runes; no sense whatsoever

Penthasilia

! *~Oh~* !, I Would LOVE to hear a full explanation on that system ~! sounds VERY interesting :D

I sent you a PM to remind myself :p and will send another with the full system :)

If anyone else is interested, just let me know!
 

Le Fanu

Blum's book is crap- so that may be the first issue with learning ;)
Oh gosh, I should have mentioned, I moved away from Blum years and years ago. It was just that I stipulated that as my starting point. But no, I know his books are not the way to go.

I think the problem is that the more similar the "spread" is to tarot, the more fuzzy it gets. To me, a 3-rune spread sounds like tarot and I'd rather look at beautiful, rich and symbolic pictures than twiggy symbols. That's the problem, cards always win hands down but I'd love to have a more in depth knowledge as I'm sure there's real depth there but then - I'll be honest - I have never been able to identify that depth even though I have read about it. I find myself thinking "It's coz you're not Nordic" but others seem to do ok.

I think what would work for me is digging my hand into the bag and drawing a rune out. Hence not like tarot. Or tossing them onto a cloth and seeing which ones fall inside a circle.

But it's such an impenetrable universe. I see no other way into it except laborious memorising. I think back on learning tarot and there was so much richness in the imagery and artwork. The reason I'm back trying again is that I recently picked up these runes in my local esoteric shop which I didn't think would be released until January and they are so lovely, so tactile and lovely to have in your hands. So I thought this time I'm gonna learn but it's back to memorising again. Liking the feel of your runestones must be a good start, surely? They're nicer than the ones I lovingly made :D

AJ, you mention getting single words as a focus for a reading, do you get those from the LWB/a book? Or do you have them at your fingertips now?

Doesn't anyone have an "easy way to learn" the runic alphabet, i.e this one looks like a "L" and means "love" or something? I can imagine it being the only way. :D
 

Flaminica

Thank you for clarifying regarding Blum. He's many people's first rune book and he's garbage. My initial formation in runes was Aswynn, who is not too much better in the minds of some. Thorsson and Pennick come highly recommended by many.

I've used runes for many years. A familiarity with tarot may actually serve as more a detriment than a benefit to getting into the headspace of runes. Here's a few things about them that might help. I won't attempt to get dogmatic, because one of the things all authors can agree on about the runes is that there's very little that is historically verifiable about their use. Too much has been lost, so anyone who presumes to tell you they know the "real" lore of runes is full of what the cow left behind.

Tarot images are symbols or archetypes. Runes are more analogous to sigils. A rune doesn't merely represent a force or energy: it IS that force or energy. This difference is essential.

Any rune can be boiled down very simply to a couple of keywords. Anything else is commentary. If you need a paragraph to describe what a rune means, you haven't gotten to the core of it yet.

Runes, because of their visual simplicity, are very conducive to meditation. A visualisation exercise once a day on the futhark will encourage the runes to speak to you via the Well of Mimir which is the Akashic record. Keep a notebook of your insights.

Keeping in mind what I said above re the paucity of historical information, I strongly recommend reading runes by casting rather than the popular neo-tarot practice of placing in layouts. For one thing, it will break you of the habit of treating stones as substitute tarot cards, which they are not. Casting is also the method described by Tacitus in one of the few fragments of existing ancient knowledge. You wouldn't read tarot by flinging the cards on the floor, so why do the same with your runes?

For the same reason I recommend stones or tiles, not cards. If you're serious, make your own. It's not hard. Mine are flat river stones with painted symbols.

Don't expect the same flavour of results as tarot. Remember the source. Runes are the exoteric divinatory system of the Germanic peoples (seith being the esoteric one). They are grounded in the tribal zeitgeist of a specific culture, one very much more severe than the flamboyant chattiness of the Mediterranean that birthed tarot. Runes are very good for depth readings of motivations and for revealing influences surrounding a situation. They are frequently blunt and brutally honest. They excel at stripping away the accretions of personal agendae that mask our psychological motivations.

Runes do NOT care why your best mate took someone else to the Lady Gaga concert, what your co-worker really thinks of you, or whether you're going to get back with your ex. In fact, the Powers behind the runes may actually tell you to stop wasting their time if they think a question is beneath them, or you. I save big questions for the runes and save the trivial ones for the cards. Tarot is Italian and always loves to gossip!
 

Penthasilia

Hey guys- for anyone interested in the Soul Map I had spoken of earlier, here is the website with the full instructions: http://www.northernshamanism.org/shamanic-techniques/shamanic-healing/soul-map.html

Interestingly- I have also used this in conjunction with tarot, especially when there were tricky areas that were either blocked, missing or where the wyrd (fate) stone was pulled and I needed more detailed information.

As far as easy learning for each rune- there are some authors (Raven included) who try to put them into a context of which major arcana they would be like, but I find that is not very helpful. For me, it is experiencing the rune and meditating on it's meaning and the stanza of the poem.

