Tree of Life. Up or Down?

Maybe this has beencovered before, but if it has I don't know.
It has bugged me for years and years.
Ok. The tree of life. Assuming that all the paths are the major arcana, as many would have it.
Now assume that the initiation of someone into a group such as the GD entails moving up the tree from Malkuth, a journey of enlightenment, let's say.
Well, the tarot trumps are also said to be the fools journey to enlightenment, moving through the cards in order. (you know what I mean)
Well, that's going down the tree, toward malkuth, isn't it?

See what I'm getting at?

I never could reconcile those two things.

Does anyone have any answers?

The move 'down' reflects the order of creation, whereas the 'climb up' reflects what some orders (including pre-GD ones, such as the SRIA) associate with the various grades.

In terms of correlations between Tarot and the Tree, not everyone agrees with the manner in which the GD has decided to place the Atouts on the so-called 'paths' more or less logically consistently arranged.

One of the suggestions, for those who follow the GD attributions, is that indeed the highest valued card that is numbered (XXI - the World) is its densest manifestation, so the journey begins there and moves towards the lower numbers.

It may be worth also noting that, for example, Wirth places the first ten numbered Atouts within the Sefirot, also moving 'down' (not on any connecting 'paths'). Others have varying manner of making working correlations: I, for example, place them in an ascending manner and in pairs (I/XI in Malkut, etc).

Accepting the GD way of doing things is something that has to be decided.

If one does, then the apparent contradictions become easily reconciled in the work. The cards are indeed expressions of manifestation, and here it may be worth considering that we each begin in the spiritual realms and descend to incarnation, until more-or-less fully within the confines of the four elements (Cf XXI). The descent into the physical confines began, of course, from the spiritual heights, as though falling far into ever denser regions (Cf Fool). In each stage or part of the descent one may consider the connections that continues to keep one tethered within oneself, and interconnected (the 'paths' linking the 'proper' spiritual 'parts' - ie, the Sefirot).

If one considers the imagery on the Atouts, it can certainly be considered in this fashion, even if it is not the manner in which I personally consider the most fruitful.

Thank you. You explained that very well.
I am obviously going to have to go and give this some thought, but now I have something to think about. Thanks.

If you look at how the 10 sephira are connected
with just the one big zig-zag line (no pathways),
and then just imagine it laid out in a straight line,
it gets a lot easier to see how the "thing" works.

I can never see how it makes any sense to have
the 22 Majors scattered all over the Tree of Life.
The two ideas seem to me all-together different.

jmd,

I am interested to know how you come by your view of reading the Majors in ascending manner instead of the other direction and why you double them up and what about the other two cards?

Fulgour said:

If you look at how the 10 sephira are connected
with just the one big zig-zag line (no pathways),
and then just imagine it laid out in a straight line,
it gets a lot easier to see how the "thing" works.

I can never see how it makes any sense to have
the 22 Majors scattered all over the Tree of Life.
The two ideas seem to me all-together different.

Click to expand...

Yeah,
I could never see how you covered them all without doubling back on yourself loads. And any how, you can't even go from 4 - 3 directly. (as it is usually drawn)

As is probably obvious, I have frequently been confused by the tree.

Oddly enough I always found that the more I studied that sort of thing, the less i knew, and the less effective my interaction with the tarot became.

Weird, but true

In a post I wrote nearly three years ago, I (very) briefly explain how I came by my personal correlations.I suppose that to be fair, I probably should explain it a little more in that thread... if there is interest.

For myself, I see the Atouts of the Tarot as very much leading one ever towards or more deeply within the spiritual realms, and, in terms of the Tree, a similar process occurs as one climbs towards its roots.

If a correlation is going to be made, then, for myself at least, this deepening or penetration of the spiritual dimension needs to somehow be, in each case, reflected.

Therefore, a climb 'up'... towards the roots - that the purely logical critic will then quite reasonably question my reasons for both the pairing, and whether 'up' is really an 'up'.

unnoficial rookie gab

I've never sat down and done this, but here's
what I think, just looking at the Tree of Life.
*
The Three Horizontals beg to be:
Shin (World)
Aleph (Magician)
Mem (Death)
*
Then there are the Three Pillars:
Severity (left), Unity (center), Mercy (right)
3 cards of your choice for each of these = 9
*
12 down, 10 to go! Just follow your own logic,
based on your choices for the Three Pillars.
One thing ought ever to lead one to the other.

If you accept the idea that the major arcana relate one card each to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, then there is a straight forward way that I came across somewhere that assigns the letters to the pathways. There are three mother letters, men, shin, and aleph. As fulgour suggests, these are the three "cross ways". There are seven "double" letters which are the vertical pathways running top to bottom (there are seven of these). And finally there are the twelve "simple" letters which are the diagonal pathways. The twelve simple letters are also assigned to the twelve signs of the zodiac. Since the tree of life is of Jewish origin I prefer to assign pathways based this way.

I view the tree as ten essential ideas held together by mans symbols of communication, the letters of the alphabet. In Hebrew each letter has associated ideas, thus the symbolism for each major arcana. If I get more time I will try and list the pathways I use.

There are, however, various 'problems' with assumptions that a version of the Tree such as seemingly favoured by A. Kaplan is 'correct'. The first is of course the question as to whether the connecting 'paths' actually number twenty-two. Another is how to reconcile the statement about the arrangement of the letters in a circle(s) or sphere(s) as mentioned in the Sefer Yetzirah with the allocation of 'paths' for the letters.

These are not unsurmountable problems, just simply worthy of added reflection and not assumed correctness. After all, even A. Kaplan Sefer Yetzirah has not only errors (some Hebrew letters are incorrect), but also the Trees therein do not properly belong to the text.

A study of a descent, or of formation, is a different endeavour to one's own ascent.