Tips for Learning Minor Arcana Cards that don't have imagery?

[Ruby Jewel]

It seems there is much dissention regarding the Rider Waite deck as a learning tool. I suppose that would have to include the traditional tarot Barons such as Rachel Pollock and Eden Gray...who cut their teeth on Rider Waite. I'm pretty much a traditionalist myself and have found it to be very rewarding to have Rider Waite definitions as a basis from which to expand. In fact, without that basic knowledge I have gained through teachers such as Rachel Pollock and Eden Gray, whose books and teachings are either generally based on or include Rider Waite, I would feel as though something important were missing from my readings. Still, I certainly feel there is room for a different approach for those who do not place a value on tradition. Certainly there are a multitude of new decks out there that invite personalized and "new age" interpretations. However, for me, Rider Waite is comparable to learning the alphabet of a particular language. So, in spite of the irritation I seem to have provoked, I will stand by my suggestion and recommend learning the traditional way.....which would not preclude Thoth although I am not as familiar with Thoth as I wish I were. Nevertheless, I happen to have 3 decks of the Thoth "greenies"....and have plans to begin reading with that deck in the near future. Even with Crowley's interpretations, knowing the Rider Waite is not now, and never could be, a handicap.

 

[madhatter00o]

It seems there is much dissention regarding the Rider Waite deck as a learning tool. I suppose that would have to include the traditional tarot Barons such as Rachel Pollock and Eden Gray...who cut their teeth on Rider Waite. I'm pretty much a traditionalist myself and have found it to be very rewarding to have Rider Waite definitions as a basis from which to expand. In fact, without that basic knowledge I have gained through teachers such as Rachel Pollock and Eden Gray, whose books and teachings are either generally based on or include Rider Waite, I would feel as though something important were missing from my readings. Still, I certainly feel there is room for a different approach for those who do not place a value on tradition. Certainly there are a multitude of new decks out there that invite personalized and "new age" interpretations. However, for me, Rider Waite is comparable to learning the alphabet of a particular language. So, in spite of the irritation I seem to have provoked, I will stand by my suggestion and recommend learning the traditional way.....which would not preclude Thoth although I am not as familiar with Thoth as I wish I were. Nevertheless, I happen to have 3 decks of the Thoth "greenies"....and have plans to begin reading with that deck in the near future. Even with Crowley's interpretations, knowing the Rider Waite is not now, and never could be, a handicap.

I think most people just find using the RWS meanings for non-scenic pips a little strange, is all.

I'm with you in that I learned the RWS first time it's a great learning tool for most tarot decks. However, I found when I tried to apply RWS meanings to a TdM, for example, the readings didn't ring true. I realized soon after that little misadventure that they're just two different systems.

I think of it like a flat-head screwdriver and a philips-head screwdriver. Both will do the same thing -- drive that screw! -- but it's really hard to make on of those screwdrivers work on the opposite type of screw.

 

[Ruby Jewel]

I think most people just find using the RWS meanings for non-scenic pips a little strange, is all.

I'm with you in that I learned the RWS first time it's a great learning tool for most tarot decks. However, I found when I tried to apply RWS meanings to a TdM, for example, the readings didn't ring true. I realized soon after that little misadventure that they're just two different systems.

I think of it like a flat-head screwdriver and a philips-head screwdriver. Both will do the same thing -- drive that screw! -- but it's really hard to make on of those screwdrivers work on the opposite type of screw.

Hi Madhatter, I have several beautiful vintage decks with numbered pips that I think I'm working toward mastering at some point so I can use them, so I find this an interesting discussion. RW includes astrology and numerology which contribute a generic meaning to RW which I would presume could be extended apply to most any deck, but perhaps that's just a matter of opinion. I also read a lot of other people such as Huson, Walker, Greer, Pollock, Gray, and see where they put other decks alongside the RW to teach the meanings.....I would not hesitate to apply meanings generically. I don't really believe the meaning depends on the deck. I just mentioned the RW deck because it would be easier to learn the pips with pictures. One could just as easily learn them with the pics on Mythic Tarot. Even though the pictures are entirely different, the meaning of the cards can just as easily apply to RW. In fact, I learned on Mythic Tarot. Seems to me the pics just stimulate the imagination to perceive the facet of the card that applies to a particular reading. I don't recommend memorizing meanings, but rather attempt to uncover the hidden truths in a card. Actually, I'm not turned on at all by just looking at the image of a coin or sword.....I love the pictures on all the decks. Each deck seems to uncover a different facet of meaning, but doesn't preclude the meanings of other decks......hope this makes sense....it's a little convoluted....sorry. Thanks for your interesting response to my post.

