Med. on the Tarot - Letter 2

jmd

As with each of the Letters of this incredible book, to isolate and discuss parts takes away from the whole. Nonetheless, to discuss the whole requires that each part be slowly grasped, reflected upon and reached the point of one's own insight (regarding insight, there is also a brilliant philosophical book by B. Lonergan simply titled Insight, which, compared to Meditations on the Tarot, is dense!).

With the Papess, or High Priestess, the pure act of the Magician, which cannot itself be grasped, is here given the space where it can be reflected.
The reflection of the pure act produces an inner representation, which becomes retained by the memory; memory becomes the source of communication by means of the spoken word; and the communicated word becomes fixed by means of writing, by producing the "book".

The second Arcanum, the High Priestess, is that of the reflection of the pure act of the first Arcanum up to the point where it becomes "book".
Later on, the Unknown Author (UA) also points out that when mysticism becomes conscious of itself, through this very reflection of, in that case, the mystical act, it becomes gnosis.

The High Priestess, then, allows for this so important reflective quality, in which the imaginative life is given the space for the spiritual enlivening of the otherwise deadened reflections to take place, and, through this, to unfold and germinate meaningful living symbols from the seeds of the reflected act.
 

punchinella

One thing leaping out at me after reading this letter (& that's been troubling me all week) is the comparison between--for lack of better terms--eastern & western attitudes, the pursuit of being versus the pursuit of love . . . love, feeling, tears, etc. characterizing Cabbalistic & Christian mysticism, but eastern paths leaving one with dry eyes. I wonder whether this is quite fair. On the other hand, I wonder if it might not be true.

???

I have Buddhist friends who tell me that anger is always bad.

--How, I ask them, can a natural human emotion always be bad? --To say that is to imply that humans are naturally bad, is it not?

I suppose Buddhists might question the Christian notion of 'original sin' using much the same argument! --?

Jmd, you don't have to respond to this. I do wish that more people were reading this book so we could have a real discussion. I'm not sufficiently intelligent to sustain one myself . . . but if more people were involved I would enjoy reading their perspectives.
 

jmd

I do not recall the context in which the comment is made, and will need to re-read the letter in due time.

With regards the difference between the dry eyes of the 'eastern' path and the tears of the west, it may be also remembered that compassion is regarded as highly important in Buddhism.

Part of the difference, however, is that the eastern path (I realise there are more than one, but for the purposes of this discussion, there are two dichotomised characterisations) also views detachment as essential to liberate one from the confines of illusion ('maya').

By contrast, the 'tears' brings one fully in towards the passion of incarnation.

Others may have differing comments... and it has been a while since I have read the letter/chapter.
 

Ruby7

I am in the middle of reading this chapter right now.

The unknown friend says that one loses the capacity to cry as a result of choosing one "attitude of the soul" as opposed to the other "attitude of the soul"

"He who chooses being will aspire to true being, and he who chooses love will aspire to love. For one only finds that for which one seeks. The seeker for true being will arrive at the experience of repose in being, and, as there cannot be two true beings (the illegitimate twofoldness of Saint-Martin) or two separate co-eternal substances but only one being and one substance, the centre of "false-being" will be suppressed ("false-being" = ahamkara, or the illusion of the separate existence of a separate substance of the "self"). The characteristic of this mystical way is that one loses the capacity to cry. An advanced pupil of yoga or Vedanta will for ever have dry eyes, whilst the masters of the Cabbala, according to the Zohar, cry much and often"

I don't know enough in depth about other religions to comment much further on this. I know that personally I would lean more towards choosing love. This is something that I can feel in a connection to the Divine and everything on earth. I certainly do have the capacity to cry, and this has developed with me in relation to the Divine. So I could really "feel" what the unknown friend was saying and it made sense to me based on my own experience, but I would love to know what a Buddhist thinks of this. My own experience is very limited and in a way I feel that the unknown friend may be exluding other experiences too much.

To quote further,

" Thus the outer characteristic of those who choose the other mystical way, that of the God of love,is that they have the "gift of tears". This is in keeping with the very essence of their mystical experience. Their union with the Divine is not the absorption of their being by Divine Being, but rather the experience of the breath of the Divine Love, the illumination by Divine Love, and the warmth of Divine Love. The soul which receives this undergoes such a miraculous experience that it cries. In this mystical experience fire meets with FIRE. Then nothing is extinguished in the human personality but, on the contrary everything is set ablaze"

Ruby7
 

punchinella

Ruby, is this gorgeous writing or what. In a way I think it's too bad that this description of the experience of love excludes . . . (I do think that the exclusion represents--has to represent!--a bias on the part of unknown friend . . . )

But it's so beautiful & moving that I'm willing to accept it anyway, for what it is.

