A look at Tarot as very Ancient, and subject to concerted mis-representation

http://www.tarot-decks.com/cups.html

[edit by jmd: the following appears to be a quote from the given link]

What is the significance of the suit of cups in the tarot?

In most texts, Cups are associated with water (a natural enough connection) and, hence, with water signs
- Pisces, Cancer, and Scorpio - and the astrological meaning of the element of water, which is related to
emotions and the subconscious. Cups are also related to the feminine yin principle, another natural
enough connection.

But symbols, like words, have many levels of meaning. If we give credence to the idea that the tarot was
historically developed by religious Gnostics and/or Sufis, as alluded to briefly in our History of Tarot Cards, then it is
interesting to note that the Persian word for a cup is Jam, and that this same term is related to Thurayya, the term
employed by Arabs when referring to the constellation Pleiades. What does the Pleiades have to do with cups?

In medieval Persian poetry, the constellation of Pleiades was related to the Cup of Jamshid, and the covered cup of
Islamic chivalry. Medieval Christians drew parallels between this latter cup and the Holy Grail. The Holy Grail, of
course, isn't always depicted as a cup, but it often is, and as a cup it is sometimes related to the cup that caught the
sacred blood of Jesus as he was hanging on the cross.

Cups, in any event, are meant to hold something. One of the meanings associated with cups in ancient times was
"memory," as the memory is, in a sense, the receptacle of our life experiences. Of course, many memories are
associated with our emotions - we've come full circle.

In doing a tarot reading, it helps to be aware of these various meanings for cups - emotions, memories, the container of
something sacred.
---------------
a very nice photo of a gnostic artifact on this site.

pan said:

I have shown you my integrity.

Click to expand...

I apologize.

This is a history board.

Not a personal opinion board.

pan said:

You don't deliberate.
You don't think.
You don't reason.
You attack.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between flaming, opinion, and history. Here we indulge in dialogue.

You state opinions without fact, which we have a didactic right to question. When we question, you call “Ad Hominem.”

Such is incorrect.

You hasten to decry us as tools of the Christians and the Catholic sans proof – simply that we choose dialogue as opposed to blind trust.

In two days the number of posts, and the bearing behind them (“Question me and I cry Ad Hominem!”) qualifies as flooding the boards. Second, your demeanor also borders on flaming.

no, when you attack me personally, instead of
adressing the ideas or information that i have presented, i call ad hominem.

i am not going to argue with somebody who
apparently plans to run a simple character assassination scam.

its better to ignore those.
and keep making sense.

which i have no doubt will infuriate you to the point that you will eventually go away.

“Ad Hominem” is when an idea is dismissed by attacking the character of the person who presents it.

You have not been personally attacked. Your ideas have been questioned – which you take as a personal attack.

Your syllogism is fallacious.

pan said:

Show me a 'pan' card and I'll believe this.
-------------
great. The De ev i = devil was a demonization
of the nature spirits of the Vedas. Satan was a demonization of the judaic Hsaten or tester.
All references to "the devil" are thus christian
inventions. Looking with lucidity at the progression of the matrix of the major arcana,
the card is about a dynamic uprising of the instinctive unconscious mind; a potentially dangerous psychological energy, but not one with
the connotations which the christian demonizations
ascribe. The personality and archetype of "pan"
is one of the oldest known to anthropology, dating back
to stone age "sympathetic magic" and manifesting in different forms in many different cultures. From Herne, to Cernunnos To Pan to Bhaccus, To Dionysius to Kokopeilli, the flute playing half animal (instinct) half human is not only a primal
archetype, its the genuine article in this case.
-----------------

Click to expand...

I understand the links between the Devil and the archtype of Pan and the trickster, but once again I have to state that just because the two are so similar does not mean that the Devil card was originally simply the Catholic Church changing the 'Pan card'. It doesn't logically follow that because two deities are similar in concept (in this case they both are aspects of the Trickster archetype found in so many religions) that one is a corruption of the other. It is true that it is claimed widely that the Devil was simply Christianity taking the Pagan Horned God and making Him evil, but we do not see this happening in the Tarot. There is no Pan card to show the corruption occurring. And Roman Book Burnings do not account for this in my opinion, since we have so much literature that was not lost in such fires: surely if we still have quite a substantial amount of literature survived from these fires, at least one single part of a 'Pagan deck' would have survived aswell?

Also, you may wish to look at some
of the recent discoveries that state that the 'original' Tarot pack may
actually have only been 70 cards:
----------
I am sue that the dark ages of tarot will fascinate many on this board. That period of time
after they tried to eliminate tarot and paganism,
as certain pagan symbols and images continued and
slowly re-established themselves. Fascinating stuff. I prefer to access the higher level information i now have.
----------

Click to expand...

*Ahem* Was that an ad hominem? Methinks it was my friend. I get the idea: you're wonderfully enlightened and I am merely a stupid being with no real understanding of 'the truth'. At least I'm in good company.

