Which cards are the Prophets?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 10 Jan 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

dangerdork	10 Jan 2003
I mentioned in the “Perspectives” thread how many roles each of us play in our lives, and since we’ve been discussing spirituality and authority figures, let’s look at some great historical religious figures. Many great religious leaders were reformers or revolutionaries – Jesus, Buddha, Martin Luther, Gandhi, all were trying to bring about a radical change in the status quo of their contemporaries’ spiritual thinking, right? And isn’t this a changing or redefining of borders, as Umbrae would describe it? So these men all, in a way, were Trickster. And in that conceit, Trickster is The Fool. I’ll buy that… these men all had to play the Fool in their lives: mocked, misunderstood, innocent and wise, sophisticated beyond those around them and naïve all at once. The Prophets are The Fool. But wait. Didn’t the prophets need to withdraw, and seek divine guidance? Buddha to the Bo tree, Jesus to the desert, Moses to the burning bush, Muhammad to his caves? Take a good hard look at the Hermit card now… can’t you see all of them? If these men are to be held up as the great spiritual visionaries, the leaders and the teachers, it is because their Enlightenment was recognized. And the wellspring of that Enlightenment – the key to it -- lies somewhere in their experiences as The Hermit. At the end of the Hermit phase, after enlightenment, the Prophet returns to the world of society, changed and cleansed and different from all those around him. This is a beautiful parallel to MY analysis of the Fool as the Feral Child… the one who is raised by animals, usually wolves, but who eventually returns one day to the civilized world with a unique and untainted perspective. And inevitably, that’s when the story gets interesting. OK, now the Prophets play an alternative take on the role of the Fool. And now some divergence – Let’s take Moses and Muhammad first. They went out there, did their stint as the Hermit, and when they came BACK, they said, “Here’s the rules. GOD wrote ‘em down for me.” Hierophants, definitely Hierophants. Jesus and Buddha, however, did things a little differently. Their Enlightenment was clear to all those around them, but they couched their messages differently. Hierophants? Maybe. But they were storytellers, miracle workers. They said in effect: “This is how it is, but dude, don’t take MY word for it. Think for yourselves. You’ll see that I’m right.” This sounds WAY more like the Magician to me. The followers of those men, who believed in them and carried their messages, were their Hierophants. Jesus and Buddha were Magicians. We could go on… Christ was also definitely The Hanged Man, for example. But hopefully I’ve made the point that this single archetype of “the Prophet” can be represented and reflected in a number of Majors, that when any single mythic or archetypal figure is examined dynamically, in all its various dimensions, greater understanding can be achieved. I hope y’all agree at least that it’s fun to look at it this way.

Baneemy	10 Jan 2003
Maybe he isn't quite on par with Jesus, Muhammad, and company, but the Magician card always makes me think of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. For me, the meaning of the Magician card lies in its ambiguity. In historical decks, he is usually a stage magician, a charlatan, fooling his audience with sleight of hand. In occult decks he is a genuine magus. It seems like a huge difference in meaning, but the pictures that represent these two kinds of "magician" are strikingly similar -- and I think real-life magicians often play both roles. On the surface, Joseph Smith was a Muhammad-like Hierophant. Dis a little deeper and you find a charmingly audacious con man, making things up as he went along and getting away with whatever he could. Dig even deeper, and you find that underneath it all he was a genuine magus, well-versed in the occult, brilliantly creative, and having a highly evolved private understanding of the Mysteries. I think this paradoxical mix of enlightenment and deception is the essence of the Magician card. (Of course, then Brigham Young took over, and he was 100% Emperor.) -Baneemy

dangerdork	10 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Baneemy It seems like a huge difference in meaning, but the pictures that represent these two kinds of "magician" are strikingly similar -- and I think real-life magicians often play both roles. I'm totally with you on that. And that stuff about the foundations of the Mormon church is really interesting, thanks for posting it.