Last night in the handbook to my Osho Zen deck I found this bit of writing (which I want to share by way of representing something of the 'other side'):

"As you move above to the fourth center--that is the heart--your whole life becomes a sharing of love. The third center has created the abundance of love. By reaching to the third center in meditation, you have become so overflowing with love, with compassion, and you want to share. It happens at the fourth center--the heart. That's why even in the ordinary world people think love comes out of the heart. For them it is just hearsay, they have heard it; they don't know it because they have never reached to their heart. But the meditator finally reaches to the heart. As he has reached to the center of his being--the third center--suddenly an explosion of love and compassion and joy and blissfulness and benediction has arisen in him with such a force that it hits his heart and opens the heart . . . "

~Osho, originally from The Search: Talks on the Ten Bulls of Zen, chapter 2.

(Oh & Ruby, so glad you joined us!!! Maybe we can start threads on the other 'letters' as well, once we read them :) !!! )
 

Ruby7

Hi Punchinella, I got this book a few months ago, but am only just picking it up again. It is a very challenging book to read but very rewarding when I do take the time to read slowly and really absorb what our unknown friend is saying.

I think that I have to agree with you on the bias of our friend, but will also excuse him for it since all that he has to say has such in depth value, as you say, it is so beautiful and moving. His ideas hit a very deep chord with me.

It is nice to share this with you and jmd and maybe others will join in. I plan to keep reading it but very slowly since to read this quickly is only frustrating (impossible to absorb it).

Thanks for sharing the Osho quote it helped a lot.

Ruby7
 

Moongold

Reflections on the second chapter

The more I read this book the more I realize how much I don’t know. I’m educated to post graduate level but not in the areas of philosophy, psychology or mythology. I have just two years Tarot experience and feel that I’ve only there brushed the surface as well. On my first reading of this chapter I felt the familiar heart stopping reaction and thought later it is almost as if you have to stop breathing to hear what is being said. But after a third reading I felt more than a little inadequate.

The explanation of the Magician who dares and the High Priestess who knows is beautiful. The breath of God reflected is one way of seeing both images in relation to each other –beautiful. Later on, UA speaks more of the High Priestess as representing the development of the Gnostic sense – the translation of mysticism to that which is known. The breath becomes conscious, becomes memory, becomes word and then is written. It is quite amazing to think of the story of the unknown becoming known throughout history like that., and still happening that way.

Granted I am new to Tarot, but I’ve always associated the Moon with the High Priestess. Even Irene Gad recognizes the Moon in her explanation of the symbolism and meaning of the High Priestess. UA does not, however and I wondered at the possible meaning of this. This is a text for Christian hermeticists. Is the Moon too much associated with paganism or with a particular type of femininity - sexuality in particular?

I ask this question because something nags at the back of my mind. Whilst these ideas are beautiful they are also quite intellectualized, quite abstract. Is this because UA is male? I come from a very traditional Catholic background and in young adulthood one of the things which turned me away from the official Church was its traditional disregard of women. There often seemed to be two extremes: the rarefied purity of the Virgin Mary or the abject sinner status of Mary Magdalen. I think the Church has condescended to Mary Magdalen and to women generally throughout its history, however, denying their innate goodness and power and allowing them very little say in the organizational Church. But I don’t want to fall into old ways of thinking without rigorous questioning either.

I was also interested in the discussion of God as Love at the commencement of the chapter. UA recounts one approach to the trinity as God is love; the Son is the loved; and the Holy Spirit is the expression of this love (my italics). I have not got the book with me at the moment so am not sure that the quotation is exactly right. I started wondering about where the idea of Trinity really came from (was it the Gospels?) and thinking about this in connection with numerology. I read last night that Jung and others regard numbers as primary archetypes. I’d just didn’t know that and it did make me wonder more about God being understood in these terms: 1. 2 and 3. I wish I knew more – just have to keep on reading I guess.

Something else in this chapter really caught my attention. This was UA’s suggestion that the early religions such as Buddhism depersonalized God, the implication being the God of Christianity reversed that. Christ became human, demonstrating God’s unique love for us. Whilst there is on the one hand, something deeply attractive about this, the personalization of God like this was one of the concepts which turned me away from Christianity in my teens. Ah……. It gets really complicated, doesn’t it?

Again a fascinating experience. Reading this book is like breathing in rarified air. It's exhiliarating at first and then one gets dizzy and looks around for something to hold on to. I am going to read the third chapter this week end. Perhaps one should read the whole book before commenting? I haven’t read all the comments of others on Chapter 2, and look forward to doing this when I make this post.
 

tmgrl2

Excellent reflections. Moongold, I hear your point about the Moon and the association with the HP. Meditations on the Tarot seems to be a progression of ideas. As such, the chapter on the Moon, has 23 pages devoted to it. I'm going to reserve judgment regarding the Moon until I get there (next year??!).

I don't think the chapter disallows an association with the Moon. I just don't think the purpose of the book is to take us in the direction of these associations. Therefore, your association with the Moon is not necessarily mutually exclusive to the ideas in Letter II. Does that make sense?

UA discusses "dualism" in this chapter, in a variety of contexts:
Fire and Wind become Science and Book. Or, in other words, how 'Wisdom builds her house.'