Could it be that the cards have so much 'Christianization' because they were created by Christians not by Pagans? I think this is obvious, since we have no evidence of any such 'pagan decks'.
------------
we have NO evidence? I think theres plenty of evidence. In the cards themselves, and if we really
bothered to look, in the pre-celt symbol systems.

Further, the conspicous absence of evidence may have another cause;
HAVE YOU STOPPED TO CONSIDER THE PAGAN GENOCIDES AND BOOK BURNINGS?
----------

Click to expand...

Which pre-Celt symbol systems do you refer to? And once again I will appeal to a 'similarity' argument: people, no matter what their religion or culture, appear to think in very similar way when it comes to 'cosmic' matters. This is why we get archetypes. I would not be surprised to find similarities between the symbols found in the earlier Tarot decks of the 15th century and some other culture, but it does not logically follow that the culture it is similar to was the original 'inventor' of Tarot or that it had anything to do with Tarot.

When we look at the cards themselves, as you suggest, we all see different things: catboxer sees Roman Catholic Italy in the 15th century. Diana sees the Knights Templar. But just because we see something in the cards does not mean it is really there: it simply means we're interpreting what's really there. Hey, if it works that's great, but we cannot logically follow through with the argument that: oh, there are symbols in the cards which I think look similar to {insert thing here}, ergo that thing they look similar to helped 'create' the Tarot or pre-dated this version of the Tarot that we know today.

If you work well with the idea that the Tarot has some pre-Christian roots then fine, but you cannot expect us to all ascribe to that belief. Personally, I see alot of themes from Celtic myths and legends in the Tarot but I do not think the Tarot was Celtic: I see that the Tarot deals with universal concepts that are found throughout the world. No wonder the Tarot can be applied to so many different cultures and times!

the Tarot deck, such as the Devil, have Pagan 'counterparts' that are very similar, but I think this is due to the similarity in most religions instead of the Tarot deck being Pagan originally.
----------
oaky dokey. You are entitled to your opinion.
I disagree. I think its pretty obvious what
the real truth is and i think you are burying
your head in a delusion. I hope we can still both
eat bleu cheese.
-----------

Click to expand...

Well, gee, thanks for the vote of confidence and the not-so-subtle insult. I'm deluded? You know the complete truth? I can see this is turning into an 'I'm right and you're wrong' kind of debate, but if you wish to feel superior to everybody else I don't think you should go about it by claiming such a thing.

Christians were aware of the four elements: the four elements are not solely
a Pagan thing.
------
try bringing four element theory up in any christian church and see how long it taks them to
kick you out the door.

Four element theory was and is a pagan concept.
it filtered into christianity as pagans were forced at pain of death to give up their native religions and become christians.
----------

Click to expand...

I think you;ve misunderstood what I mean when I say 'four elements'. I do not mean it in the way modern-day Wiccans and pagans do, but in the sense that the Greeks and early philosophers meant it: 'the world is made up of four elements, Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.' Christianity, especially in it's earlier forms, absolutely adored the Greeks and used much of their philosophy. Why should they not also ascrible to the idea that there are four elements that make up the world? And I think nearly all Christian churches these days will accept the statement 'The world is made up of four elements' as fact and have no problem with it.

Pan, by all means have your intuitive insights into Tarot, but please do not try to say that they are historical proof, and please do not try to say that we are wrong for disagreeing with something that is not only quite implausible but also has no proof. I apologise for being a stickler for proof, but before I go believing any wild theories, I like to have something to base my belief on.

Kiama
------------
i didn't ask you to believe. I asked you to consider. I asked you to think. I presented my ideas. You experienced a knee jerk reaction and now, the battle is on. But i think if any objective observer reads what i have written and
what has been said, they will conclude that you folks attacked me, not vice versa.

are my theories wild? do i lack locked-down proofs?
sure.

are my ideas implausable?
Not at all. They are completely within the realm of possibility and reason.
Its just not convenient for you to think so.

Click to expand...

Please note both this post and the last one: was that not me considering and exploring your ideas? Just because my consideration of them has not brought me grovelling at your feet for forgiveness of my oh-so-unenlightened stupidity and delusion, does not mean I have not considered them. My ideas are also not implausible, yet you have given them no consideration and in places just call me deluded. No personal attack was given at any point in my post: instead I asked you not to expect us all to believe you and take your words as gospel, and I disagreed with your ideas.

You have failed to follow my example.
You have not done a point for point
analysis.

Click to expand...

Don't think I can be accused of this. Happy yet?

Kiama

This thread is open again.

I want to ask everyone who is participating in this thread to take a deep breath, to realise that we're discussing something really important here, and that we are all entitled to our own opinions and theories - whatever we think of the theories.

As Moderator I am asking for everyone to make sure they have read the forum guidelines and that they respect them.

