for inner work and I tend to get it out when I have a personal sort of a problem. Aerin

Lee	22 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Khatruman And this is exactly my point. What Lee says about it being "non-traditional" and thus not a tarot deck kind of says that Lee believes tarot MUST be Judea-Christian in its belief system Whoa there, mate. I said no such thing. All I said was that the author of the Osho Zen took some of the Major cards and substituted the standard concepts with concepts more to her liking. I must say, I don't particularly care for your making assumptions about my religious beliefs. The deck I'm most excited about right now is the Native American Tarot, which certainly is not Judeo-Christian in its belief system. However, the authors of that deck, like many other deck authors, have found concepts for each Major card which are easily identifiable and correlatable with the standard Major concepts, and you don't have to tie your brain in knots trying to figure them out. What I'm focusing on here is psychological correlation, not religious correlation. -- Lee :) P.S. Yes, Mimers, it was me who wrote the review. :)

Silverlotus	22 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Khatruman Take, for example, the Hierophant vs No-thingness. The Hierophant represents the religious guide, the one who knows the path to the highest order of spirituality. In Zen, the highest order is to see the nothing. This is what meditation is about, to clear the mind of thoughts, which are ruminations of the past and also wishes for what are not there. To the Zen master, the highest order of spirituality is to be clear, to see what is before you, without the muddiness of thoughts that obscure it. Now this is something I had forgotten. Sadly, I've only studied Zen a little bit, in a class on Japanese religion in university a few years ago. I think perhaps keeping in mind the goal of then, and the ideas of Buddhism in general, will make studying this deck easier. lol! That should be obvious, but I spend so much time trying to figure out how Christian symbols relate to Wicca and I forget that sometimes you need to look at things from another prospective all together.

Khatruman	22 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Lee Whoa there, mate. I said no such thing. All I said was that the author of the Osho Zen took some of the Major cards and substituted the standard concepts with concepts more to her liking. I must say, I don't particularly care for your making assumptions about my religious beliefs....What I'm focusing on here is psychological correlation, not religious correlation. Forgive me if I seemed to say that you were a believer in Christianity. That was not my intention. However, Judea-Christian theories underlie what you call the "standard" concepts of the RWS deck and even Marseilles, though there is no evidence that anything religious was associated with the Marseilles, other than the Catholic Church representations of the Trump cards, and that they were used for a game. A.E. Waite was a Christian mystic, and the Golden Dawn drew heavily from Christianity. Thus, the spirituality of the Hierophant card supposes a Judea-Christian viewpoint. My point was that by saying Ma Deva Padma took her own views rather than the "standard" denies that zen-buddhism can be attributed to the tarot, and thus that tarot must align at least to Judea-Christian viewpoints. If zen regards the spiritual state as recognizing No-thingness, then to make the heirophant card go against that blows the unity of the deck. My point was to say that perhaps "standard" assumptions about the cards may take for granted a Judea-Christian viewpoint and to dismiss something that doesn't take that point may be too dismissive. Peace!

Lee	22 Feb 2003
Let me put it this way. If the Osho Zen deck had used the concepts of balance or fairness for the 11th Major card, instead of "Breakthrough," then I wouldn't have a problem with that card (in the same way that I have no problem with the 19th card, "Innocence," which is certainly one common interpretation of the Sun). I believe that if she had wanted to, the author could have found a way to illustrate the concepts of balance and fairness from a Zen perspective. Instead, she chose to use an illustration and concept that have nothing to do with balance and fairness. The commentary in the book speaks of "shattering old patterns and limitations that have kept your energy from flowing." To me, this has nothing to do with balance or fairness. What I'm trying to say is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with religious viewpoints. If a tarot author decides to make the 9th trump a child's balloon, and puts a title on it of "Festivity," instead of something even remotely connected with the Hermit, then in my opinion it's not a tarot deck. It may be a good oracle deck, it may be a great deck to work with, but it's not (IMO) tarot. After hours of contemplation we might figure out some connections in meaning between the Hermit and Festivity, but would this really be time well-spent? -- Lee :)

sunflowr	24 Feb 2003
(raising arms, Arnold Horshack style..) ;) The balloon can represent going off on one's own to reflect! There! ;)

sunflowr	24 Feb 2003
>>There is supposedly a new book comming out that is suppposed to help RW users get to know the Osho-Zen better.<< Phoenix: when is this book going to come out? Any more info on it? Sounds really interesting!