 

[CosmicBeing]

When i started.. i just was learning numerology, meaning of each suit, and also each suit is connected to an elemental. Like pentacle is to Earth... Cups is to water..Swords is to Air.. and Wands into spirit.

All tarot deck all come from a basic root.. and that is numerology as well as elemental connection.

The images on the deck are to help your psychic self.. but if you just had cards with no imagery and just the number and suits at the end of the day has a certain meaning.

 

[Citrin]

Ruby Jewel:

But you do realize that the Tarot de Marseille was invented way before the RWS? They come from two different traditions. I can see your point taking on Gray or Pollack as a teacher and learn their meanings/definitions and use them to learn the RWS, absolutely. But why apply those meanings to a TdM deck? It doesn’t make sense seeing how the TdM was used for divination WAY before the RWS and therefor, if one must use ”traditional meanings”, the traditional meanings for the TdM will differ from the ones that come with the RWS.

Would you apply the RWS meanings on a Lenormand deck? Or a random unicorn/angel/faery oracle deck?

Would you apply German grammar on the English language? No, because they’re different systems.

You’re saying: ”Even though the pictures are entirely different, the meaning of the cards can just as easily apply to RW.” And I respect this as YOUR unique method, but again I don’t agree at all… Why do you even use cards with images on them? Why don’t you just write ”1 The Magician”, ”7 of Swords” etc on pieces of paper and then draw from a hat to form a reading, since you already have your meaning made up for each cards’ title? If you’re not even looking at the image in front of you I don’t see how you actually read the cards and what’s going on in the image. I's understand it if you exclusively used the RWS deck, and its clones, but not decks that differ from that, and certainly not differnet systems like the Thoth or TdM. Just curious about your thoughts on this.

(I hope this isn’t off topic?)

 

[Ruby Jewel]

Ruby Jewel:

But you do realize that the Tarot de Marseille was invented way before the RWS? They come from two different traditions. I can see your point taking on Gray or Pollack as a teacher and learn their meanings/definitions and use them to learn the RWS, absolutely. But why apply those meanings to a TdM deck? It doesn’t make sense seeing how the TdM was used for divination WAY before the RWS and therefor, if one must use ”traditional meanings”, the traditional meanings for the TdM will differ from the ones that come with the RWS.

Would you apply the RWS meanings on a Lenormand deck? Or a random unicorn/angel/faery oracle deck?

Would you apply German grammar on the English language? No, because they’re different systems.

You’re saying: ”Even though the pictures are entirely different, the meaning of the cards can just as easily apply to RW.” And I respect this as YOUR unique method, but again I don’t agree at all… Why do you even use cards with images on them? Why don’t you just write ”1 The Magician”, ”7 of Swords” etc on pieces of paper and then draw from a hat to form a reading, since you already have your meaning made up for each cards’ title? If you’re not even looking at the image in front of you I don’t see how you actually read the cards and what’s going on in the image. I's understand it if you exclusively used the RWS deck, and its clones, but not decks that differ from that, and certainly not differnet systems like the Thoth or TdM. Just curious about your thoughts on this.

(I hope this isn’t off topic?)

Hi Citrin, Yes, I have several of the vintage TdM that I would love to use. I do realize that RW is a fairly late comer, but I feel that in putting it together, Waite had to pull from those who went before. As a painter/artist, I am acutely aware that without the shoulders of those who went before us to stand on, we are SOL...(pardon the French). It isn't that I would limit myself to RW definitions......that would be an ignorant thing to do. All I'm trying to say here, (and obviously not doing a very good job of it) is that RW is an "easy" way to begin....to get a "foothold." The way of tarot is unlimited...but you have to start somewhere and RW is as good as any it seems to me....maybe better than most because you can develop a base quickly. A couple of books that expand RW definitions that I enjoy are "Meditations on the Tarot" (unknown author) and "Mystical Origins of the Tarot" by Paul Huson. Both these books go back to ancient roots in the Tarot. I also have several books on Thoth including Banzhaf and Wang.....all these books have fantastic insights that go way beyond RW.....they expand my knowledge and stimulate my imagination far beyond the basic RW world. Frankly, I don't see how one could function creatively within a limited paradigm....so that is far from what I advocate. There is a whole "other" world out there that waits to be discovered. But, the person who started this thread is asking for a place to begin, and I'm saying RW is the traditional starting point. "Traditional" is key here, and like I said, I am a traditionalist.....old school, if you will. All I can say is that it has worked for a lot of people, including myself. However, there is certainly more than one road to approach the tarot.....although, the "current" tried and true path it seems to me is unquestionably RW.

