Of Tarot, Dilogun, and Incarnated Beings

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 19 May 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

firemaiden	19 May 2003
In our debate about how tarot has evolved, while we are nearly coming to blows over the sacredness or not sacredness of the Ur-tarot, jmd raised the question in passing: Quote: Originally posted by jmd What, however, being does [the tarot] embody? Here, though we may now be touching upon areas many would discard, seems a question which addresses what Tarot may be. If it is the body for the incarnation of particular forces or beings, then its images, its structure - even its uses - arise from considering what it is which incarnates. A fascinating paragraph which demands to be mined and explored. What is incarnation? What does it mean to "embody" a being? and how might this be at work in the tarot? How might this have shaped the images, structure and uses? In exploring "what is incarnation", I wish to share with you the words of Erik K. Lerner: a reader of tarot as well as a Yoruba priest, and practitioner of Dilogun (divination with cowry shells -- part of the Yoruba religion). Mr. Lerner marks this distinction between Dilogun and Tarot, that the cowry shells, for Yoruba practioners, do embody the voice of God: He says this: Quote: " [...] While many people who read tarot have deep religious beliefs, Tarot does not express the philosophy of any particular religion. This differs from Dilogun, which originated with the Yoruba People of Southwest Nigeria. It is only practiced by Yoruba priests. (I myself am a priest of Obatala.) It is meant to reveal the will of effective deities, called orisha, as well as ancestors both genetic and spiritual. This is based on a religious conviction that powerful forces influence our lives and can be encouraged to act on our behalves. Practically, dilogun involves throwing sixteen consecrated cowry shells to reveal divine expression in the mortal realm. [...] . In a tarot reading, I'm more or less the guy in the driver's seat. What I say reflects my ethics and sensitivity, and of course my ability to interpret what the cards mean. I also make it clear that what I say is only my interpretation. My client is certainly encouraged to seek other advice, particularly if sensitive medical, legal or financial issues are raised. But I honestly construe a dilogun reading to be a "voice of God." I regard myself strictly as being a messenger. There's no higher lawyer or doctor than the orisha by a country mile. Now I'm human, and I can get the message wrong. So certainly it's wise for the client to seek the advice of a doctor lawyer or appropriate professional. It feels like a breech of faith for me to make a disclaimer. If you're going to commit your life to the orisha, it does not make sense to question their voices. If a dilogun reading foretells an illness, I am obligated to mark specific eboses (sacrifices or offerings) to the orisha and ancestors and treat it as a fact. Therefore, I don't recommend that someone who is not a practitioner of Yoruba religion seek a dilogun reading. While Mr. Lerner makes a distinction between the tarot and the dilogun, it could be argued that for some of us, Tarot is fully such a vessel for the voice of God as the cowry shells of the dilogun. Notice that the cowry shells are consecrated -- Quote: CONSECRATE: to make or declare sacred; especially : to devote irrevocably to the worship of God by a solemn ceremony b : to effect the liturgical transubstantiation of (eucharistic bread and wine) c : to devote to a purpose with or as if with deep solemnity or dedication.( Websters on-line dictionary) Indeed, I am beginning to understand that for some, the tarot is akin to a consecrated oracle, therefore sacred, therefore suceptible to being blasphemed and desacralised, hence the high emotions. In case anyone should wonder where does the "puzzled skeptic" stand, I quote xouroboros who wrote in our opinons on Crowley thread: Quote: It is the essence of the Buddhist "Middle Way"...not to believe and not to not believe. (I didn't know my way was the Buddhist "Middle Way" but that is what I have come to.) I would love to explore some of these ideas further with all of you, if possible. Please share your thoughts!

