Differences In Decks- How Do You Read Them?

[Nevada]

The real secrets cannot be communicated.

To put it anoother way, I don't think there's a way to reject any belief system uunless you grasp it.

I never said I "reject" it, just that I chose not to follow it any further. There are thousands of religious teachings I might choose to study further, but I certainly couldn't study many more than one or two in depth in a lifetime. I know enough about quite a few religions to realize that. But my life, this time around, is finite, and the last I checked I'm in charge of it, so I choose what to study.

But I am saying that to say that you disagree with these magicians but you're going to use their tools is a little disingenuous.

I sometimes quote from the Bible, too, and I'm sure there are Christians who think that's disingenuous. Sorry, but I disagree, and if they don't like it, that's their problem. (And I did read that entire book before rejecting some of it.)

Further, the symbopls they used were not invented by them; they were a synthesis.

You must've been writing this at the same time I wrote my post that said the same thing.

The entire operation of the GD was to use the esoterica of the past. So much of "what works" is part of the Western Magickal tradition. So if that works, and you use their version of it in a deck (wheher in the Thoth or the WS-derived Druidcraft), I'd argue that you most certainly DO follow in their footsteps. You are subscribing to a worldview at some level, however slight.

I will give them the point that it's their version of something older, a synthesis of older bits and pieces. But that doesn't mean if I use it, I'm subscribing to their worldview -- or even their synthesis. I'm using a limited depiction of it in a Tarot deck.

I love Van Gogh's artwork. That doesn't mean I accept his entire worldview, or that I think I should cut my ear off.

I'm certainly not saying that I am a GDer, but I do think knowing about the system I use is essential.

If I were using their entire system, I'd agree. I'm only using a deck of cards, and probably not entirely for the purpose they intended.

And if I USE their decks or derivatives I AM learning their system, consciously or not.

To a point, I agree with this. But I'm only learning what I need to in order to use the cards in my own way.

The minute you look at element of water and associate it with phlegmatics and undines and emotion you are towing their line a little. You are accepting a belief system which was not created but rather fused out of disparate pieces by the GD. Every time you think of fire as the creative spark or the fives as negative or the Aces as the "Root of the element" you're saying a little pievce of the GD catechism. The GD Tarot was designed as a kind of virtual temple of their beliefs... a magickal university you could carry in your pocket.

I am taking a few of their ideas I like about the symbols. That's not acceptance of their entire system. Nor is it rejection. It's choice.

It's one of the cruxes of the anti-GD movement in modern magick. Lots of people reject their synthesis and opt for other systems that work quite differently.

I'm not part of any movement, that I'm aware of, just making personal choices about what cards I use and what religious path I follow. If the two cross paths or belief systems now and then, it's fine with me. That's, in fact, the crux of MY belief path. It incorporates elements of many different belief systems. Some are of my conscious choosing. Some I'm sure I've taken on unconsciously. I can live with that.

Trouble is, 90% of Tarot comes from the GD so all those decks act as a kind of Trojan horse (or a casserole with peas as Griz says), sneaking their belief system into your day-to-day life. So I think what I'm talking about with Umbrae, and now you, is the fact that LOTS of folks don't bother learning very much about the belief system that they unwittingly espouse to some degree every time they read a GD deck.

Huh? So if I use a Visconti-Sforza or a Marseille, I'm getting Golden Dawn influence? Give me a break. I'm sure a little GD symbolism "sneaks" its way into my consciousness. So has a lot of what I see on TV, in magazine ads, in political posturing, and -- if the collective unconscious is real -- a little of everything from everyone and everywhere.

Look, Scion, I see where you're coming from. People should learn a little more perhaps about the Tarot decks they choose to use, if they hope to use them as the creators of those decks intended. But some of us don't consider that so important, and nothing you say will change our minds. If I intend to read a deck intuitively, why do I need to do that? If I choose to learn about it, I'm free to do that too. To each his own. We invest time in what we each consider of value and importance. If you find the entire GD system useful, that's great, and I'm happy for you. I didn't find it useful for me to study any further than I have.

