esoteric meanings of the Arcana

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 14 Mar 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Ophiel	14 Mar 2002
I think it imperative to keep in mind the historical setting that we are discussing here, as this new thread is a growth from another active discussion now evolving, about the Marseilles style decks. It's so easy to focus merely on the cards and forget the environment that produced these images. Kaplan said the Marseilles tradition with Tarot cards began around 1660 or so, I believe. At least the date is right in there. This is a time when the intellect was becoming alive after a sort of dormancy, or for sure, a state with a different soul texture quite unlike our own. The esoteric traditions were reintroduced to the Western world, having been rescued when they had been transported to the East during the centuries of total dominance by the Roman church. Coprenicus had changed the way we viewed our world when he 'discovered' that we are another planetary body roaming the cosmos. Before him, the exoteric world felt a stronger link to the stars a source, possibly even as we now view THE WORLD. I wonder if the vision of THE STAR changed much after Coprenicus (1473 - 1543) put him right in the thick of things regarding the origins of the cards. I have read from more than one source that the ancients were well aware of our 'position' in the universe and viewed us as heliocentric in nature. I am posting this to see if perhaps we could get another going about the esoteric nature of the cards, their meanings (as best we can determine...or speculate.) Perhaps this is too large a topic and needs to be whittled down to something more digestible? I hope others find this topic of esoteric meanings as fascinating as I do.

jmd	25 Apr 2002
I can't believe I didn't see this post by Ophiel earlier!!! Since this thread is about the esoteric aspect of the deck and cards, I thought I'd add to Ophiel's (anthroposophically oriented) comment that the deck appears to have emerged around the time when a new kind of consciousness appears to have arisen in humanity's history. Just as a deck, that it has 78 cards is quite significant, if one accepts the importance of the number 12, for 78 is 12's 'theosophic' extension (all this means is that a triangular number with base 12 = 78.... more simply, 12 + 11 + 10 + ... + 3 + 2 + 1 = 78). Of the 22 Major Arcana cards, 21 are numbered, 21 being a Fibonacci number. Interestingly, the Fool can here imply that the journey does not end there. If one looks at the Fibonnaci numbered cards, they also form an interesting sequence: I - Magician II - High Priestess/Popess III - Empress V - Pope/Hierophant VIII - Justice XIII - Death XXI - World What is even more interesting is when the Hebrew letters are considered, for the three Mother letters (Aleph, Mem and Shin) are each placed Golden ratio apart in the whole sequence. Also, on the 360 degree circle, its golden angle is approx. 222 degrees. Altogether, there are 36 possible expressions of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet (Beth, for example, has a soft and daggeshed/hard form, and some, Nun for example, have a final form... the total is 36), each letter can be a ten degree arc, but its Golden section would be formed of only 22 ten degree arcs. There is also absolutely superb relations which obtain within the deck when paired (i-xi, ii-xii, &c, with Fool-xxi, which this pair becomes again a higher dimension of i-xi). This I had already mentioned in an earlier thread started by AmounRa. Another mathematical aspect is the relationship of the Platonic solids, for if one takes the triangular faced ones (the tetrahedron, octahedron and icosahedron), and focuses solely on their vertices (points), one finds that they total 22... and that furthermore, this is in the sequence of 4 (elements) + 6 (planets) +12 (zodiacal signs) (close to the Kabbalistic 3 (elements) + 7 (planets) + 12 (zodiacal signs), and which one can actually make the relationship through subtle manipulation in thought!). With regards to the cards themselves, I think we're going to start discussing them (in their Marseilles version) in the Study section very shortly!

Malachite	25 Apr 2002
I'm not trying to demean you're view of tarot here, but for some reason I always think that the numbers are just as they happen to be.... but maybe I'm wrong...

Umbrae	25 Apr 2002
By golly I gotta be all over ya on this one Malachite. Back in the era the cards were designed, folks thought the Fibonacci sequence was the real big doin’s. It is not referred to as the ‘Golden Mean’ by accident. Mathematics was providing the keys to the universe in the 1500-1700’s. I do not see the sequencing as an accident.