Lee	24 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by sunflowr (raising arms, Arnold Horshack style..) ;) The balloon can represent going off on one's own to reflect! There! ;) Beautiful! I happily admit defeat. :laugh: -- Lee :)

Jewel	24 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Mimers I understand where Lee is coming from. It is true that for some of the majors, you would really have to work to see a similarity to the traditional RW deck. I ablsolutly agree. Although I find many similarities between the Osho-Zen and the RWS I do see some differences as well. I was speaking in terms of generalities, not specifics. Khat, although I ascribe the meaning of the Hierophant sometimes to religious order, I also see him in relation to instutionalization in general not just religious. Perhaps that is why like you I can see the connection to No-Thingness, but I can also see the disconnect Lee has with the card.

Khatruman	24 Feb 2003
Of course there are going to be some disconnections in an interpretation of a deck, unless that person attributes the RWS to be the tarot equivalent of the Bible and forbid deviation from Waite's attributions. The problem lies in determining what is the essence of meaning in any one card. If you take a specific deck as gospel, you risk losing the essential spirit of the particular passage, in this case the card. I value decks such as Osho Zen, which offer a different spiritual system to test the essential quality of the tarot. Lee, I have no problem with you disagreeing with interpretations and representations presented in the Osho Zen. I do see a problem in dismissing it as a tarot deck because of its variance. Dismissing it seems to take an exclusionary stance, and to take an exclusionary stance runs the risk of losing meaning in favor of law. To me, it goes along with the underlying intuition vs. book meaning argument that has cropped up recently. There are extremists on each pole of the argument, one side promoting "burn the books" the other insisting on proof from expert text before meaning can be attributed. The stance that says that Osho Zen becomes not tarot because its depiction of a few cards does not fall precisely with Waite on keyword meanings gives attribution to those who wish to follow the letter of the law. But who is to determine what that letter is? Ok, let's take your example of the XI card (we will ignore the fact that Waite made a revolutionary change by switching the VIII and XI cards, something that the other "standard" deck, Crowley's Thoth, does not do). I will take, as a resource because it is readily available to me now, Joan Bunning and her Learning Tarot site: Here is the link to the page I am using so that you can look at her full text from which I excerpt: Bunning: Justice In her description for the card she specifies: "In the tarot, Justice represents the understanding that life is ultimately fair and just." Ok, continuing, Bunning then says, "Justice reminds us that there is divine balance. Notice the similarity between the Emperor and Justice. Both cards stand for universal order; the Emperor in its underlying structure, Justice, in the action of karma - cause and effect." (emphasis my own) So Bunning goes further in saying that it is not only balance that is represented in Justice, but the action towards that balance. To quote her further: "She has the scales of equality and impartial judgment in one hand, and the sword of decision in the other." The sword being an action that must be taken for balance. She notes that "Sometimes Justice is a signal to do what needs to be done. A time comes when responsibilities must be accepted, and accounts settled. The past will continue to haunt you if you do not recognize your mistakes and make amends for them. You will need to weigh matters carefully and perhaps make important decisions about your future course." So I see the balance there, of course, as any one sees in the image of Justice, in its concept, but I did not see in your own interpretation, that you picked up the action needed to bring about justice, the accepting of causes and their effects, or any action needed to set the Justice in motion. Ok, here is Padma's message on the Breakthrough card. She quotes Zen master Osho initially: "Zen, or meditation, is the method which will help you to go through the chaos, through the dark night of the soul, balanced, disciplined, alert. The dawn is not far away, but before you can reach the dawn, the dark night has to be passed through." The goal stated here is to become balanced and disciplined, that is the breakthrough, something needed to cut through the chaos to understand the ultimate balance. Padma comments, "All of us occasionally reach a point when "enough is enough." At such times it seems we must do something, anything, even if it later turns out to be a mistake, to throw off the burdens and restrictions that are limiting us. If we don't, they threaten to suffocate and cripple our very life energy itself." This brings to me the understanding that Justice isn't something given to you, but something you must work for. Ask any group or society which has been oppressed, American Colonists--the Revolutionary War, American slaves--the Civil War, Holocaust victims--World War II and the gaining of the State of Israel. Justice requires the sword, the action, the breakthrough to be acquired. So what the Osho Zen deck has given me is a better understanding of what Justice stands for, the balance the cutting through to achieve that balance. The secondary image was there in the original card, but in just focusing on my Western understanding of Justice and the court, I let the action part of that meaning slip. Perhaps in seeing breakthrough as simply meaning breaking OUT, the failing is in our not understanding that Zen followers would see the goal as balance not destruction. Tarot's history is a history of change, through different viewpoints. I will lastly allude to Christianity itself in defending my view. Jesus, to my Christian understanding, was a revolutionary in getting his society back to the spirit of the law. The Jews of his time were obsessively concerned with following the letter of the law, and had lost its spirit. I know some of us tarotists have been oppressed by those wishing to follow the letter of the Christian church who say that reading tarot is the Devil's work. Look at the spirit of the tarotists around you who wish more openness and understanding. The spirit here is the same in Osho Zen, it is the spirit of the tarot, it just changes around some of the lettering. Finally, I guess my point is to say that being more inclusive will benefit tarot more by inviting debate and deeper understanding than being exclusive to one tarotist's interpretations. Peace!