I'm quite happy with what I'm doing, using the Thoth, and that was my whole point -- each reader should do what works for that reader. We ALL take mis-steps or miss out on one experience or another.

One thing I would hate to see, and that's for a beginner to decide she has to study the GD system in order to read tarot because someone told her she must, when she would've been an outstanding and happier intuitive reader without it. What a waste of time that would be, and life's short. I think each person has to follow the path that feels right to them.

Nevada

 

[Nevada]

One last question:

Do meanings of suits and numbers as extractions carry over most of the time? I know that kind of isn't the point-- the point is that book meanings don't have to mean anything, but humor me for one last second. Where for example wands tend to deal with passion (and a few other things like philosophical things such as religion) and Aces tend to deal with a new spark... Is this true with basically all decks? In other words, would this help me to determine meanings of the cards in a new deck?

I think if you accept one assignment of meaning to a suit or element, for the most part it will play out. When I began to see Wands as being about creativity, suddenly I saw that meaning everywhere in my readings, and wondered how I'd missed it before. Maybe it depends on how intuitively you eventually learn to read -- which is entirely up to you. What I'm saying has more to do with my beliefs about Tarot than what any book has told me. Some decks do show elements less strictly separated and defined. The Crystal Tarot comes to mind, with its watery Swords cards. Sometimes suit meanings merge, morph, or shift, even in a deck that makes clear distinctions in its imagery. When I read intuitively, a pattern can leap out at me in a Cups card that makes me see it as more Earth-oriented in meaning in that reading. I can't explain it, even as a matter of experience, since I've heard of new readers making those same kinds of associations -- though it took me some years.

I think to some degree a reader has to loosen his hold on what the card means, or is supposed to mean, and open up to what it's saying in this reading.

Others have probably mentioned journaling as helpful, and I agree wholeheartedly with that. But even my journal meanings may not hold true for the next reading. . . .

Nevada

 

[blackroseivy]

Well, I am about to date myself: I've been reading since 1978 (I was only 12!! ).

Well, what can I say on this subject but this: TIME. & a LOT of reading IN that time!! It's a lot like learning a language: the simple meanings are all you have at 1st, but in time the subtler nuances become much more a part of your "vocabulary" - even things that seem to contradict your original starting-point - & you can express yourself very well with them.

I just have a kind of spontaneous connection with the cards that enables me to look at a LOT of different styles, & be able to connect a meaning to what I am looking at - that may, of course, be entirely different the next time I pull out the deck!

I do have certain "key-words" that aid in what the card is possibly driving at. But having the rest come out is kind of like composing music; phrases just occur to you, they just seem right.

I have troubles reading for myself, really; not sure why, but sometimes I don't quite trust that I'm REALLY seeing what I should be seeing. Rather have someone objective do it for me! I can do it, but find it somewhat difficult in a way that I don't get with reading for others; I quite often wind up very stumped & not at all sure WHAT is being said!

However, that's me & the way I read for myself.

At any rate, perhaps something like simply picking out 1 card, perhaps 1 a day, & meditating upon it, then in a journal, writing out EVERYTHING that the card says to you, whether "official" or not (better to not even read the LWB prior to doing this with a new deck!) & studying it. Then, look up the meaning in the booklet. But if what you come up with is completely different, you can either attempt to resolve this, or just bear in mind that your associations may be different from the "official" & also both meanings when you are reading.

I hope this makes some sense! It's hard to explain something this complex simply to someone new at it; I reiterate that it is something that certainly comes, but with time & patience, especially with yourself.

 

[Sheri]

I don't hold any generic meaning in my mind. But whatever - I can draw the same card from the same deck 2 days in a row and get something completely different from it ! Which is why I really think you have to trust what you see in front of you.