Kissa	25 Apr 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae Back in the era the cards were designed, folks thought the Fibonacci sequence was the real big doin’s. It is not referred to as the ‘Golden Mean’ by accident. Mathematics was providing the keys to the universe in the 1500-1700’s. I do not see the sequencing as an accident. Hi Umbrae, (my turn to give you the thumbs up for participating to such an incredible thread !) Now, I am really a beginner but what is this Fibonacci stuff ? Could I read about it somewhere if it is really long and complicated to explain ? You guys know so much about the esoterical meanings of tarot !!! It is so interesting ! Please keep this thread growing, I learn so much !!! Kissa

cricket	25 Apr 2002
Fibonacci came up with a great big... huge... long.... mathematical whatzamahoozit that actually works out to a set of numbers. Somehow, this set of numbers and formula explains nearly every significant pattern in nature, especially the spiral-type patterns (like the seeds in a sunflower). Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Umbrae	25 Apr 2002
Golly...someplace here (perhaps in the reading tarot section), there is a thread with the title referring to the snail on the 9 of Pentacles. There is a reference to more Fibonacci stuff than you can imagine… Let me hunt it down… and bring it back up… Ahhh, the miricle of “copy, paste, and edit”, here we go… The snail’s shell is the favorite way of depicting the occurrence of The Fibonacci sequence (1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34 etc.) or Divine Proportion. The Nautilus shell (Nautilus pompilius) grows larger on each spiral by phi (1.6180339887499). This is also the ratio used to describe the differences in length between the joints on a finger. It is a measurement repeated in dang near all of life on this earth. Fibonacci came back to Tuscan in the eleventh century with the “Golden Mean” and the concept of Zero (after a trip to Egypt). He spent a lot of time measuring Pyramids. His bringing the Zero concept Europe is what started banking (in Tuscan). Fibonacci Sequence is old heavy math. A really good book on this subject is Sacred Geometry - Philosophy and Practice by Robert Lawlor, published by Crossroad; Library of Congress number 81-67703. (sorry for re-runs,but it is that time of year).

Kaz	26 Apr 2002
here you have some good pages about fibonacci: http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fib.html kaz

Kiama	26 Apr 2002
I am questioning whether or not Fibonnaci's thingies did have any effect on the Major Arcana at all. The original Majors were ordered differently, and tehre is much doubt cast upon whether or not they were created for anything more than a game in the first instance. It wasn't until Court De Gebellin that the Tarot pack became more than a game.... Unless you're going for the Egyptian version of events... ;) Ugh... Kiama

Kissa	26 Apr 2002
Kaz and Umbrae, thanks very much for the info about Fibonacci "headache" ;) Isn't it weird how you can suddenly get interested in "heavy maths" after hating them during all your school years ???? Kissa

catboxer	26 Apr 2002
A possibly relevant question to ask in relation to the numerology theories put forward here is whether we're dealing with one deck or two. I think it's two. The 52-card deck Europeans inherited from the Muslim world (along with the zero mentioned earlier in this thread) was a separate and discrete entity prior to the invention of the game of Tarot. The 21 trumps and the Fool are another entity altogether; with the two combined for purposes of gaming, and the further alteration produced by the addition of four queens to the suit cards, the number 78 appears coincidental rather than deliberate. Thus I think the application of any numerical system, Fibonacci's or anyone else's, is a "reading in" to the cards rather than a "drawing out" of anything deliberately and consciously embedded in them for purposes of spreading a systematic body of teaching. Keep in mind also the variations in the sizes of early decks (86-card decks with 24 court cards rather than 16, Minchiate decks, the Sicialian Tarot, etc.), and the fact that there was no firmly established trump sequence prior to the universal establishment of the Marseilles pattern. I agree with the poster who reminds us that Tarot was invented for purposes of gaming, up to a point. You probably feel as I do that Decker, DePaulis and Dummett "wrote the book" when it comes to the history of the cards. However, I must add that I do not share with those authors their totally skeptical outlook towards cartomancy, divination, or psychological investigation via the cards. Both Kaplan and Decker et. al. supply tons of documentary evidence which indicates that the cards were used for purposes of personality analysis, as writing prompts for character descriptions, and other sorts of vague purposes from very early on. Any consistent method of interpretation practically demands a system. There's certainly nothing inherently "wrong" with using Kabbalah, or astrology, or Fibonacci's numerology as an interpretative vehicle. But I feel sort of like paraphrasing Shakespeare's character in "Julius Caesar" who said, "The fault is not in our stars, dear Brutus, it is in ourselves." I believe the "right" system of interpretation is not in the cards, but in our minds. Dave B (Catboxer)