Baneemy	10 Jan 2003
I wonder if the Tower might not also be an appropriate card for many of the Prophet.... he comes as a bolt from the blue and shakes the religious establishment to its foundations. I think of how Jesus said that he would (figuratively) destroy the temple in Jerusalem, which was one of the main charges brought against him when he was arrested. -Baneemy

ihcoyc	10 Jan 2003
It may be somewhat blasphemous to repeat this, but I read somewhere that the three major prophets of the Hebrew Bible represent the three worst forms of psychological disorders. Isaiah is the manic type; Jeremiah is the depressive type; Ezekiel is the psychotic type. On the strength of these identifications, I would say that Isaiah is the Chariot; Jeremiah, the Moon; Ezekiel, the Tower.

Diana	10 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by dangerdork (.....) Jesus, Buddha, Martin Luther, Gandhi, all were trying to bring about a radical change in the status quo of their contemporaries’ spiritual thinking, right? And isn’t this a changing or redefining of borders, as Umbrae would describe it? So these men all, in a way, were Trickster. And in that conceit, Trickster is The Fool. I’ll buy that… these men all had to play the Fool in their lives: mocked, misunderstood, innocent and wise, sophisticated beyond those around them and naïve all at once. The Prophets are The Fool. I don't get this at all. The Trickster, is he not "at one and the same time creator and destroyer, giver and negator, he who dupes others and who is always duped himself . . . He possesses no values, moral or social, is at the mercy of his passions and appetites, yet through his actions all values come into being. . . . (The Trickster, A Study in American Indian Mythology) - Paul Radini Is he not the Maker of Mischief, at the same time as the Enemy of Boundaries? Gandhi a Maker of Mischief? I don't see where your examples fit in here. Jesus and Buddha were naive? Innocent?

dangerdork	10 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana I don't get this at all. The Trickster, is he not "at one and the same time creator and destroyer, giver and negator, he who dupes others and who is always duped himself . . . He possesses no values, moral or social, is at the mercy of his passions and appetites, yet through his actions all values come into being. . . . (The Trickster, A Study in American Indian Mythology) - Paul Radini Is he not the Maker of Mischief, at the same time as the Enemy of Boundaries? Gandhi a Maker of Mischief? I'm at a disadvantage, having read neither "The Trickster..." that you cite, nor "Trickster Makes this World" cited several times by Umbrae. I was trying to describe the Trickster from what I understood of Umbrae's description: The changer of boundaries, the capricious one. I was trying to apply what I believe I've learned here. I could certainly be wrong. Most cultures have Trickster figures, and I don't know that the Native American characteristics listed, of amorality and sociopathic lack of values are necessarily universal. I've never seen the Trickster archetype quite that way. I DO see trickster as a rebel, and I will stand by my statement that Jesus and Buddha were rebels, and so was Gandhi. They were reformers, they wanted to change the rules, and I don't see that as a bad thing, I see it as a positive thing. When societal or spiritual mores are out of balance, SOMEBODY should speak up - and if you look across cultures at all the different pantheons, I think the Trickster archetypes are the ones who resonate most strongly with those principles, for me anyway. And I DO see the Enlightened, the holy men as reborn, and innocent as children. An awesome fictional example of this would be Valentine Michael Smith from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. There is a quality there, of being so clean and visionary, that they cannot possibly understand why ANYONE would sin. I guess when you draw these kinds of comparisons you have strong correlations and loose ones, and this is a loose one. I like it anyway. Am I making sense yet?

Shadow Wolf	10 Jan 2003
This is a very interesting post. I was particularly interested when it was stated that Jesus was the Hanged Man, at first I didn't get it. The hanging on the cross was too obvious. Since the hanged means that no action is not possible that things are in a state of suspension, I realized that this is really how he lived his life and , being who he was, it must have been very frustrating for him. To love God so much and to be so eager and willing to do His will and then have to try to teach it to a bunch of ingnorant people who didn't want to listen. He must have felt like the hanged man a lot. It kinda' makes me see Him in a different light !!!!! Thanks for the post !!!!!!