Very much agree with this, gregory. That is just my experience too! The same card from the same deck almost never means the same thing to be twice either.

Count me in your group! This is how I read. I am amazed at how literal the cards can be!

valeria

 

[The crowned one]

This is becoming a very interesting post. I have enjoyed reading.

 

[thorhammer]

Okay, I'd like to jump in here, despite being MONSTROUSLY out of my depth . . .

I tentatively agree with Scion - to a point. I think the point at which I part company might be the same point at which one stops being able to communicate the secrets, as he mentioned above.

But if it is such a perfect model - how come many, once they learn...jump ship? Move to a different paradigm?

Without sounding like I'm calling you out - what do you mean by this, Umbrae?

Do you mean that people move on from "using" the GD through misusing it to "winging it"?

Because if that's what you mean, then I think the answer takes us in another direction again. The New Age trend has us all believe that we are the masters of our fate and that if we find something we like and that works, fine, keep it, but if it stops working, weeelllll . . . just wing it. It's all feely-goody and fairies and pixiedust and the result is a culture of semi-respectfully not agreeing with each other and a mish-mash of making it up and bastardising the original intent, whatever the Hel that was, coz hardly anyone knows anymore . . .

I'm sounding like Scion , and it's a topic for another thread.

But I think I've made my point? People jump ship for their own system because of laziness and ego.

I in no way absolve myself of this syndrome. It is something I fully intend to rectify.

\m/ Kat

*braces for impact*

 

[Alan Ross]

Originally Posted by gregory
I don't hold any generic meaning in my mind. But whatever - I can draw the same card from the same deck 2 days in a row and get something completely different from it ! Which is why I really think you have to trust what you see in front of you.

My experience with reading may be somewhat different. I do have generic meanings in mind for each card - e.g. Five of Wands: conflict, struggles, competition; Two of Cups: partnership, cooperation, friendship, romance; and so on. However, just because I have generic meanings ascribed to the cards doesn't mean I always read the same card the same way. Rather, the generic meaning can be seen as a theme and each time I read the card, I read it as a variation on the theme. Sometimes the variation is slight; other times, the variation is so radical the original "theme" is barely recognizable. It all depends on the particular reading and the in-the-moment prompting of my imagination and intuition.

The particular slant that a deck has on a given card can also "color" the variations that I'm likely to consider. For example, the Seven of Swords in the RWS shows a man stealthily making off with a number of swords. Cunning, guile, thievery, and avoidance of direct confrontation are some of the significances that occur to me here.

In the Medieval Enchantment (Nigel Jackson) Tarot, the image is different. This deck shows an image of a fox. Since the fox doesn't have a dead chicken in his mouth, I would be somewhat less inclined toward the idea of thievery and more inclined to an interpretation connected with cunning or guile, attributes commonly ascribed to foxes.

In the Druidcraft Tarot, another entirely different image is used. Here we have an old man in his study, absorbed in thought and swords laid to one side. There's no hint of thievery in this image. The swords laid to one side tells me that he is avoiding direct confrontation. Instead, he is trying to devise some clever strategy or ruse. With this card, I would lean even more strongly towards guile and cunning, with caution and forethought added to the interpretative mix.

Even when the difference in image is subtle, it can still influence or expand on the possibilities I'm willing to consider. Sweet_Intuition provided a beautiful example with the Robin Wood Three of Cups. The inclusion of the waxing, full, and waning moons on the three cups might incline me in a given reading to interpret the card spiritually as a celebration of the influence of the Maiden, Mother, and Crone in our daily life. This is not a possibility that would readily occur to me with the RWS Three of Cups.

Alan

 

[Umbrae]

But if it is such a perfect model - how come many, once they learn...jump ship? Move to a different paradigm?

Without sounding like I'm calling you out - what do you mean by this, Umbrae?

Do you mean that people move on from "using" the GD through misusing it to "winging it"?

…But I think I've made my point? People jump ship for their own system because of laziness and ego.