Kiama	27 Apr 2002
I think to add to Catboxer's very eloquent post, we could think about synchronicity... Whilst the Fibonnaci seqence, Kabalah, etc, may not have been instilled in the Tarot originally, it looks like its is, by chance... And thus we can effectively use these systems with the Tarot... Just cuz it wasn't initially in the Tarot, desn't mean it cannot be now! Its the same with Runes There are those who say its wrong to use a Blank Rune, cuz it was an invention of Blum in the 80's, but if it works, why not use it? I mean, the Runes do not have a Rune signifying Fate or that it is out of your hands, or the unknowable... So, we might say we have improved the Runes by doing this... (Kiama hopes Umbrae and Malachite don't see her apparant heresy ;) ) The same is true of the Tarot and the systems we have applied to it. The Tarot is improved considerably because of what we attach to it. Kiama

jmd	27 Apr 2002
Great to see that my meandering response to Ophiel's post has generated such discussion. So let me add a few further musings. Firstly, the sequence of numbers named after Fibonacci is simply the series beginning with 0 and 1, each new number is generated by adding the last two numbers... so the next will be 1, the one after will be (1+1=) 2, the next (1+2=) 3 etc. The sequence therefore begins thus: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, ... The relationship of this sequence to the Golden Mean (which is (1+root5)/2, or approx. 1.618... also called Phi) is that a number in the Fibonacci sequence, divided by its previous Fibonacci number, will get closer and closer the higher one goes in the series. The Golden proportion was actively used in the building of various Temples. Dividing a circle by Phi, one gets the Golden Angle, of approximately 222 degrees. ------- I agree with CatBoxer that aspects of the Golden Mean or Fibonacci numbers were probably not intentionally included in the design of the deck, and that the number 78, as triangular base 12, was also probably unintended. When dealing with understanding not only symbols, but a series of symbolic representation, on the other hand, any peripheral understanding may add to the exegesis of the whole. Here, though possibly unintended, that there is a relationship between 12 and 78 may be useful. Likewise, though the Hebrew letters, Astrological signs, planets or houses, particular ancient Gods and Goddesses, and other iconographic resemblances, may not have been part of the intent of those responsible for the iconography of the Tarot, each of these may assist in deepening card or sequence exegesis. Those readers who may have read some of my earlier contributions (to Sanctum Sanctorum) are undoubtedly aware that I do not thereby view that the cards, as Tarot, arise from pre-Mediaeval Europe. I also personally do think that the 78 cards of the Tarot have probably come from a number of disparate provenances (the pips as Moorish-Spanish Naips, the Courts from possibly a Chess-type game, and the Majors as Teaching aids from 'travelling' Christian-Bogomil 'monks'). But again, this does not mean that the whole, as a whole deck, is to be investigated esoterically as such disparate 'systems'. A question which may very well be asked is what has guided the combination of such cards into such a unique whole? ------ If one finds something of significance in a specific reading, I would agree with CatBoxer that this is 'Reading in' to the cards... or in other words, the cards have permitted one to enter a realm or tableau whereby certain information pertinent to the need at hand can be gleemed. When, on the other hand, one finds something of significance which can apply to the deck or individual cards which transcends the immediate needs of any reading, then I do consider this as 'drawing out' from the deck or card pertinent aspects intrinsic to its esoteric content... irrespective as to whether it was intended or realised by the artist or artists... certain numerical aspects, as an example, may very well be 'drawn out' from the deck, without my wanting to assume that it may have been 'deliberately and consciously embedded in them for purposes of spreading a systematic body of teaching'. Mathematical aspects inherent within the Tarot will probably not, of course, have correlations in non-Tarot decks, whether of recent or mediaeval origin. -------- There is also no doubt that de Gebelin has been incredibly influential in igniting interest in the esoteric aspects of the Tarot... and possibly at times for erroneous reasons, but I would not want to thereby conclude that they served no esoteric aspects, and were only used for games, prior to his Monde Primitif inclusion. --------- But to add also to its esoteric aspects, and leave its historical for maybe the other threads which are also addressing this question. Is not the iconography of the (early depictions of the) Magician, with its incredible similarity to the Hebrew letter Alef, pretty remarkable? (...I here re-iterate that I do not presume that this was intentional!)