No more sarcasms, no more attacks. No more stabbing please. Let us remember that we are discussing TAROT here and not people. I repeat: We are discussing TAROT.

Or else this thread will be closed for good and that will be a real pity.

That is the Moderator-Diana talking.

Now, the Member-Diana says: MORE DISCUSSION PLEASE!!!! I'm really enjoying myself here. It is a most fascinating thread.

thank you, Diana

To continue this interesting discussion.

• but before I do:
  
  [*]please note that I have decided to delete five posts which did not, in my perhaps erroneous judgement, contribute to the discussion of Tarot, but only defined 'ad hominem' in ways which only added to what I consider personal ad hominem abuse. If unsure as to the term after reading posts I have left, please consult a dictionary

It is difficult to try to pick up the general thread of this thread, but a number of thematic statements of interest run through, which I will try to summarise:

• the first is the claim of concerted mis-information by the Catholic Church for purposes political. I suppose that there are many reasons why any particular group in power may wish to suppress certain views, some of which may be to maintain its power, but more importantly, also because it truely believes that its views are correct, and that other views which undermine it may be detrimental to 'the truth';
  
• the second is that claim that Tarot arose many thousands of years ago, and that it somehow seeded impulses in various cultures. Personally, I see many of Tarot's individual images also represented in culturally determined forms prior to Tarot's existence. I do not consider that cultures (prior to, say, the proto-renaissance of the 12th century) viewed the world or thought in ways quite similar to our own ways of viewing the world. An 'awakening' of consciousness seems to also have occured, prior to which views may have been quite different. It is interesting that with this 'awakening' also arose Kabalah as we know it, Freemasonry, and Tarot (I am not implying here a inter-connected relation, other than each emerges from a new impulse of awakening in humanity). As such, I just am at a loss as to how to accept any existence of Tarot (except as a spiritual reality) in times postulated, without giving me some reason or evidence for the same;
  
• with specific regards to pan's sense of persecution and attacks, what I find difficult is the way in which, to give one specific example (amongst others I could have chosen, but will not for reasons which may become clearer below), s/he claims of others that 'you fail to specifically address my arguments regarding the reasonableness of making this assumption [Tarot going 'back further than the 10th century', in this case]. The problem is, there is, to my reading, no argument presented for the reasonableness of the assumption, rather statements of his or her superior 'knowledge', as being freed from the 'matrix'.
  
  (On a side note, it took me a while to decipher this last comment, and realise it somehow referred to a modern-day cinematographic version of Descartes's deceitful daemon - with the implication that the rest of us remain chained within, to use yet more classical sources, the rock within the cave of shadows, unable to see the Greater Light of the Sun, nor listen to the enlightened words of the one who has been priviledged to be freed and see the world of natural light outside the coccoon of the cave. It also reminds me of a wonderful comment once made that 'those of us who claim to know everything are a real nuisance to those of us that DO!')
  
  pan, part of the difficulty is definitely not discussion or considerations of your ideas, no matter how far-fetched or weird they may be for some. The real difficulty is in presenting them in ways which respects our own intelligence, thereby contributing to genuine search for further understanding and investigating the Tarot.

"what i don't notice is anybody scratching their heads and realizing maybe theres a good darn few reasons why written history seems to start AFTER THE BOOK BURNINGS IN ROME."

Pan, WHICH written history? We have history of Pharaohs in Egypt that go way back further than that. We have written history in India that predates Rome. We have Chinese & Japanese culture laid out for centuries on paper, the Aztecs had their Codexes way into the BC times (Spaniards burned almost all they laid their hands on though). We have pictorial language on rocks on 5 continents... it's everywhere. But if you refer to European history, then you're looking at small groups with specific cultures intermingling on one corner of a continent, and they blended & took from the cultures they traded (or stole) from, over time. Considering the social upheaval, the lack of paper (parchment is flamable, old parchment even more so) and lack of printing presses till Gutenberg, you're looking at the same loss of info that WE have here in the states from the 1800's to the present time if you consider letter writing.

My father tries to collect 19th century postal 'covers'. People didn't save them much. They got destroyed in fire, by insects, by water damage, tossed out when people moved...who keeps grandma's old letters? Who keeps the ENVELOPES? Prior to the 20th century, a lot of stuff is just 'lost' through people's actions and nature. Luck of the draw. Written history is the same way--it has to survive invasions, insects, fire, water, people thinking it's junk, the 'winners' of wars destroying everything they wanted, an uneducated population, mold, animals... Given that you're looking at 1,000 years of time, is it so surprising such little written history DID make it to the year 2003? That what HAS stood the test of time (and not even then sometimes) is writing on stone, carved wood, anything a bit more permanent & immoveable.

Written history has always occurred, survival of such is often based on the whims of fate.

I didn't understand quite either, but I assume it alluded to something like...

http://www.manfredlehmann.com/sieg430.html

And whoever got the original (Egyptian) "Book of Thoth" etc etc. ?

Macavity