Later, from John iii, 5
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.
and then expanding upon this with

Reintegrated consciousness, which is the Kingdom of God, presupposes two renovations, of a significance comparable to birth, in the two constituent elements of consciousness --active Spirit and reflecting Water. Spirit must become divine Breath in place of arbitrary, personal activity, and Water must become a perfect mirror of the divine Breath instead of being agitated by disturbances of the imagination, passions and personal desires. Reintegrated consciousness must be born of Water and Spirit, after Water has once again become Virginal and Spirit has once again become divine Breath or Holy Spirit. Reintegrated consciousness therefore becomes born within the human soul in a way analagous to the birth or historical incarnation of the WORD.

Regarding the active principle and its mirror and referring to the duality underlying all consciousness, UA quotes Plotinus:
when the mirror is there, the mirror-image is produced, but when it is not there or is not in the right state, the object of which the image would have been is (all the same) actually there. In the same way as regards the soul, when that kind of thing in us which mirrors the images of thought and intellect is undisturbed, we see them and know them in a way parallel to sense-perception, along with the prior knowledge that it is the intellect and thought that are active. But when this is broken because the harmony of the body is upset, thought and intellect operate without an image, and then intellectual activity takes place without a mind picture.

I love these passages. UA goes on to discuss a third point of view, that of love which
presupposes duality and postulates its non-substantial but essential unity.

Thus two is the Divine Breath an its Reflection. One must have the Lover and the Loved. God without having created the World would love no other but himself. Therefore, we have the idea of the Trinity:
the Loving One who loves, the Loved One who loves, and their Love who loves them: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I'm going to post this so I don't lose it. I just loved this part. I want to go over underlined parts later about the "dry eyes."

Later, in the chapter, Moongold, UA does say, however that ala Plato, if the soul as been born many times and has acquired knowledge of all and everything, then research and recollection are both "wholly recollection."

Ua further says that what is necessary
in order to obtain here in the realm of the state of waking consciousness the reflection of that which is above in the mystical domain....is 'to be seated,' i.e. to establish an active-passive state of consciousness, or state of sould which listens attentively in silence. It is necessary to be 'woman,' i.e. to be in the state of silent expectation, and not in that of activity which 'talks.' It is necessary 'to cover with a veil' the intermediate planes between the plane whose reflection is expected and the plane of the state of waking consciousness where the reflection becomes actualized.

With the three-tiered tiara to cover her head in order to apply oneself to a problem that has to do with three worlds, we need the High Priestess, a woman, who is seated, wearing a three-tiered tiara, with the veil above her head to disallow receiving information from the intermediate planes that she doesn't wish to perceive.

So, the feminine concept is indeed here, just not related to the Moon.

Posting...more this weekend. LOVE THIS BOOK!
 

tmgrl2

I read through the last part of the second letter again last night.

The part about the "gift of tears" versus the way of "dry eyes," seemed to be discussing two ways: "the way of being" practiced by masters prior to Christ, and the way of loving. The Stoics (way of being) practiced depersonalization, hence the inability to cry whereas those who practiced the "way of loving," were capable of the "gift of tears." The way of loving is then pursued through various doctrines that are mutually supportive.

The rest of the chapter is long, but it seems one of the key points from here to the end of the letter, is that the way of loving leads to
mysticism, gnosis and effective magic, which manifests itself outwardly as Hermietic philosophy.

There ensues a discussion of the doctrine of the ten Sephiroth of the Cabbala, which gives us an example of "peace" than can come from seemingly rival doctrines.

Near the end woven into the discussion of the feminine I mentioned above, the key summary for me is:

...a tradition cannot live unless the whole human being lives through it, in it, and for it. For the whole human being is at one and the same time a mystic, a gnostic, a magician and a philosopher, i.e. he is religious, comtemplative, artistic and intelligent. Everyone believes in something, understands something, is capable of something and thinks something.

In conclusion, we are led to the High Priestess as relating to the gnostic sense. We have already encountered in Letter I, the Magician in the mystical sense. We are soon to read in Letters III and IV of The Empress(III) as the Arcanum of the magic and artistic, with The Emperor (IV), representing the Hermetic philosophy. Thus we have these first four Acarana within this umbrella of "four."
 

Shalott

Uncle!

(OK I considered starting a whole new thread but I henceforth leave that to the Mod Squad.)

I picked this book back up, and remembered why I put it down. I am lost as of the early pages of this letter. The first letter helped me understand Le Bateluer so much more thoroughly that I think it's worth reading...but I am far too Reyne D'Epees to always comprehend all this emotional and spiritual stuff! Just a warning that I may need some coaching.

Right now, specifically, I am not understanding what he is using "Water" as a metaphor for, and I'm concerned that I'm missing out on an important point. THe sentence giving me the most trouble is:
"Spirit must become divine Breath in place of arbitrary, personal activity, and Water must become become a perfect mirror of the divine Breath instead of being agitated by disturbances of the imagination, passions and personal desires."

Is "water" metaphoric for emotions? Maybe this would make more sense if it weren't for water, in the space of a few sentences, is also metaphoric for a reflective surface and spiritual cleanser. And then amniotic fluid, so far as I can tell.

:confused:

Thanks in advance for pulling me out of the metaphorical mud!