catboxer	27 Apr 2002
jmd: Boy, that was an awesome essay. I guess it's time to move beyond history, because what you wrote reminds me (and I do have to be reminded from time to time) that maybe the pertinent question is not "What do the cards mean?" but "What do the cards mean to you?" Even though the 78-card deck has an objective historical identity (mysterious though it may be), its ultimate existence is in the relationship between the cards and the minds of those who develop a familiarity with them, and no two minds are alike. As William Blake said, "The sun's light when he unfolds it / Depends on the organ that beholds it." The great majority of people I know who are deeply into this subject cultivate a very systematic approach to interpretation. My own approach is, I think, a lot looser and more intuitive than most, and I guess I'd have to say more Jungian. Reading the cards for me is like reading dream images, whose meanings sometimes shift and transform. Their messages come to us in conjunction with, or as part of a constellation of other images. In other words, meaning is very much context dependent. Much of what's in the trumps connects with the unconscious for me, with its reservoir of instinctive, non-intellectual, non-verbal religious impulses. Speaking of these impulses, Jung said (in his essay "The Undiscovered Self"), "Their form, when represented to the mind, appears as an IMAGE which expresses the nature of the instinctive impulse visually and concretely, like a picture." He also adds, "Instinct is anything but a blind and indefinite impulse, since it proves to be attuned and adapted to a definite external situation." Hence, card reading and interpretation, which I try to keep on as instinctive a level as possible. (All quotes from "The Undisccovered Self," p. thirty-eight). Oh yeah, as for the Magician -- this guy is a creator of illusions. But if he's really good, his illusions transcend their own limitations and become real. A skilfull carpenter takes a few odd pieces of planking and makes a dining room table. It's still just boards and odds and ends, but now the illusion of it being something else is so complete that people can actually put it to use. The magician who keeps things in perspective realizes he obtains his powers from a higher source. But some of them are afflicted with hubris, and think they're the real deal. Sooner or later, they find out. All artists and musicians are magicians. So are our modern captains of finance, who make real wealth and money out of little binary blips on LCD screens. Some of them are holy men and women who create, then shepherd enormous resources for working people in pension plans and retirement programs, with great integrity and diligence. Others are like the evil wizards of Enron, who perform the magic and then steal the results. The Magician's powers can be used for good or ill. Looking forward to next time... Dave B (Catboxer)

jmd	28 Apr 2002
Catboxer, you may be interested to have a look at an earlier thread called What Drives Tarot - Image or Archetype. there are certainly elements therein which are pertinent to our current thread. I really like your Blake quote 'The sun's light when he unfolds it / Depends on the organ that beholds it'... could one also make a similar comment regarding esoteric Imaginative tools? As the Sun truly is the Sun, and not the Moon nor Venus, so is the Tarot and its iconography Tarot and not I Ching (I also hold deep respect for that system, by the way). However, the Sun's light, as revealer of the Sun, depends on its beholding organ for accurate 'reflection'. --------- Like you, I probably consider myself far 'looser' in my interpretation of cards during readings than systematic (I guess I 'revert' to my more formal or systematic understanding if a narrative doesn't unfold)... but I do not consider myself a Jungian... interesting serendipitous synchronicity, given the person being discussed, as I've just said something similar in responding to the post in Study Groups! For me, the shifting sands of meaning and their very metamorphis speaks of impulses why lie deeply and closely behind the veil of physicalism. The constellation of images, likewise, indicate more than Jung would have been happy to assume. This is partly outlined in Catboxer's quote from Jung's 'The Undiscovered Self': here we see that Jung is concerned with those images which arise from, essentially, impulses of what I would only term more elemental or animalistic 'needs', and to which, in his other writings, he seems to also 'limit' the Spiritual to... (...what can of worms have I opened here!?!?!) ------- I also really like the imagery of Catboxer's allusion to the Magician, as 'a skilfull carpenter takes a few odd pieces of planking and makes a dining room table. It's still just boards and odds and ends, but now the illusion of it being something else is so complete that people can actually put it to use'... but is it illusion, or true artistic transformation of the world by a mastercraftsperson? If such is the case, then, though hubris there may be, a filling of such using one's higher senses and bridging the gaps will become possible for the Magician as he himself ascends to yet higher levels. ... and what a way to complete your last post! brilliant.

