Traditional Tarot Sequencing

I came across this link. I have NO idea whether it's valid, if some of you use this system, basically like reading a foreign language I don't understand.
Can anybody explain this to me or if it's important or if anyone here uses this method?
http://www.psyche.com/psyche/tarot/RevivedTarot/traditionaltarot.html

In general, the ideas of Tarot structures is based on the ideas associated with The Order of The Golden Dawn. But if we look closely, before they invent such methods, the use of Tarot is much more loosely based (for example, from what I learned Marseilles style decks in the past is used by using the method of free association which is loosely based upon the reader's imagination-what the reader see in his card from the patters, the flowers, the arrangements of the suits, the list goes on).

If you don't feel like the system is going to help, well, use it. If not, don't. Simple, right?

Thanks, Zephyr

This just made no sense to me and I just stumbled across it. I wasn't looking for it, in fact, I think it was when I did a trumps only search looking for a deck. I had no clue what it was talking about and just wanted to see if anyone else was into whatever method or thoughts they were elaborating on. Probably not a good idea, since just learning basics now is enough, but I'm a curious sort and when I see something I would like clarification on, I tend to seek out at least what something basically means.

I like the older correlations

I actually prefer using the pre-Golden Dawn(G.D.) correlations for Tarot Number/Hebrew Letter relationships simply because it makes more sense to me, being familiar with Hebrew. The Aleph-bet is also traditionally used as a numbering system, where the first ten letters actually mean one through ten, so:
Aleph = Roman numeral one = 1 = Magician
has more meaning to me than having Aleph = 0 = Fool, etc. That said, I have little if any meaningful background in Astrology, which I believe is why the G.D. changed it.

Of course, 0 is still an issue, but I can more easily rationalize using the Shin = 0 = Fool from Papus, Levi, etc.

Anyhow, unless the Hebrew letters have special meaning to you, your plan of studying Joan Bunning's book first (which I actually did myself) and initially not worrying about the Aleph-bet correspondences at all sounds like a good one.

Thank you, Ornimancer

I came across this and my curious nature took over. I'm one of those people who will keep pulling on a thread....lol. I just wanted to make more sense of it to myself and find out what I might be missing. I'm finishing up Tarot Plain and Simple now and then on to Ms. Bunning. Thank you for your help in explaining this to me.

GD

Aleph as Fool and 0 makes a lot more sense to me (as someone who does know quite a lot about Kabbalah) than Shin as Fool and 300 (but I can make sense of that too, the symbolism being so multivalent). Both (and any other) may be considered 'correct' if viewed in terms of analogical correspondence - or (most probably) incorrect if considered as having a direct relationship in terms of a historical connetion between Kabbalah and the tarot at its (tarots) origins.

The link you give seems to consider there is only one true attribution of which it has the answer and ridicules the others : whereas (in absense of historical data to prove otherwise) it is as 'authentic' (and ridiculous) as any other. Unless you have a particular interest in such, I would say ignore it. If you do have an interest in such, be aware there are many variations, each of which proponents may claim to be 'correct' or somehow more 'authentic' than any other - which such claims I would advise you to not merely passively ignore but actively distrust.

Whether you care to learn about such attributions or not, they do inform the RWS and Crowley/Harris Thoth and by extention the clones thereof : nonetheless you do not require knowledge of such to read with these cards or their clones. If you do learn about such attributions and disagree with them however, that might generate some dissonance that may affect your reading with these cards or clones _ it may also send you on a journey of discovery you may never have dreamed of - a journey that may involve, as you put it, learning a foreign language.

And ultimately, to paraphrase Dan Pelletier, it's all made up. When you think about there are all kinds of different systems and correspondences and sequences but there is no ONE TRUE TAROT!!!!!

So the bottom line is, especially if you're new, don't sweat all the intellectual, arithmetical, systemic mumbo jumbo and look at the pictures on the cards.

I'm sure you'll get all kinds of advice but the best advice I got was to throw away the manual and study the cards and develop YOUR OWN system of correspondences. Learning rote definitions of cards doesn't make for a flowing interpretation for your client.

Thanks, Mojo!

I do know tarot is in the MIND of the beholder and it's easy to get overwhelmed with is this or that the "right" or "true" or "best" way. I just like trying to clarify things I come across so I at least understand what the heck they're talking about! Reading all your input is a great comfort and support.

GD

That's a brilliant-looking link, GD, so thanks for bringing it to my attention at least. It can't hurt you to be reading all this - right now it will feel confusing but immersion is a great friend to the brave seeker and I'm sure you'll come out of it with a much broader understanding of Tarot that someone who just ignores the possibilities and accepts the RWS as the be-all and end-all.

I wish I wasn't at work so I could read through that link with some time and a cup of tea!

\m/ Kat

I read the first paragraph and got bored.