Umbrae	10 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by dangerdork I'm at a disadvantage, having read neither "The Trickster..." that you cite, nor "Trickster Makes this World" cited several times by Umbrae. I was trying to describe the Trickster from what I understood of Umbrae's description: The changer of boundaries, the capricious one. I was trying to apply what I believe I've learned here. I could certainly be wrong… I apologize in advance – I may misinterpret your post. However a point needs to be stressed. All non-Christian or pre-Christian cultures enjoy the trickster figure. In all cultures, the Trickster is not a human. This is an important aspect of the Trickster archetype, being neither human nor god. (Through his actions he creates the world where men and gods are separate (which defines two worlds), and is also by his actions, is elevated to, and granted, a godlike status.) Therefore, when a human emulates the trickster – he is something else – not the trickster per se. Hence, my interpretation of the Le Bateleur and La Papesse – the human trickster emulators. Rebels are human – therefore can only be classified as Le Bateleur, La Papesse, or…Le Pape (Hierophant). Then again they could be Le Empereur or La Imperatrice…but never Il Matto. I do hope this clarifies and removes confusion.

Alex	10 Jan 2003
Because you associate the Hierophant with tradition and conservatism, you cannot see these prophets in him. Because you associate The Fool with all that is good and inovative, you tend to associate the people you admire with that archetype. However, the teachings of Jesus have become institutionalized. What Martin Luther fought for, has become the law. All systems of belief have a built in "evolutionary clock" that in times will afford innovative systems to spring... And they spring in the form of liders that have made a new sense out of things; these liders lead, others carry out that transformation. Both tensions, that of preserving the system, and that of craking it, work in concert. Both are sides of the same coin. The old dies, the new is born, they are different... yet it's all part of the same process. Alex. Quote: Originally posted by dangerdork Many great religious leaders were reformers or revolutionaries – Jesus, Buddha, Martin Luther, Gandhi, all were trying to bring about a radical change in the status quo of their contemporaries’ spiritual thinking, right? And isn’t this a changing or redefining of borders, as Umbrae would describe it? So these men all, in a way, were Trickster. And in that conceit, Trickster is The Fool. I’ll buy that… these men all had to play the Fool in their lives: mocked, misunderstood, innocent and wise, sophisticated beyond those around them and naïve all at once. The Prophets are The Fool.

HudsonGray	10 Jan 2003
I wonder if you're asking too much by trying to put real people into archetype molds. Archetypes are specific & limited in many ways, whereas real people are multi-dimensional. By trying to fit them to a specific card, this seems so limiting & negates some of the other aspects that are known about the people, in effect turning them into one dimensional beings (or a tad more, but never a fully realised person--the archetype mold would negate any well roundedness). As such, I sort of see this as fitting round pegs into square holes, you can cram some of them in, but they're not really what the cards originally were designed around. Doesn't that distract, in some ways, from the main identification of the card itself? If you're limiting your view of the person you're associating with the cards (Jesus, Buddha, etc.) then yes, it might fit. But it would leave confusion for anyone else who doesn't know which aspects you've decided on. (The Trickster in Africa is the Spider, isn't it? I'm mostly only familiar with the Native American Coyote/Raven version--who doesn't fit the Fool mold at all, he's "A" fool, but there's no naive innocence there or morals/ethics so you loose half of what you need).