HOLMES	19 May 2003
What, however, being does [the tarot] embody? Here, though we may now be touching upon areas many would discard, seems a question which addresses what Tarot may be. If it is the body for the incarnation of particular forces or beings, then its images, its structure - even its uses - arise from considering what it is which incarnates. i asked that question before what then is pure tarot ? before we applied astrology, and numerology and who knows what else to it. ? no one knows really what the "tarot" was or supposed to be. was it just a game, was it a hidden mysteries in a game. all we know is that it had 22 pictures , 40 cards divided up into 4 suits and 4 court cards for each suits. let us compare it to chess a minute. chess in the 1800s was played a lot differnt then chess today as theories and praticality has taken roots in chess to give us radically differnt playing styles, openings, and fields of study. one of my favourites took a constrict the enemy while slowly improving your postion play to become chess champion for a decade that man was karpov. this style of play wouldn't be around in the 1800s. is it because it is a new sytle invalid ? no for the results speak for themselves. the tarot embody what we picture it to be . 1.the severe old school say it is the closest one can get to the original tarot. was it just a game then ? 2. the modern old school say if it doens't come from golden dawn or smith waite tarot it isn't a tarot 3. if it doesn't come from toth or that school 4. or layman style,, if it doens't have 78 cards .. but the symbolon deck has 78 card and isn't a tarot but an astrological divinition system. it all depends on your mode of thinking does the tarot evolve ? which is what i like and so we can keep adding stuff and taking things away as long as it fits the tarot spirit. or does it stand traditional (old testment like for example ) never having nothing added to it, for to do so would bastardize the system ? what being does the tarot embody ? it embodies the group super, sub, and conscious archtypes that have existed in our minds, and our souls since time began. the tarot can speak to our dreams the best and through those dreams reveal itself more (or so i believe ) the tarot is the guides of the universe, the inner guides that exists within us all, and how these interact with us on the outer world. to use an example. death exists for us all here on the earth plane. it is said on the spiritualist/light worker way that the angel of death can take a person until the order is given. the death card exists not to show fear of such an order but to help us understand it is natural. the death figure exists in us all in our inner worlds to talk to. like all these figures.

firemaiden	19 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by HOLMES the tarot is the guides of the universe, the inner guides that exists within us all, and how these interact with us on the outer world. [...] the death figure exists in us all in our inner worlds to talk to. like all these figures. Wow, Holmes, thank you... Tarot is the Guides of the Universe. Wow. This leaves me with nothing to say, except thank you and Wow.

xouroboros	20 May 2003
Firemaden,I was totally fascinated by your exposition on Yoruba,something I have brushed but not investigated. I would suggest that the Tarot embodies no particular entities,god/goddess-like or otherwise. I would consider it to be images that express "processes" of the Collective Psyche,which would be in constant subtle transformation. Hence the proliferation of variations on the general 78 card deck. I have a copy of a Florentine deck that has 40 Trumps as well as the traditional 52 Minor Arcana. It contains cards such as "Escape from the House of the Devil" and "Prudence". This deck extended my conceptualizations of the Traditional 22 Major Arcana. The non-attachment of the Tarot to any particular Philosophical/Religious mode of thought gives it the freedom to adapt to the p.o.v. of the Reader/Querent state of communication without the imposition of pre-set standards or interpretations. It is this "freedom" that makes the Tarot such a powerful "tool" for exploring the Psyche and bringing forth the intuitive messages necessary for enlightenment of the moment. The Major Arcana,not embodying any particular frame of reference,allows each "archetype/archetypal process" to assume different guises within the parameters of the matix of each Archetype in accordance to the moment...such as the Hierophant may be the Priest or the Poet or the Shaman or the Law-Giver,etc.,depending on the spirit of the moment. To restrict the Tarot to a set structure of limitations would,imho,be of detriment. Having said this,if one finds that relating an Image of the Tarot to an Image in their personal beliefs,this creates a deep connection within the Psyche and promotes deeper sensitivity to one's connection to the Tarot. Also,one may find corresponding Images in other philosophical/religious structures other than one's own and the resulting connections would strengthen the knowledge of the underlying universality of the differing structures of thought across the world and throughout time. The multiple Images within each seperate Tarot attest to the subtleties of the multi-faceted Labyrintine Palaces of the Psyche. ...namaste; xouroboros

jmd	21 May 2003
There certainly are a number of decks with resemblances to Tarot which, however, are not Tarot, such as the Minchiate deck. These have all the cards which a Tarot has, and then some (usually consisting of the 'missing' virtues and/or astrological planets & signs). Xouroboros's post seems to me to depict quite well how the Tarot may be understood from a more Jungian-like psychological framework - even the term 'archetype' appears to be used in this sense (on this, an older thread may also be worth looking into - What drives Tarot - Image or Archetype?). Personally, I find the images, and the set of images in their specific structure, does indeed show an embodiment of a particular kind. Though it may be given explanations which satisfies the psychologically oriented person, these answers certainly appear to leave something out - to somehow not quite account for what is, in its entirety, the Tarot. Similarly, one may give a full (perhaps) bio-chemical account of a rose - it just won't have captured all there is of the rose, nor its essential living vitality. If you are like me, Holmes's post deserves to be re-read a number of times - for it contains much which needs deeper discussion...