darwinia	24 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Khatruman I do see a problem in dismissing it as a tarot deck because of its variance. Dismissing it seems to take a exclusionary stance, and to take an exclusionary stance runs the risk of losing meaning in favor of law. To me, it goes along with the underlying intuition vs. book meaning argument that has cropped up recently. I agree, for the simple reason that I own several tarot decks that have odd cards (or lots of cards) that don't correlate to a definitive meaning, and yet the decks are not labelled oracles and dismissed as not being "real" tarot decks. I'm wondering Lee if you simply don't like the Osho Zen? Could happen, right? Actually, I often see the Osho Zen up for trade and vilified for its keywords and philosophy, but it's my favourite TAROT deck.

Lee	24 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Khatruman The stance that says that Osho Zen becomes not tarot because its depiction of a few cards does not fall precisely with Waite on keyword meanings gives attribution to those who wish to follow the letter of the law. But who is to determine what that letter is? I am! And you are, and everybody is. In other words, we each have to decide for ourselves where Tarot ends and oracle decks begin. Here's a question for Khatruman and freesiaskye: Would you consider the Osho Transformation Tarot a tarot deck as well? It's 60 cards with no Majors or Minors. Is it a tarot deck because they say it is? http://www.wicce.com/oshotransformation.html -- Lee :)

darwinia	24 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Lee Here's a question for Khatruman and freesiaskye: Would you consider the Osho Transformation Tarot a tarot deck as well? It's 60 cards with no Majors or Minors. Is it a tarot deck because they say it is? Sly boots! ;-) No I would not consider that a tarot deck. It doesn't have Majors and Minors the way the Osho Zen Tarot does, nor does it have elemental suits that assuredly correspond to the minors in a conventional R-W deck the way the Osho Zen Tarot does. I am puzzled by your argument here. We are discussing a deck with 78 cards (forgive me if I don't count the abominable Master card), with Majors, with Minors comparable to standard suits that have the same elemental correspondences, and we are comparing it to the Rider-Waite deck and clones that contain the same comparative features. Regardless of its name, the Osho Transformational Tarot does not have these same features and is not a Rider-Waite clone. I fail to see the relevance of your citation. Your point that any publisher can call a set of cards a tarot deck is understood, but it is clear that when comparing tarot decks feature for feature, the Osho Zen is a Rider Waite clone regardless of arbitrary interpretations of cards that appear slightly different from the Rider-Waite standard. It is not only a tarot deck, but it IS a Rider-Waite clone, with a pastiche of Eastern philosophy added. Celebrate the richness of such a formidable TAROT!

Jewel	24 Feb 2003
Bottom line is that "tarot decks" are a type of oracle deck ... so bottom line is we all see the Osho Zen as an oracle deck ... where we vary is what type of oracle deck. If you really like the deck (like I do) does it really matter? To me it is tarot to Lee it is not and that is cool with me. I usually like decks to either follow a Crowley, RWS, or Marseille style to call it a tarot ... to me the Osho Zen fits, that is how I see it, but that does not make me right or wrong. P.S. Lee I would not consider the Osho Tranformation a tarot deck. Must have a major and minor arcana, and 4 suits for me to even begin to consider it. Well with the exception of Majors only decks of course. P.S.S. On another note, about this clone business, the Osho Zen may be RWS BASED but it is not a clone. A clone means it looks "just like" (i.e. Universal Waite, Illuminated, etc - where the coloring has changed but images remain the same).