Major Tom	11 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by HudsonGray I wonder if you're asking too much by trying to put real people into archetype molds. Archetypes are specific & limited in many ways, whereas real people are multi-dimensional. I have to agree with HudsonGray. No person is a single archtype, but at any given moment can reflect one. Pick out any individual and we could cite examples from their actions to illustrate any archtype. This is not to negate your observations - they remain valid - but I feel they are rather limiting.

samantha	11 Jan 2003
Exactly. Archetypes are products of , particular , societies and ages. There may be similarities , or blurrings , between some of these , but others will bear little or no resemblance to each other, and are therefore culture specific. I lived in Asia for a number of years , and noticed that when I did readings for non-native (english) speakers I had a harder time understanding the "message" I was given than when I did them for Westeners. I don't know , but it did occur to me that this might have been because the contexts embedded in, some of , the cards were , on some level,different for the two groups. Similarly , when I went to see Asian fortune tellers I could not "connect "with some of the things they said. I don't just think this has to do with language (I had fabulous translators with me usually !!), but rather entering into a differing mind set. On some level the cards must reflect this. Anybody who has grown up in a dual environment (bi-lingual?) could probably set me straight on this !

HudsonGray	11 Jan 2003
Samantha, how did the fortune tellers in Asia do their readings? With sticks? Oracle? I-Ching? Tarot? I'm wondering how different it is from the UK & USA. Basically what it's like.

Alex	12 Jan 2003
According with Jung humans have a "preconscious psychic disposition that enables him/her to react in a human manner." These basic archetypes or patterns exist at the unconscious level, as "potentials for significance" so as to say. There are a variety of specific images which point back to these few patterns. These are "archetypal images". Jung tried to link the archetypes to biology and regarded them as "instinctual" what means, they are "inherited". We are born with these patterns which structure our mind and make it distinctly human. Archetypes are thus very closely linked to our bodies. Archetypes are NOT culturally driven. We are "born" with them. Specific REACTIONs to experiences that point back to/ are interpreted under the light of unconscious archetypes however, may be *in part* culturally driven. Alex. Quote: Originally posted by samantha Exactly. Archetypes are products of , particular , societies and ages.

samantha	12 Jan 2003
HudsonGray: Hi ! So , the fortune tellers that I went to see each used a variety of devices at a consultation . One woman I went to see quite alot used Tarot , numerology , palmistry and astrology in her combined reading , whilst another guy used Tarot , astrology and Feng Shui . (The latter usually as "advice" ......one time I ended up buying red objects for the bathroom , and yellow ones for the entrance lobby. The red was to improve my immune system , and co-incidence or not , my health improved shortly afterwards.) I said that I could not always connect with the message that was given to me. I will try and give an example of this . I remember at one reading the lady tapped one of the Tarot cards most emphatically (It was the World ) and said , via the translator , "You need to focus more on your family life ! Have you considered getting married or starting a family ? (!!!!) They could give you the kind of stability that you are looking for. If you cannot do that , then think about having some more female friends, because I see that you hang out with the boys too much........(!!)" Quite apart from the message itself ........ I could not see why she had assigned this meaning to the World card .The "translator" in question that day was my Asian boyfriend. I told him what I considerd the card to represent (:personal integration ). This sparked off a big debate about the processes necessary to arrive there. Anyway , whilst I took the line that this was more likely to come about due to individual efforts and self analysis , he maintained that it was more likely to occur from interacting with others and group dialogue. Perhaps this is just the opposite side of the same coin , but the focus was different . And I would suspect culturally defined. This brings me to...... Alex : Yes ! Having re-read my , clumsy , words , your posting , and having talked it over with the rest of the house (just what they want on a sunday afternoon !!!!) I will try to explain myself better. What I wanted to say , was that interpretations of archetypes tend to be culturally specific. Thus , for example , whilst the need for the archetype of justice is universal , the way it is carried out and reasons for so doing out will be different. This may account for my inability to make sense of some of the cards that I was reading (or leastways to put them into a cohesive overall picture). In hind site I believe that my Asian friends chose the cards whose connotations etc were imbedded in their own psyche , but not my own. Hence the confusion when it came to interpreting them.

zander770	12 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Shadow Wolf I was particularly interested when it was stated that Jesus was the Hanged Man, at first I didn't get it. . . . It kinda' makes me see Him in a different light !!!!! have you ever heard of key's #1/the magician, #5/the heirophant, and #9/the hermit refered to as the three wise men? just wondering . . . ~z~770 :THANG