Not what I’m saying at all. Look at the folks who use WCS clones for years, and now are moving onto TdM. There’s a ton of folks who are ‘moving on’ to Eastern European decks, and small press decks where the construct is different.

Remember – the GD model only holds dominion over the US/UK.

We cannot look at Marketing statistics for the US & UK and claim a global truth.

…For example, the Seven of Swords in the RWS shows a man stealthily making off with a number of swords. Cunning, guile, thievery, and avoidance of direct confrontation are some of the significances that occur to me here.

Exactly. That’s Golden Dawn. However in the same breath we are told that Tarot contains the ‘Jewish Wisdom of Qabalah” and in Jewish mysticsm we are told that “God love the number Seven more than any other number…” Well thievery doesn’t look blessed to me.

Etteilla said of the Seven of Swords, “Hope, intention, expectation, aspiration, to rely upon (or to overvalue) oneself, groundwork, scheme, will, wish, desire, vow, longing, taste, fantasy…”

So here Scion and I are in agreement. You are following (regardless if you are aware of it or not) Golden Dawn numerical associations. Scion would state that you are de facto studying Golden Dawn simply by using their associations.

If I didn’t know you, or have access to your personal information – I’d say you live in the US/UK based on your ‘meaning’.

If you said that the seven of swords was about hope and self reliance, I’d say that you were from Europe (or very educated).

If you said there was an element of sadness, and perhaps unlucky – I’d say, "Oh, juh jen sh guh kwai luh duh jean jan..."

The new Tarot deck, as we interpret it, is primarily viewed through the eyes of our native culture. The numbers and their influence are rarely escaped.

What we view as the Norm in the US/UK is simply ‘not so’ in other cultures.

As I said in my first post in this thread:

Scenic, non-scenic, character driven, or Chock-Fulla-Symbols, I can pretend to be Oh-SO-Snooty and use a deck just the way someone else thinks I should use it…

RWS/WCS meanings came from Mathers mis-translations of Etteilla. Do I really have to follow lockstep with erroneous claptrap?

Or I can be me.

And I can read the deck like me.

Even with all them nice companion books, it all comes down to one thing.

It’s my deck. I’m reading for you. Who cares what a third person thinks.

Thank the Gods…

 

[Nevada]

Okay, I'd like to jump in here, despite being MONSTROUSLY out of my depth . . .

It's possible we all are, but that's okay. This is gettin' good. I just hope we're still helping FutureMoth answer the thread's question. . . .

The New Age trend has us all believe that we are the masters of our fate and that if we find something we like and that works, fine, keep it, but if it stops working, weeelllll . . . just wing it. It's all feely-goody and fairies and pixiedust and the result is a culture of semi-respectfully not agreeing with each other and a mish-mash of making it up and bastardising the original intent, whatever the Hel that was, coz hardly anyone knows anymore . . .

I agree the New Age trend would have us all believe we're masters of our fate, but to me that's just how it tempts people to follow like sheep and spend a lot of money. It's a trap of another kind than the one it claims to save people from, that of dogmatism and puritanical cultural pressures. It's another form of following like sheep.

The reason that I argued with Scion, though, is that I think staying with one symbolic system too long can also limit one, and turn from earnest study into more following like sheep. (I'll explain that later in this post.)

I followed others for a good half of my life, and while it helped me make a living, it also made me ill with panic attacks, migraines, and stress eating. No, we're not masters of our fate, or of other people, but we are masters of our choices, and it's important to understand that, as well as to be aware of our own foibles, shadows and demons -- which the New Age would apparently have us pretend don't exist.

Only when I realized that I needed to find my own spiritual and creative paths and then set out on them, did I realize there's nothing wrong with self-reliance. It certainly doesn't make me perfect. I still have problems, but overall I'm a much happier person than when I struggled to fit into other people's molds.

People jump ship for their own system because of laziness and ego.