Ruby Red Slippers	24 Feb 2003
Well-said Khatruman!!!! If I knew how to put "hands clapping' here I would. The cards are a "Universal Oracle”. The symbolism used at the time was what was understood, and was used as a method to impart the "mystery school" teachings. Look how different the Crowley and Rider Waite decks are. Both classics, yet entirely different. Anyone who has studied world history knows that more people have been slain in the name of God than any other "reason". My God is better than your God. It is how we are manipulated. The same prevails today, unfortunately. In the channeling of Saint Germane, he tells of a time to come when all religions will cease and we will all "know" the spiritual beings we all are. We are all part of one another. That is what I find so fascinating about the Tarot.... as you so simply stated, the story is the same. All of the tarot decks connect us to one another in different ways. Each appeals to the spark within that joins us all together. The more you get in touch with the cards and "connect" with others through the cards, the more we experience this "oneness". While one deck may appeal to one, another may be too "scary". So be open to the querent's frame of reference. So the Ohso deck to me is beautiful in it's simplicity and challenges me to "read". If the Tarot tells us what our subconscious wants us to know, then I feel if someone chooses this deck for a reading, it will contain what their subconscious wants them to know and I am merely the messenger.

Mimers	24 Feb 2003
WOW, this thread has turned into a real humdinger! Boy, I am really starting to feel bad for Lee. I have to admit though Lee holds his/her own! I like Jewels perspective. If you intuit well with the deck, use it. If not don't. It really doesn't matter what you call it. If you prefer strictly Tarot, that's ok too. Mimers

sunflowr	24 Feb 2003
I myself really do like the Osho Zen BUT I find it difficult to use as a regular tarot, like if i would use that deck with a RW styled book and relate to the meanings that way. I can't. If I can find out anymore about that book that was mentioned that would help tie the 2 together.. I'd really be interested! :) Anyway, but it's a beautiful deck and I dont think I will ever part with it. It's one of my favorites. But I tend to think of it more like an "oracle". It's tarot but, as I said, I cant relate to the meanings as well if I try and tie it together. So, I try and "forget" it's a tarot deck and focus on the meanings on it's own.

sunflowr	24 Feb 2003
I myself really do like the Osho Zen BUT I find it difficult to use as a regular tarot, like if i would use that deck with a RW styled book and relate to the meanings that way. I can't. If I can find out anymore about that book that was mentioned that would help tie the 2 together.. I'd really be interested! :) Anyway, but it's a beautiful deck and I dont think I will ever part with it. It's one of my favorites. But I tend to think of it more like an "oracle". It's tarot but, as I said, I cant relate to the meanings as well if I try and tie it together. So, I try and "forget" it's a tarot deck and focus on the meanings on it's own.

Lee	24 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Mimers Boy, I am really starting to feel bad for Lee. I have to admit though Lee holds his/her own! No, no, don't feel bad for me, I'm actually having a good time! :) Really, this is a friendly discussion. (I'm a he, by the way.) Actually I have nothing in particular against the Osho Zen, there are certain aspects of it that I like a lot (such as the art). Nor am I suggesting that anyone who considered it a Tarot deck should stop thinking of it that way simply because of my opinions. In fact, I believe that each time I expressed those opinions, I qualified it by saying in my opinion. Everyone has their own view of these things. There are some Aeclectic members who feel that every Major card needs to match fairly closely with the Marseilles standard, or it's not a real Tarot deck. My standards are actually a good deal more liberal than that. For example, the Fey Tarot is one of my favorites, and none of those Majors look anything like the Marseilles/RWS cards. My point in bringing up the Osho Transformation Tarot was simply that everyone has a line beyond which a deck is not Tarot. It's just that where that line is is different for everyone. For some, the Osho Zen (or the Fey) wouldn't be Tarot simply because the pictures don't look like Marseilles/RWS ones. I don't mind if they show different things, but for me, if several of the Majors embody different concepts altogether, then it's not Tarot. I can see the connection that Khatruman brings up about the Justice/Breakthrough card, but I still feel that if you showed the Justice card to a person off the street who knew nothing about Tarot, and then you showed them the Breakthrough card, they would have entirely different associations for each. In other words, for me it's not enough that one is able to put the two together and eventually come up with a connection (even if it's a valuable connection). The Tarot is marvelously fluid and adaptable, but I feel it also needs a certain standardization of concepts, or else you end up with the Osho Transformational. I think a Tarot deck has to do more than have Majors, Minors, and the proper number of each, with Minors in four suits. I think the Majors, each one, have to have some easily identifiable connection with the standard meanings (psychology-based meanings, not religion-based). There are other decks which I have the same problem with. The Inner Child deck (which, interestingly enough, doesn't call itself Tarot) has a Judgement card which just didn't make sense to me no matter how many times I read the description in the book. The authors just hadn't put that card together in a way that said "Judgement" to me. My attitude is, if I have to tie my poor brain in knots trying to figure out how a card's concept relates to the Marseilles standard, then it's not the deck for me. My criteria for what constitutes a RWS clone is a little broader than Jewel's. I always understood the term to include such decks as Hanson-Roberts and Morgan-Greer and Robin Wood and Aquarian, even though each has some cards that don't look much like RWS. In the end, of course, this is a silly discussion (myself included!). As Mimers says, if it works, use it, and who cares what we call it? -- Lee :)