Alex	12 Jan 2003
Samantha Technically speaking, Justice isn't an "archetype". Archetypes are more or less equivalent to "instincts" and direct the way we perceive/ interpret the world. Examples of Jung's archetypes are the shadow, animus, anima, the self. I myself have been very lousy in the way I use the term Archetype, but techincally speaking, many of us are using it innapropriately. Thanks Alex. Quote: Originally posted by samantha Alex : Yes ! Having re-read my , clumsy , words , your posting , and having talked it over with the rest of the house (just what they want on a sunday afternoon !!!!) I will try to explain myself better. What I wanted to say , was that interpretations of archetypes tend to be culturally specific. Thus , for example , whilst the need for the archetype of justice is universal , the way it is carried out and reasons for so doing out will be different.

HudsonGray	12 Jan 2003
I was under the impression that all the majors were archtypes. Was I wrong?

Alex	12 Jan 2003
Umbrae (this one is for you presonally then). If you say so. In case Samantha complains about my "tone" I'll apologyze. *To her*. Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae I must come to the defense of the poster who has been wronged, who has been addressed in a ‘tone’ reserved for bad children. No no. I was thinking and writting and thinking. "Archetype", as defined by Jung ( I know nothing about the word prior to Jung's usage) pertains "preconscious" or "unconscious" psychic "patterns" (up to here the dictionary definition fits) thought which our mind interprets experiences in a way that is common to all "humans". Jung wrote several chapters in different books trying to link archetypes to biology and explain them in terms of "instincts". (Actually that's the only reason why I read his books and it was been almost ten years ago). As biology was not his area, his analogy with biological terms was very loose, and that's why I wrote "more or less like instincts".... Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae “Justice isn’t an archetype”…Flat out statement as though it was an unarguable fact, not open to discussion, not a personal opinion…nope…Justice isn’t an archetype. Then the archetype is defined…using the words “more or less”…what? You mean it is open for question?. [/b] I hope I've been clear here. I don't think Justice is an archetype in the sense defined by Jung (not that it matters how HE defined it but that's what *I* was discussing). However, the mattter is certainly open for discussion, or questioning. I don't mind discussion it, but it's not anything close to my area of specialization so I probably won't be able to carry the discussion much further. But someone else might. Alex.

Alex	12 Jan 2003
they are archtypal images, not archtypes. Alex. Quote: Originally posted by HudsonGray I was under the impression that all the majors were archtypes. Was I wrong?

HudsonGray	12 Jan 2003
But the images are representing the types. No matter what the Magician looks like in 300+ decks, it always represents the Magician, and hence the archtype.

Alex	13 Jan 2003
What I meant is: there are certain inherited "programs" in our minds which determine the way we interpret reality and relate to each other. These are Archetypes. One example of archetype: The Soul. The female name for soul is Animus. Every boy is born with a little program in his head that pre-determines the way he will relate to the female soul. This "program", or archetype, is called "animus". First comes his mom. Every boy will react to/relate with Mom in a similar way. However, Mom is an "archetypal image", not the archetype itself. The archetype is the animus. Latter in life he'll realte with girlfriend. He'll relate with girlfriend in a way similar to the way he related with mom, not because he suffers from an aedipus complex, but because the "archetype" in men's head which directs relationships with women is the same. With sexual maturity different aspects of this Archetype are triggered, but the "basis" is the same. Each person has his own history. The particulartities of his relationship with Mom, more specifically, how close she is to Animus and how close she is to the archetypal image (here image because it involves a gender role that is in part culturally driven) of his culture and time, will also determine the way he relates with girlfriend. But these things are different according with Jung's theory: Archetype, Archetypal image (including cultural determinations) and personal history. I hope now I'm being more clear. I hope you don't think I'm talking with you like you're a bad child or something like that. It's very difficult for me to put my thoughts into words about something I have not studied very deeply, and in a language that is not mine. My intent here is to share what I know, and discuss what I know in the light of what others know. If my oppinion is not wellcome in the discussion, someone will have to let me know, and I'll go do something else. Regards Alex. Quote: Originally posted by HudsonGray But the images are representing the types. No matter what the Magician looks like in 300+ decks, it always represents the Magician, and hence the archtype.