Many do, I'm sure, but the same people are going to jump ship from any system, including their own, because every true system is complex and takes effort to learn and do something with, even one's own. The truly lazy and ego-driven aren't going to become readers who can help anyone, including themselves, using Tarot. It will remain a game, or become a con or a crutch, or they'll lose interest. Those who do become good readers, for themselves or others, using their own system or anyone else's, have done some hard work either on themselves, or with a system for using Tarot cards, but more likely both. The most "natural" reader who doesn't seem to have to devise a system or work at learning is likely an extremely mature, balanced, and intuitive individual to begin with. There was work done somewhere along the way, even if not in this lifetime. Just my opinion, but I think no one gets off that easy and manages to read well.

The particular slant that a deck has on a given card can also "color" the variations that I'm likely to consider. For example, the Seven of Swords in the RWS shows a man stealthily making off with a number of swords. Cunning, guile, thievery, and avoidance of direct confrontation are some of the significances that occur to me here.

I agree with this. The first deck I really learned much about Tarot with, the Thoth, has one of the worst keywords imaginable for the Seven of Swords: Futility. That really got me stuck with that card, and I came to hate it. Funny thing is, a year or two later I noticed the card hadn't been coming up much, so I checked my deck and discovered it was missing. I never did find that card, had to buy a new deck -- but at the same time I decided to try some other decks too. I got the Aquarian and Old Path, which were my first two RWS style decks. I began to see the Seven of Swords in a new light, realize that even though the new definition was still limited in scope, there was more to that card than I realized. But I still didn't "get" that card until I read Gail Fairfield's book, Choice Centered Tarot, which I bought at about the same time. She opened my eyes to a wider scope of possibility for not just that card but all of them.

In the Druidcraft Tarot, another entirely different image is used. Here we have an old man in his study, absorbed in thought and swords laid to one side. There's no hint of thievery in this image. The swords laid to one side tells me that he is avoiding direct confrontation. Instead, he is trying to devise some clever strategy or ruse. With this card, I would lean even more strongly towards guile and cunning, with caution and forethought added to the interpretative mix.

This is my favorite version of this card that I've found, because it fits so well the meaning I've come to see in it -- a much wider scope of possibility of meaning, both positive and negative -- of stretching one's mind to solve a problem, of imagination, of searching out new ways to communicate, of revolutionary ideas, and of that self-reliance that Umbrae mentions.

Even when the difference in image is subtle, it can still influence or expand on the possibilities I'm willing to consider. Sweet_Intuition provided a beautiful example with the Robin Wood Three of Cups. The inclusion of the waxing, full, and waning moons on the three cups might incline me in a given reading to interpret the card spiritually as a celebration of the influence of the Maiden, Mother, and Crone in our daily life. This is not a possibility that would readily occur to me with the RWS Three of Cups.

That, to me, is the value of learning to work with more than one deck -- especially more than one class of deck. It enriches the scope of meaning in the cards for us.

However in the same breath we are told that Tarot contains the ‘Jewish Wisdom of Qabalah” and in Jewish mysticsm we are told that “God love the number Seven more than any other number…” Well thievery doesn’t look blessed to me.

In Hinduism the Hare Krishna mantra refers to the Lord as a divine thief, stealing one's heart. I think Sufi poetry contains some similar references. Then of course there's the biblical prediction of Christ returning, coming as a thief in the night.

Etteilla said of the Seven of Swords, “Hope, intention, expectation, aspiration, to rely upon (or to overvalue) oneself, groundwork, scheme, will, wish, desire, vow, longing, taste, fantasy…”

So here Scion and I are in agreement. You are following (regardless if you are aware of it or not) Golden Dawn numerical associations. Scion would state that you are de facto studying Golden Dawn simply by using their associations.

Yes, and that caused problems for me. It limited my scope too much. It fed me someone else's system of symbols instead of allowing me to discover my own.