DarkElectric	21 May 2003
I think that the Diloggun is closer to the Runes, than tarot, actually. Both Diloggun and Runes are alleged to be granted to humanity from the Divine (Olodumare in the case of the Diloggun, Odin in the case of the Runes), whereas tarot apparently originated as a game. However, it's my opinion that the Gods talk to us through any medium they choose. It's up to us to find the way to listen.

Alex	21 May 2003
the usage of the word archetype sensu Jung has been misused in several Tarot books and web pages, and I see this misleading conception widespread in this forum as well. I strongly advice people who want to use Jung's approach to interpreting the Tarot images as archetypal images go direct to the source. Don't read something like "Jung for dummies". Read Jung's books. Alex.

jmd	22 May 2003
Not everyone uses the term 'archetype' in its later Jungian sense. Personally, I have more of a Goethean sense for this word (and Goethe's use antedates Jung). If one wishes for a different appreciation of this important term which, to my way of thinking at least, has been diminished by its Jungian-type use, then either read some of Goethe's scientific works, or even refer back to earlier sources, such as Plato... 'Archetype' is not the sole prerogative of psychologists - whether these be Jungian or otherwise. Jung, of course, also makes contributions worth consideration. His bringing to light - amongst other considerations - much alchemical material, and despite his (to my mind) misguided understanding of the same, is nonetheless worth obtaining his collected works for (and I have read about 1/3 to 1/2 of these). This, of course, moves a little peripherally to the central course of the thread.

Alex	22 May 2003
jmd I understand what you are saying and you are right. However, very often, if not always, I see the word archetype attached to Jung's teachings in Tarot texts, and the term as used by these texts is not in accordance with Jungs. So rather than saying "the cards portray archetypes as defined by Jung", one shoud say "archetypes as defined by _______ " [name it properly]. Why is it important? I usually like to know what the person is talking about. I suppose most others like it too. When one says "the cards are/refer to archetypes" what are they saying? Most won't be able to answer this question. This is NOT peripheral to the discussion, because one of the points here is whether the images on the cards point back to anything essential or not. If they refer to archetypes, then one must know what artchetypes are. At least. And that will obviously depend on what definition one has in mind. I don't doubt you've read 1/2 if not more of Jung's contributions. But then you must understand the mismatch I'm talking about. I do not necessarily adehere to his ideas but many people seem to think they do, without knowing exactly what his "ideas" were. And I must tell you, I find many of his books hermetic, difficult to read and boring. Alex. Quote: Originally posted by jmd Not everyone uses the term ' archetype ' in its later Jungian sense. Personally, I have more of a Goethean sense for this word (and Goethe's use antedates Jung). If one wishes for a different appreciation of this important term which, to my way of thinking at least, has been diminished by its Jungian-type use, then either read some of Goethe's scientific works, or even refer back to earlier sources, such as Plato... 'Archetype' is not the sole prerogative of psychologists - whether these be Jungian or otherwise. Jung, of course, also makes contributions worth consideration. His bringing to light - amongst other considerations - much alchemical material, and despite his (to my mind) misguided understanding of the same, is nonetheless worth obtaining his collected works for (and I have read about 1/3 to 1/2 of these). This, of course, moves a little peripherally to the central course of the thread.

firemaiden	22 May 2003
Okay, Alex and jmd, be brave, stop turning around that bush, share with us who have read neither enough Jung nor Goethe, nor Plato to know exactly what you are talking about: -archetype meaning one -archetype meaning two -the essense of the difference, -and its implications for tarot. Edited to say: Oops!! I just saw that jmd explained all of this in quite some depth on the Archetypes thread he linked above. (Thanks jmd)

xouroboros	23 May 2003
As my thinking leans more towards the foundational or core aspects of any subject I encounter,I use the word "archetype" in its fundemental meaning from the Greek: arche - first + typos - pattern. Though the eminent Dr. Jung unearthed much in the way of psychological archetypes,I would expand its use to those patterns that also occur exterior to the human Psyche. In Astrology,there are interconnections between Planetary energies which do in fact influence the human Psyche,but these patterns also affect the Planets involved and the whole of Existence. The patterns of exchanged energies produced by aspecting Planets,can be related to archetypes,"primal patterns" of cause-and-effect,for an example.

The Of Tarot, Dilogun, and Incarnated Beings thread was originally posted on 19 May 2003 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.