Books vs. No books

afrosaxon

Splungeman said:
"

Okay...so my question...What does it mean to "learn" to read the cards if we are encouraged to not use meanings in books and rely solely on our intuition? What kind of books DO we read if we are worried they will influence out intuitive flashes and interfere with our reading?


Learning to read the tarot is like learning anything else: first you learn the rules, then you figure out which ones to bend and which ones to break. :D

When I first learned tarot (on the Motherpeace deck, which really wasn't that compatible with me), I relied heavily on the book meanings. As I grew older, more mature, and more comfortable with myself and my faith in myself, I was able to read a card and say, "Well, the book says X, but that's not what I'm getting from this card." I soon learned that my intuition about a card was actually on point. Not to say that the book was wrong, per se, but it just was not in alignment with MY intuition. And that's okay.

As for reading other tarot-related books...if you are sure in your intuition, it shouldn't matter what you read. I like to read other's opinions, viewpoints, etc with regard to tarot. I once studied under a Grand Master...did I agree with everything she said? No...and that was a feat to not be intimidated, since she had so much more experience in tarot than I did. However, I couldn't ignore what my intuition was telling ME. And that has made all the difference in my own tarot learnings and life.

As the old saying goes: "No matter where you go, you'll always be there." ;)

I hope I'm making sense.

T.
 

Silaria

I believe you need books and your intuition to learn the Tarot.

I often advise those starting out to put the books away and do the Card a Day exercise without the book UNTIL the end of the day. I suggest they make notes about what jumps out at them (colors, specific symbols on the card, etc.) at first glance and what it makes them feel. Then I suggest looking at the entire card and writing a bit about that. During the day keep a look out for things that may tie back to that card. THEN, when the day is over, look at the book so they can familiarize themselves with the book information.

I often stress while doing this is DON'T worry if your interpretation and the books don't align 100%. (Usually they are close but don't "see" that because they are learning.)

Using the book to learn Tarot is like using a book to learn a second language. You learn the vocabulary and grammar but not the the depths of the language. You can only learn that by actually speaking it.

Tarot is the same way. Books give you the foundation in the symbology (alchemical, elemental, numerological, kabalah, etc.) to help build your knowledge but only through the practice of actually putting that knowledge together - as your instincts pull it from your mental database - that everything really comes together.
 

Emily

I am a bit of a book person - I especially like to read deck specific books to try and understand where the artwork and ideas for the deck originated from.

I also have quite a collection of RWS and Thoth books - some are fantastic and really give you a worthwhile read, others are fit for the dustbin. I tend to just take on board the information I agree with and then forget about the rest.

The deck I'm using, the Liber T, is especially suited for intuitive readings but I still like to read up on the various symbols or images used on the cards, it just makes for a more complete connection with the deck.

Intuitive reading is good but I still think you need a basic knowledge of the system you are using and that means reading the occasional book or two. LWB's some are good, some are full of rubbish. The Liber T one is ok. :)
 

MikeTheAltarboy

I am definitely pro-book.

Now, I don't mean having a book open while you read, and quoting lines from it, necessarily.
But "reading tarot" implies that tarot offers some kind of *system* that can be *read*. "Intuition with no key-words and no books" says to me that one isn't *reading*, one is *skrying*, and the cards are nothing more than a crystal ball, a fire, or a basin of water. That's fine, if that gives you insight, but it's not "reading tarot."

So stop clipping your thoth deck and ignoring your trump names, and memorize the system! :-D
 

Splungeman

MikeTheAltarboy said:
I am definitely pro-book.

Now, I don't mean having a book open while you read, and quoting lines from it, necessarily.
But "reading tarot" implies that tarot offers some kind of *system* that can be *read*. "Intuition with no key-words and no books" says to me that one isn't *reading*, one is *skrying*, and the cards are nothing more than a crystal ball, a fire, or a basin of water. That's fine, if that gives you insight, but it's not "reading tarot."

So stop clipping your thoth deck and ignoring your trump names, and memorize the system! :-D

You bring up a good point here. I've talked about it at length in another post. It seems to me if you are not applying some research to your reading you are simply using Tarot cards as a scrying tool....therefore why use Tarot cards at all? You could read cloud patterns, tree bark, dust-bunnies under your couch, the arrangement of your french fries in your burger basket, etc.

My method is sort of a mixture I suppose. If something comes to me while doing the reading, I apply it. My intuition guides me in terms of selecting the correct meaning or interpretation of the card I'm looking at or can even point me towards a minute detail in the card that has nothing to do with the "traditional" meaning.

As far as researching history and symbolism, I find it is more professional and comforting to the sitter if you are able to explain the historical origins of the images and symbols used in your deck if they ask. Plus this knowledge is good if someone accuses you of "not knowing what the card means" because they read a LWB once upon a time....you can then launch into medieval and renaissance history, throw in some Qabbala and Alchemy and all doubt is erased from their mind about how much you know about your cards.
 

Scion

Splunge, I have to confess this is a topic that depresses me every time it appears, which isn't your fault...

First off, there is no division between study and intuition. They are two spheres that are both inextricably linked. If anyone in the entire world can tell me how anyone operates SOLELY on either intuition or study then I will happily proclaim that individual a robot. Humans use these functions consonantly and constantly. Every hardcore scholar has flashes of insight. Every pure psychic observes and absorbs the world around them.

More importantly I think this illusory distinction stems from (and I feel like I type this sentence in different ways at least once a month) confusion and misuse of the words Study and Intuition.