Keslynn	14 Jan 2003
First, just a little nitpick. The female aspect of the soul is the Anima. The male is the animus. Second, is the male always going to relate to women as the Empress/Anima archetype? Isn't the High Priestess part of the anima/feminine principal as well? Is she just part of the "feminine archetype" in general or does she count as an archetype of her own? :) Kes

Alex	14 Jan 2003
Sure, I messed it up. Anima is the male name for soul Animus is the female name for soul) Males meet their Anima. Females meet their Animus. I see (it hasn't been that long I've been thinking about it) the feminine/masculine figures in the tarot as archetypal images that relate to the Soul archetype. They appeal/relate to different aspects of that Archetype. There are very few things on earth that are more boring than reading Jung (at least for me). Therefore, I don't want to go any deeper into this subject if that means I have to grab a book... but I have wished and hoped someone with more knowledge in it would show up in this thread... and say something... blessings Alex. Quote: Originally posted by Keslynn First, just a little nitpick. The female aspect of the soul is the Anima. The male is the animus. Second, is the male always going to relate to women as the Empress/Anima archetype? Isn't the High Priestess part of the anima/feminine principal as well? Is she just part of the "feminine archetype" in general or does she count as an archetype of her own? :) Kes

Minos	26 Jan 2003
This may sound like a weird answer, but I'd say the Lovers. A s I see it, the card represents a marriage, and specifically a royal marriage. So it's not just love, but love as the basis of a new social contract. Viewed in this way, it would correspond to the establishment of a new order by a prophet, based on a wise understanding of human nature and provision for human desires and aspirations. Of course, that applies mostly to the Thoth deck, where the Hermit stands at the center of the whole thing. (BTW: The Golden Dawn esoteric title for the Lovers was: "The Children of the Voice; The Oracle of the Mighty Gods." One of my personal favorites.)

Minos	26 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by zander770 have you ever heard of key's #1/the magician, #5/the heirophant, and #9/the hermit refered to as the three wise men? just wondering . . . ~z~770 :THANG Yeah. Or three Magi, literally. The Golden Dawn had secret, esoteric titles for all the cards. The Magician was the Magus of Power. The Hierophant was the Magus of the Eternal The Hermit was the Prophet of the Eternal; The Magus of the Voice of Power

TemperanceAngel	02 Feb 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Minos The Golden Dawn had secret, esoteric titles for all the cards. The Magician was the Magus of Power. The Hierophant was the Magus of the Eternal The Hermit was the Prophet of the Eternal; The Magus of the Voice of Power I have never read about the Golden Dawns secret esoteric titles, and wondered if anyone could list some more, please? Or recommend a site/book? :) Great thread, really interesting and thought provoking..... I felt that there could be more light to be shed on this topic :D XTAX

Kirali	02 Feb 2004
Quote: Originally posted by TemperanceAngel I have never read about the Golden Dawns secret esoteric titles, and wondered if anyone could list some more, please? Or recommend a site/book? :) Great thread, really interesting and thought provoking..... I felt that there could be more light to be shed on this topic :D XTAX Hey I know this is off topic but I just wanted to give you the link to the thread where Lee and Laurel were kind enough to list the Golden Dawn titles for me. Golden Titles hope that helped. But to be on topic, what is the specific definition of an archetype that we're talking about here?

The Which cards are the Prophets? thread was originally posted on 10 Jan 2003 in the Using Tarot Cards board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Using Tarot Cards, or read more archived threads.