catboxer	28 Apr 2002
jmd: Just a couple of comments before I jump over to the other thread, so as to be able to respond to your (as always) very interesting remarks about our friend The Magician. Jung believed that our religious impulses are just as instinctive as the more animalistic embedded traits, such as the sex drive, fear of loud noises, etc. He strongly felt we are hard-wired to seek a holistic relationship with the cosmos and its source, and predisposed to apprehend it as a numinous, living presence. He goes into this at length in his essay "The Undiscovered Self," and in his book "Synchronicity." This is why I tried to establish a Jungian-tarot connection by quoting his opinion that the religious impulse manifests itself in the subconscious in pictorial form. Jung only wrote one sentence dealing directly with tarot, but much of his work (especially "Synchronicity" and "Mandala Symbolism") provide an approach to tarot that I've noticed becoming more widespread in recent years. It's worth noting also that there is now credible scientific evidence that supports Jung's approaches in this matter. Appropriately enough, this evidence takes the form of pictures -- radiological images. Check out some of the reviews of this title on Amazon.com: Why God Won't Go Away : Brain Science and the Biology of Belief by Andrew, Md. Newberg, Eugene, Ph.D. D'Aquili, Vince Rause List Price: $14.00 Our Price: $11.20 You Save: $2.80 (20%) Used Price: $9.38 Usually ships within 24 hours Dave B (Catboxer)

jmd	28 Apr 2002
Thanks for the reference, catboxer. With regards to Jung, he does in fact mention the Tarot in some of his letters (in an earlier discussion in January 2002, I quoted these). Your second paragraph, in which you truly wonderfully and succinctly capture an essential aspect of Jungian theory, is precisely where I cannot agree with him. The impulses which arise from our biological 'hardwiring' are one aspect of our complete make-up... but, and though you may probably disagree, the spiritual impulses arise from another source. Whereas the biological has familial hereditary qualities, the spiritual has what may be properly better determined as individual and 'karmic' or spiritual inclinations. These views, of course, are radically different to those which are undoubtedly argued in Why God Won't Go Away (which I'll have to look at at some stage, as you recommend it). How this applies to Tarot is of course fundamental with regards to our views and understanding as to how it 'works'. In addition, our own views on its importance will probably be quite different depending on whether one views its intrinsic esoteric aspects arise from a source which is, ultimately, spiritual, or from one which is, ultimately, one of an infinite possible symbolic 'system' from which the brain can 'loosen' itself (personally, I tend to view the brain as merely one of the tools usable by our true inner spiritual 'I').

catboxer	29 Apr 2002
I haven't read or seen "Why God Won't Go Away," but I think the reviews of it posted at Amazon are enough to give us a fairly solid idea of what's in it. Apparently, advanced radiological imaging of the brains of Buddhist monks and Carmelite nuns was performed while those people were meditating/praying. When they're in full "grok," as it were, their brains light up the pictures like pinball machines. I don't know if that can be offered as evidence supportive of Jung's theories, but it does show that intense spiritual experience is nothing like, say, watching t.v. DB

Ophiel	06 May 2002
Regarding the process of adding numbers by adding all the preceeding whole numbers before it, 1 = 1, 2 = 1+2, 3 = 1+2+3, etc. Papus has an interesting discussion of this in his "Tarot of the Bohemians." He continues this process, and takes the sums and adds those numbers, reducing it down to a single digit (i.e. 5 = 1+2+3+4+5 = 15 = 1+5 = 6.) A number sequence emerges that is quite interesting, and this small sequence of perhaps eight or so numbers becomes a never ending repetition.

Ophiel	07 May 2002
JMD mentioned the Fibonacci numbers. As I posted yesterday, Papus discussed these numbers in his book, and by further reducing each number to one digit by adding to itself, revealed a sequence of numbers. Do you know the significance of these numbers? 1 = 1 1+2 = 3 1+2+3 = 6 1+2+3+4 = 10 = 1 (1+0) 1+2+3+4+5 = 15 = 6 1+2+3+4+5+6 = 21 = 3 1+2+3+4+5+6+7 = 28 = 10 = 1 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8 = 36 = 9 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9 = 45 = 9 and so on. This completes the repeated sequence of 1 3 6 1 6 3 1 9 9 that continues ad infinum, ad nausteum. Interesting that if one adds the 3 + 6 in the sequence, one gets a stream of 1 9 1 9 1 9 9. What is this sequence?

The esoteric meanings of the Arcana thread was originally posted on 14 Mar 2002 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.