For the record, the Dictionary defines Intuition as direct perception of truth independent of any reasoning process. The moment reason or logic or impressions are involved, intuition is not. That means that studying something does not alter your intuition any more than ignoring the world guarantees an improved intuitive function. It's like suggesting a baby could learn to read a novel intuitively or that you could start to sing opera intuitively. Whenever people say they ONLY read intuitively, it generally lets me know that they do not know the meaning of the word. Because the only way you could do something completely intuitively would be to remove every one of your senses which might affect your impartial access to the divine spark. Mainly what people mean is that they're "getting the gist" or "can figure it out from the preconceptions they have." Both of these are perfectly acceptable, but they are not intuition.

By the same token, there are any number of understandings of the word Study, but a good one would be: acquisition of knowledge by direct critical exploration and observation. It seems to me that people who associate "books" with regurgitating keywords (to be frank) had crappy experiences with crappy teachers growing up and haven't moved on. A book is different in each new pair of hands. And books are only as useless as the mind that encounters them. Can you "learn" how to fall in love? Can you write down the first time someone betrayed you? Obviously not. Anyone who tells you memorization is the totality of education is a functional moron. By the same token, every time you look at an image more than once (including the cards themselves) you are studying it. So even the most bibliophobic Umbrae-ic Tarot practice involves study. Even Umbrae says so, although he often exaggerates to make points.

I feel like a crazy person even as I type these sentences for the umpteenth time: They cannot be separated. There is no way to separate them. They are two interdependent functions of the human consciousness... It is like suggesting you can have light without shadow.

The only thing I think is silly in Tarot practice is laziness. There is no excuse for it: but for my money, it's something I can't abide in the world. Tarot is just part of that. Anything worth having requires an investment: that is one of the main reasons it's worth having.

Books are useful. But only if you interact with them as an active consciousness. Personal Gnosis is useful, but it cannot be articulated. We all have to find our own way and it is a wide and arduous and wonderful way. We are not insects.

Scion
 

Umbrae

Thanks Scion, well said (for the umpteenth time), and it needs to be said even more.

I learned without the books. But I studied. I studied the cards, I worked with them. I owned one deck for 29 years

I used it for readings (live face-to-face for strangers). I also read playing cards.

I read my first book after 12 years of reading.

I'm also somewhat psychic - and psychic has zip all to do with intuition (I've ranted on the misuse of the word intuitive also).

The New Age marketing machine decided back in the mid to late 70's that the term Psychic was too woo-woo, brought out too many James Randi's, and echo'd the ''Gypsy Fortune Teller". the public saw Psychic as Phraud. So they marched out the term "Intuitive", so now we have intuitive readers - which tells us nothing about the reader...

I've often said (so why not - I'll say it again)...
Intuitive is "Uh-oh...the children are quiet, that's trouble."
Psychic is, "Uh-oh...the children are quiet - they've found the gun..."
 

Baroli

Umbrae said:
I've often said (so why not - I'll say it again)...
Intuitive is "Uh-oh...the children are quiet, that's trouble."
Psychic is, "Uh-oh...the children are quiet - they've found the gun..."

Ooooh I like that,.....:D

Nothing more to be said, nicely put Scion, and Umbrae.


Baroli
 

Splungeman

Baroli said:
Ooooh I like that,.....:D

Nothing more to be said, nicely put Scion, and Umbrae.


Baroli

Oh no...I'm not done. :>

I understand the difference between rote memorization of facts and the deeper type of study you are talking about Scion. I'm sorry to have brought this painful subject up again...but it's not quite the same issue or question as before...I'm after something else here... I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to my question...and this is probably because I tend to overcomplicate things rather than to just word my question simply. Plus the title of this thread was worded badly. I should have called it "How does research help?" Because that's my basic question.

How does research and study help you as a Tarot reader? I guess that's my simplified question. And by study I do not mean rote memorization. I mean studying in the sense of a complete education on Tarot. It's history, it's esoteric influences. I'm talking about what Umbrae was referring to with his Qabbalistic texts.

Does this scholarly research in any way help you to be a better Tarot reader? How does it enhance your Tarot practice? It seems like it must, because Umbrae used it as an example of how most of us on this forum are true Tarot readers and scholars and how that gives us an edge on the competition.

I'll use a stupid, scientifically impossible, fantastical scenario: Let's say an excellent, well educated Tarot reader is walking down the road and a large, bronze, Elvis statue falls from the sky and knocks him senseless. He wakes up in the hospital and finds that his memory is all intact except that he has forgotten approximately half of the books he has read on Tarot-related subjects like qabbala, alchemy, renaissance art, etc. When he gets out of the hospital and off the pain meds he goes back to doing Tarot readings. He never recovers this knowledge. What has changed in terms of his ability as a Tarot reader? Does this loss of knowledge affect his readings?

Can you guys can see how this differs from the old "memorized meanings vs. Intuition/psychic" debate?
 

Eco74

How about a story-comparison? :)

Take any old fairytale.
You can read it, and enjoy it, and get the geist of it and the moral of it without knowing the background of it, what part of the world it's from or what era it tells a story about - fairytales are to a large extent timeless after all.

But if you do know what era it was written in, where in the world it's from, what the creatures in it signify, the historical event that inspired it etc. you can gain so much more than just the amusement and moral of the story.
You get a portrait of the time when it was written, like taking a little trip through history lane. You get an image of what society was like at the time and can have a deeper understanding of the characters that interact in the story.

Without the background, you can still have a lovely time reading and sharing the story, but with it, you get a few more levels of understanding which leads to the possibility for you to create more stories, to elaborate on details that otherwise would just be bylines and to tell the story in more depth and explain it to those who don't quite get it.