 

[madhatter00o]

<snip>But, the person who started this thread is asking for a place to begin, and I'm saying RW is the traditional starting point. "Traditional" is key here, and like I said, I am a traditionalist.....old school, if you will.All I can say is that it has worked for a lot of people, including myself. However, there is certainly more than one road to approach the tarot.....although, the tried and true path it seems to me is unquestionably RW.

I *just* couldn't help myself... because I am a pedant. >_<;;

I respect your opinion about the RWS. I realize you probably feel like you're being hassled by internet strangers, but I (others, too, I'm sure, but I can only speak to myself) don't mean to be malicious. This is just a topic that tends to get people a little fired up.

Anyways, I don't think anyone is arguing the ease of use of the RWS. It boils down to a question of historical "authenticity." (Of course, any trained historian worth his salt knows that historical authenticity doesn't actually exist, but the idea of it is what's important.) It would be fallacious to say that the Order of the Golden Dawn faithfully recorded the interpretations of the tarot cards at least due to the fact that a cohesive "tradition" of meanings/interpretations never even existed. Furthermore, it's no secret that the members of the Golden Dawn were trying to unify several occultic traditions, including astrology, Kabbalah, and numerology. This could (read: did) bias their "data" and obfuscate any prior occultic associations that may have existed.

As such, the application of RWS meanings to the TdM is an ontological quandary. It's retroactively imposing certain meanings/associations on the cards when those who existed in the time prior to the advent of the RWS would neither have had access to nor have been aware of this knowledge/information.

Now, does that mean we, as tarot readers who do have access to several different traditions of decks, can't integrate the meanings from different traditions for ourselves? Absolutely not. We are free to do a we wish. But, using meanings from one deck tradition for another WITHOUT self-conscious reflection is, in my opinion, disingenuous.

I know firsthand that using the RWS is indeed an expediant primer for learning the tarot. But it's certainly not the only one. The original poster sought advice for learning a particular tradition because s/he is drawn to that kind of deck. The resources that other people have discussed (I'm especially fond of Yaov Ben-Dov's Tarot - The Open Reading) are perfectly good primers for TdM, historical, and non-scenic pip decks.

 

[ravenest]

The RW is not some Holy Grail of Tarot. Its just a deck that became popular. If there are any RW meanings, they are standardised in the text, not the images on the minors, as people see many different things there.

All 8 of swords are similar in that they all show the energy of the 8 of swords. Other 8 of swords cards should not all be seen as 'the bondage card' or other tags that RW fans use.

I feel it is like saying; if your car breaks down, use the VW manual , lots of good mechanics use the VW manual . Look, that is fine .... as long as your car is a VW.

I also dont see it as traditional or original .... if anything was original, within this field ( RW, Thoth and all decks similar and based on them ), it has to be the GD Tarot, as the Thoth and RW were sourced from that.

 

[Ruby Jewel]

Let me say that I don't really have an entrenched opinion that implicates RW as the "holy grail." The only point I have made here, or wish to make is that the RW would be a good starting place to begin learning the tarot.....which is not to say there is no other. I just happen to enjoy the RW interpretations and as I read for many people in my tiny little tarot booth in this one-horse town, I am completely in awe of the accuracy I get from RW. I could not ask for more from any deck. Over and over, time and time again, when I lay out the RW spread for someone it is so uncannily accurate that I have come to put more faith in it than I would have ever believed I could. I give a small four-card reading that is free to anyone who wants one. Just in the past month I have had a $20 tip, a $30 tip, and a $100 tip put into my tip jar....not because the reading was a "sorta on" reading, but because it was really "dead on." Now, some people attribute that to me because it happens in every reading I do, but I tend to attribute it to the cards. Who knows which it is. I haven't tried reading with any other decks.....so, I really can't speak for them until I have more experience.

I love the passion that gets stirred up on this site......but, I pretty much have expressed most of what I wanted to say......which wasn't really all that big a deal. I mean, it is just a standard deck of cards.....how can one go wrong? Like Madhatter I learned the tarot 30 years ago and only recently decided it is worth taking seriously. I am not an authority, and I don't have the desire to be.....all you guys are awesome....strong positions that you have apparently developed through time and experience. I'm listening to all of you....because there is a lot of information to glean from this. Thanks.

 

[AnemoneRosie]

I guess if OP had wanted to learn how to read Tarot starting with pips with pictures they would have asked and we could have said "it's quite common to use RW as your starting deck. I did it and..."

But the OP specifically asked how to read cards without imagery. So referring the OP to decks with images in the pips seems a bit dismissive of the original question, to me.