revived tarot

i just found this site:
http://www.psyche.com/psyche/tarot/RevivedTarot/index.html
the title is: "Revived Tarot: 7 Major Arcana Restored According to the Sepher Yetzirah"
and i am confused. did anyone here read it? did you understand it?
do you agree with it?

it basically says that the tarot = the hebrew letters and that's that. that is their only purpose. they order the fool as number 1 and the world as nr 2 for example.

my head is spinning. i was just about grasping the general features of the tree of life - and now this...
oy.

Woooo between this side and the info about the tarot of the restored order i'm completely lost

I think i just keep it the way it is. It works out for me.

after i got past the part about the original trumps being unnumbered, i didn't see anything more i could understand or agree with. a qabbalist wasn't made in a day, i suppose.

Jema:

I wouldn't pay too much attention to it. The author(s) of this site are engaging in a debate with the late avatars of the Golden Dawn concerning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

No less an authority than Rachel Pollack has noted that there is no historical connection between Kabbalah and tarot (Complete Illustrated Guide, p. 30), although she herself, for reasons I don't understand, applies Kabbalistic principles to her interpretation of the cards. The first published work in Latin dealing with Kabbalah did not appear until 1486 (by Giovanni Pico de Mirandola, utilizing translations made for him by an apostate Jew), nearly a generation after the first appearance of the game of tarot (Decker, DePaulis, and Dummett, p. 14), which pretty much settles the issue of whether the trumps are an encrypted key to the mysteries of the 22 sacred letters.

There is a world of difference between vain speculation and the study of history. Tarot has very unfortunately been, and continues to be, a vehicle for people who enjoy broadcasting idle fantasies disguised as scholarship. It's a scurrilous practice that gives us a bad name.

Fortunately, the study of history is relatively easy. All that's required is an ability to read and the application of a little common sense. The fundamental rule is, if it's not documented, it doesn't exist. But that's ok, because as the master reminds us, "There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed."

CB

whew, i am not totally daft then

i started with tarot around 89 and would say i am pretty advanced but always shyed away from the kabbalah - in fact nothing made me more upset then hearing people claim that you HAVE to know the kabbalah to know the cards.

only this year did i start looking in on the subject - not so much for the sake of tarot - just for a general interest in knowing more about something that has influenced so many. and, yes, it can be neat to place the cards in the tree of life - but i still don't think one has to. glad to hear i am not alone.

catboxer...

Never have I read an argument/dismissal so well worded. A joy.

I completely agree with Catboxer. However, I do think it's a little extreme to say if it's not documented, it doesn't exist. I would amend that to say, if it's not documented, then there's no reason to believe it exists. It is, of course, possible for something to exist without being documented. For example, I think it's historically valid to speculate that there may have been woodblock-printed Tarot decks used by common folk prior to the hand-painted decks used by Italian royals, even though no example of such currently exists.

-- Lee

Lee:

Thanks; I stand corrected. Something that's not documented might have existed, and your example is excellent.

What I should have said is that if it's not doucumented, it doesn't exist for purposes of supporting an argument or proving a hypothesis.

CB
www.geocities.com/slim_93304/deck74.html

Hmmmmmmmm

Apparently whoever wrote the site reads here, hes added a section "for aeclectic members with short attention spans" that completely quotes catboxer and links here.

Rachel Pollack and the Kabala

Originally posted by catboxer:

No less an authority than Rachel Pollack has noted that there is no historical connection between Kabbalah and tarot (Complete Illustrated Guide, p. 30), although she herself, for reasons I don't understand, applies Kabbalistic principles to her interpretation of the cards.


catboxer:

Excellent reply to the original issue.

In answer to your own question above...
I had the privilege of hearing Rachel speak some time ago and another audience member asked the same question. She answered that the prevalence of Kabalistic symbolism within Pamela Colman Smith’s drawings AND the influence those drawings have had on modern Tarot “required” her to apply at least some Kabalistic principles to interpretations. She felt that since so many decks have been influenced by and/or based on Lady Pamela’s drawings it would be negligent to not at least consider the Kabala even though there exists no documented historical proof of any connection prior to the 19th century.