What I tried to say and perhaps didn't very well earlier is that we each already have a system of symbols -- our own system -- stored away in our unconscious before we ever consciously learn what symbols are. Our entire life and everything we learn, as well as what's out there in the collective unconscious, which I think extends into the world of spirit, Akashic Records, and so forth -- whatever's out there, all feeds into our personal system of symbols. If we let go of trying to rely on spoon-fed symbolism from others, we can find ways to discover -- or remember -- our own. Then we can become truly intuitive or psychic, or whatever your favorite term is for that system we all are capable of using to read Tarot or do any other form of divination. Just as with learning to interpret our dreams -- and anyone who's worked at that, including psychologists, will tell you that you are the best one to understand your dream symbols -- just as that has to come from you, so do intuitive symbols.

That said, I think it's good to learn others' symbol systems, as many of them as we reasonably can, because that helps unlock our own for us. But when those other symbolic systems -- any of them -- become all we rely on, then we're trapped again and not accessing our own, and our readings, dream work, and understanding our own unconscious motivations, will all suffer for it.

If you said that the seven of swords was about hope and self reliance, I’d say that you were from Europe (or very educated).

Perhaps self-educated.

Once the artist creates the deck - it becomes MY deck. I read it how I want.



Scenic, non-scenic, character driven, or Chock-Fulla-Symbols, I can pretend to be Oh-SO-Snooty and use a deck just the way someone else thinks I should use it…

RWS/WCS meanings came from Mathers mis-translations of Etteilla. Do I really have to follow lockstep with erroneous claptrap?

Or I can be me.

And I can read the deck like me.

Even with all them nice companion books, it all comes down to one thing.

It’s my deck. I’m reading for you. Who cares what a third person thinks.

Thank the Gods…

Amen.

 

[Alan Ross]

Originally Posted by Umbrae
Exactly. That’s Golden Dawn. However in the same breath we are told that Tarot contains the ‘Jewish Wisdom of Qabalah” and in Jewish mysticsm we are told that “God love the number Seven more than any other number…” Well thievery doesn’t look blessed to me.

Etteilla said of the Seven of Swords, “Hope, intention, expectation, aspiration, to rely upon (or to overvalue) oneself, groundwork, scheme, will, wish, desire, vow, longing, taste, fantasy…”

So here Scion and I are in agreement. You are following (regardless if you are aware of it or not) Golden Dawn numerical associations. Scion would state that you are de facto studying Golden Dawn simply by using their associations.

Certainly I'm using GD numerical associations. Those are what I use when using GD based decks. And when I read with the RWS and RWS based decks, I also take into consideration what the card shows in its illustration. If the Seven of Swords in a given deck shows someone committing what looks like an act of thievery, it would feel odd to me to ignore that as a possible significance. It's there staring at me right in the card.

If I were reading with my Thoth, I would use the keyword "futility" and the correspondence of the Moon in Aquarius (along with the association of the sevens with Netzach on the Tree of Life) as the "theme" of the card: "It is like a rheumatic boxer trying to 'come back' after being out of the ring for years. Its ruler is the Moon. The little energy it possesses is no more than dream-work; it is quite incapable of the sustained labour which alone, bar miracles, can bring any endeavor to fruition." (From the Book of Thoth.) There is no prompting here toward a significance of "thievery" as there is to my eyes in the RWS Seven of Swords, so I wouldn't be as strongly inclined to use that significance with the Thoth.

So what I'm saying here is that it is my personal choice to go with the "grain" of whatever deck I happen to be reading with. It doesn't bother me that RWS based interpretations are "erroneous claptrap" derived from "mis-translations of Etteila." I'm not looking for a historically or esoterically "pure" divinatory system or interested in inventing my own system. Recently, I've been following with great interest threads devoted to reading with TdMs. I would be interested in learning a simple non-GD divinatory system for use with TdMs. But I have no interest in abandoning GD interpretation. I have too many GD/RWS based decks in my collection that I'm fond of to resort to that.

Alan