sunflowr	24 Feb 2003
Tarot, to me, would be a Marsellies (sp?), RW or Thoth-related deck.. in other words, the meanings tie in with it in some way as I can relate to it as the standard meaning (or close enough to it). The images don't have to be clones but just that I can see something in it that relates (to me) as being of the standard tarot meanings and that I can use it/tie it in with other books. The Osho Zen deck is somewhat different to me than a regular deck, so I can only use the book that comes with it. At least until and if that book (the one I mention in my last post) is published. :) I think this is an interesting discussion, being that I have owned this deck for quite a few years, almost since it's publication, and have always wondered how others feel about it. :)

Lee	25 Feb 2003
Hey, don't hate me, everybody, but something else has just occurred to me. For her fifth Trump (usually the Hierophant or Pope), Ma Deva Padma chose to show a completely black card, and she titled it "No-thingness." Apparently she felt that the standard image/concept of a spiritual/religious authority was not congenial to the Zen theme, and so replaced it with the spiritual principle of nothingness which Zen honors. I have two thoughts on this. First of all, it is not true that there are no spiritual/religious authorities in Zen Buddhism. In fact, there are -- and very compelling and authoritative ones: the Zen Masters who teach the novices. It seems to me that she could have put a Zen Master on this card and it would have been more in keeping with the spirit of the original concept. Because (and this is my second thought), the original Pope card isn't about a religious principle at all, but rather, the way the principles are communicated to others. Such communication has volumes to say not only about how we approach the divine but also how we relate to each other, and these things occur in the world of Zen Buddhism just as much as they do anywhere else. By showing a blank card to illustrate the spiritual principle of nothingness, Ma Deva Padma sidesteps what (to me!) the card is all about. Interestingly, she includes an extra card, the dreaded Master card, a portrait of Osho. Now, here is a great representation of a spiritual/religous authority. In fact, the Master card could be taken to represent some of the more negative connotations of the standard Pope/Hierophant card, because, as I've read in a fascinating article by Jeannette at Tarot Garden, the Osho compound in Oregon was considered by many to be a cult, with Osho as a cult leader, until the whole thing collapsed in scandal and revelations of criminal activity. So, in my opinion, Ma Deva Padma would have been closer to the mark if she had made her Master card as the fifth Trump, representing the Hierophant. The reason I bring all this up is to reinforce my point that she could have, if she had chosen to, found ways to illustrate or otherwise illuminate the standard concepts without doing violence to her Zen theme. -- Lee :)

Aerin	25 Feb 2003
Lee, I understand your point and yet I'm really glad the creator didn't do as you suggest as for me it would have spoiled the deck. For me personally I prefer the No-thingness card in that place (guess who chucked the Master card, I didn't like that it had an actual person and yes I know of the issues with the organisation and I don't think that detracts from the deck), and have found that it works brilliantly in readings. I think it can come down to personal interpretations of a general principle, and that's OK. Anything that I either find new and really interesting, or that I disagree with deepens my understanding of a card. Something where I just think 'oh, business as usual' that's when I am not challenged and hence don't learn more - in fact, with a new deck I make a conscious effort to put 'my' card interpretations aside for a while. I find the Osho Zen deck about right in that regard: I can find the connections, and I can also read it in an entirely new way. What suits one person doesn't suit another. Aerin

Mimers	25 Feb 2003
Aerin, I also chucked the Master card. Actually, I use it as a bookmark. I must say that my feelings for this card being added to the deck kind of put a bad taste in my mouth. I think the fact that he was a real person makes him not belong in there. It also gives me the inclination that perhaps his followers worship him a little too much. But I will reiderate, who cares. I really love the no-thingness card and am glad it is in there. Makes me think of meditation. Mimers

Lee	25 Feb 2003
By the way, I sliced the titles off all the cards, and used a corner-rounder to round the bottom corners, and I find I like the deck a lot better that way. I leave the Master card in the box. -- Lee :)

