TdM is a visual language.
Others may find this controversial, but I think there are no meanings to learn, only meanings to "get" and those vary in each reading, and through the years, depending on your level of awareness as human being. The arcana are taken by the meaning you project in them in the spur of the moment. The cards aren't the ones who has to be full of meaning, you are.
At some point, for the sake of completeness, you could learn all you can about how other people along history filled the cards with meanings, but those impositions are only useful info, not necessarily the way to work with the cards. The way I see it is very simple: when you love someone, you want to know everything about that person: what does she eats, favorite color, favorite song, favorite movie, etc... Tarot is no different. If you “love” Tarot, at some point you will want to read all you can about the cards, even if your intuitive work is going well. Do it. That will certainly enrich your understanding of the cards.
But these books, and ideas, are like a waiter in a romantic dinner: nice to have it handy, as long as he doesn’t interfere in the conversation.
As I said in another thread, I have been re-reading Italo Calvino’s book, "The Castle of Crossed Destinies". For me the book is a great example of how to take the cards intuitively and “detect” meaning in them.
Here are a couple of quotes from Calvino’s experience writing this book, that I find perfect examples of how to work with the cards:
"But I cannot say that my work made use of the methodological contribution of all these investigation. From them I only took the idea of the meaning of each individual card depending on the place that card occupies in the succession of cards preceding it, or following it : from that idea I have moved myself freely, following the inner exigences of my text.
Regarding the vast bibliography about cartomancy and the symbolic interpretation of Tarots, even tough, as it is logical, I took the time to learn about it, I don't think it has any deep influence on my work. I have focused on looking at Tarots with attention, looking as if not knowing what they were, and on extracting from them suggestions and associations, this is, to interpret them based on an imaginary iconology."
Calvino is a great example of how any person, just by looking at the card, can get messages from them. (Example: In one story the page of coins is a guy flipping a coin. In another story, the same page of coins is Hamlet looking at the skull). "Learning" in this case doesn't means accumulating more meanings, but getting used with this process until longer, subtler, and deeper messages are obtained. That simply takes practice. And time.
And the idea of “practice” takes me to my next point:
I can only see the Marseilles as a tool, or a bridge, towards an understanding of the universe. But the bridge isn't the arrival point.
Some more quotes, this time from “Meditations on Tarot”, could help me clarify my feelings:
"Now, it is the arcana which stimulate us and at the same time guide us in the art of learning. In this sense, the Major Arcana of the Tarot are a complete, entire, invaluable school of meditation, study, and spiritual effort -a masterly school in the art of learning."
I can relate with this quote in the sense that, at a personal level, I understand the TdM as a learning tool, whose ultimate goal is to understand life, and human condition, at which point we can leave the cards behind. That is what is defined as “true divination” and it isn’t a super-power, but a creative understanding of the world. In that sense TdM is a school of spiritual development. I say "at a personal level", because I do think that when readings for others, these other may need the cards, even if we don't.
Here is another quote from “Meditations...” I found appealing:
"...the major Arcana of the tarot are authentic symbols, i.e. they are "magic, mental, psychic, and moral operations" awakening new notions, ideas, sentiments and aspirations, which means to say that they require an activity more profound than that of study and intellectual explanation. It is therefore in a state of deep contemplation that they should be approached."
and:
"The major Arcana of the tarot are authentic symbols. They conceal and reveal they sense at one and the same time according to the depth of meditation."
and:
"An arcanum is a "ferment" or "enzyme", whose presence stimulates the spiritual and the psychic life of man."
Now, the key IMO, to understand the minor arcana, is to see them as we see the majors. There is no real difference, only an apparent difference. Thy are there to be seen. All the above quotes apply to the minors as well. There are, or course, certain coordinates: we have four suits representing four different principles; and a numerological frame. There are several theories and points of view about this. I personally work under the premise of TdM being a visual language that is self-contained and self-sufficient, therefore I try not to impose any other system on the cards. For that reason, I don’t use numerology for the minors. Instead of that, I see each number from 1 to 10 as “degrees of fulfillment” of the principle represented by the specific suit. This way, a glance at the cards gives me a “diagnose” of what is going on with the person, that I enrich with the messages that the details on the cards dictate me in the spur of the moment.
I hope its helps,
Best,
EE