Aerin	25 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Lee By the way, I sliced the titles off all the cards, and used a corner-rounder to round the bottom corners, and I find I like the deck a lot better that way. I leave the Master card in the box. -- Lee :) Poor abused cards! At least they are being used :) Is there a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Tarot Decks? :D Aerin ps we'll have to watch out if all those Master cards get together.... we could give them a convention somewhere

Khatruman	25 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Aerin Poor abused cards! At least they are being used :) Is there a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Tarot Decks? :D Aerin ps we'll have to watch out if all those Master cards get together.... we could give them a convention somewhere LOL..yeah those poor decks being used and abused. I am also grateful that Padma decided not to make Osho the fifth major, and find myself leaving it out of the deck. If you check out tarotlady's interview with Padma, she addressed the question I had given her on the decision to have the Master card as a new major card. It seems she was not the originator of the deck idea, she was an artistic and creative consultant, but the deck fell into her hands to complete. She seemed more or less dismissive in her answer to the question, saying that the idea for the Master card was already in place when she took full control of the creation of the deck. Perhaps she realized that including Osho in the deck might disturb people and making it a 79th card would allow people such as ourselves to simply keep it out of the deck, like with the Joker in a playing card deck.. (equating The Master with the Joker, is there a lesson here? :D) In any case, to address other issues of this wonderful debate which probably issued from my toss of the pebble into the pool, I appreciate a good debate on issues, as some have come to find, which has in the past led to combatant stance with many more seasoned regulars here. I re-iterate that it is in the spirit of greater understanding in which I do this. Good ideas come from a variety of viewpoints. If we all agree, then what is the point? I am glad to see that Lee is positive towards this challenge to his viewpoint. I sensed that he was, otherwise I would have PMed him and asked if offense were being taken. To Lee, as far as the question regarding the Osho Transformation "Tarot" my views have been fluently expressed by freesiaskye, so nothing more needs to be added in that regard other than to just state that I do not see it as tarot. In regards to the issue of Osho as the fifth major, instead of the concept of No-thingnesss, I can see your point about the Master being representative of some other underlying principles of the card, but I also see other reasoning behind the concept of zen spirituality as opposed to the personage of a zen master. In the understanding of zen that I have, not saying I am at all proficient, there is a deep humility in the practice. Zen itself is not even a religion, per se, but a set of understandings, and it is that development of understanding that is important, not the guiders to that understanding. Parables I have read seem to emphasize knowing zen-ness, rather than finding the proper guide. Many emphasize that to know zen, one must be open and empty, and not full of anything close to pride. Zen masters are quite practical and self-effacing. Parables of those seeking out zen masters for understanding of zen often leave me with the lesson that it is not the zen master that will do it for you. That is your road to follow, it must come from inside YOU. Knowing that, I think placing the zen master as representation of he who guides you to zen enlightenment would go against understanding that you become enlightened only through emptying what you have inside you, your preconceptions. THERE is your guide, your teacher. I guess I will tell it through a zen story I love. It is reprinted in this lovely page of wonderful zen stories Stress Doctor's favorite zen stories Quote: [a college] professor who feels very knowledgeable about his breath and understanding of Eastern philosophies becomes curious about the reputation of an old monk, revered for his wisdom, and decides to pay him a visit. The monk welcomes the professor to the temple, invites him inside, and installs him on a comfortable cushion. The professor immediately begins to expound on his knowledge to make sure the monk knows how well learned he is. "Do you like tea?" the monk asks, passing the professor a cup. The professor nods, holding the cup as the monk pours a thin stream of tea from a heavy iron kettle. The liquid quickly rises to within an inch of the brim and the professor glances upward. The monk continues to pour. The tea rises to the brim and flows over the edge, but the monk keeps pouring. The professor leaps to his feet, dropping the cup. "What are you doing?" The monk pauses, picks up the cup, fills it, and then offers it to the professor. "This teacup is like your mind. You can't hear anything new because it's already full." I think that is the point that Padma makes with the fifth major, the guide is first the emptying of one's mind. Peace!

Joywalker	25 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Khatruman I guess I will tell it through a zen story I love. It is reprinted in this lovely page of wonderful zen stories Stress Doctor's favorite zen stories I think that is the point that Padma makes with the fifth major, the guide is first the emptying of one's mind. Peace! Hey,I've read this zen story before and I'm always fond of it. :D *nod* It makes lots of sense and that card does connect with the story. P.S. Zen stories are good for the soul ! ;)

The Osho Zen Tarot Vs RW Clones thread was originally posted on 21 Feb 2003 in the Tarot Decks board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Tarot Decks, or read more archived threads.