Let me know what y'all think :D
 

Le Fanu

Thank you for clarifying regarding Blum. He's many people's first rune book and he's garbage. My initial formation in runes was Aswynn, who is not too much better in the minds of some. Thorsson and Pennick come highly recommended by many.

I've used runes for many years. A familiarity with tarot may actually serve as more a detriment than a benefit to getting into the headspace of runes. Here's a few things about them that might help. I won't attempt to get dogmatic, because one of the things all authors can agree on about the runes is that there's very little that is historically verifiable about their use. Too much has been lost, so anyone who presumes to tell you they know the "real" lore of runes is full of what the cow left behind.

Tarot images are symbols or archetypes. Runes are more analogous to sigils. A rune doesn't merely represent a force or energy: it IS that force or energy. This difference is essential.

Any rune can be boiled down very simply to a couple of keywords. Anything else is commentary. If you need a paragraph to describe what a rune means, you haven't gotten to the core of it yet.

Runes, because of their visual simplicity, are very conducive to meditation. A visualisation exercise once a day on the futhark will encourage the runes to speak to you via the Well of Mimir which is the Akashic record. Keep a notebook of your insights.

Keeping in mind what I said above re the paucity of historical information, I strongly recommend reading runes by casting rather than the popular neo-tarot practice of placing in layouts. For one thing, it will break you of the habit of treating stones as substitute tarot cards, which they are not. Casting is also the method described by Tacitus in one of the few fragments of existing ancient knowledge. You wouldn't read tarot by flinging the cards on the floor, so why do the same with your runes?

For the same reason I recommend stones or tiles, not cards. If you're serious, make your own. It's not hard. Mine are flat river stones with painted symbols.

Don't expect the same flavour of results as tarot. Remember the source. Runes are the exoteric divinatory system of the Germanic peoples (seith being the esoteric one). They are grounded in the tribal zeitgeist of a specific culture, one very much more severe than the flamboyant chattiness of the Mediterranean that birthed tarot. Runes are very good for depth readings of motivations and for revealing influences surrounding a situation. They are frequently blunt and brutally honest. They excel at stripping away the accretions of personal agendae that mask our psychological motivations.

Runes do NOT care why your best mate took someone else to the Lady Gaga concert, what your co-worker really thinks of you, or whether you're going to get back with your ex. In fact, the Powers behind the runes may actually tell you to stop wasting their time if they think a question is beneath them, or you. I save big questions for the runes and save the trivial ones for the cards. Tarot is Italian and always loves to gossip!
I found this post hugely helpful. Thank you. It has sent me off into a slightly different direction, which is exactly what I needed :)
 

Penthasilia

Thank you for clarifying regarding Blum. He's many people's first rune book and he's garbage. My initial formation in runes was Aswynn, who is not too much better in the minds of some. Thorsson and Pennick come highly recommended by many.

I've used runes for many years. A familiarity with tarot may actually serve as more a detriment than a benefit to getting into the headspace of runes. Here's a few things about them that might help. I won't attempt to get dogmatic, because one of the things all authors can agree on about the runes is that there's very little that is historically verifiable about their use. Too much has been lost, so anyone who presumes to tell you they know the "real" lore of runes is full of what the cow left behind.

Tarot images are symbols or archetypes. Runes are more analogous to sigils. A rune doesn't merely represent a force or energy: it IS that force or energy. This difference is essential.

Any rune can be boiled down very simply to a couple of keywords. Anything else is commentary. If you need a paragraph to describe what a rune means, you haven't gotten to the core of it yet.

Runes, because of their visual simplicity, are very conducive to meditation. A visualisation exercise once a day on the futhark will encourage the runes to speak to you via the Well of Mimir which is the Akashic record. Keep a notebook of your insights.

Keeping in mind what I said above re the paucity of historical information, I strongly recommend reading runes by casting rather than the popular neo-tarot practice of placing in layouts. For one thing, it will break you of the habit of treating stones as substitute tarot cards, which they are not. Casting is also the method described by Tacitus in one of the few fragments of existing ancient knowledge. You wouldn't read tarot by flinging the cards on the floor, so why do the same with your runes?

For the same reason I recommend stones or tiles, not cards. If you're serious, make your own. It's not hard. Mine are flat river stones with painted symbols.

Don't expect the same flavour of results as tarot. Remember the source. Runes are the exoteric divinatory system of the Germanic peoples (seith being the esoteric one). They are grounded in the tribal zeitgeist of a specific culture, one very much more severe than the flamboyant chattiness of the Mediterranean that birthed tarot. Runes are very good for depth readings of motivations and for revealing influences surrounding a situation. They are frequently blunt and brutally honest. They excel at stripping away the accretions of personal agendae that mask our psychological motivations.

Runes do NOT care why your best mate took someone else to the Lady Gaga concert, what your co-worker really thinks of you, or whether you're going to get back with your ex. In fact, the Powers behind the runes may actually tell you to stop wasting their time if they think a question is beneath them, or you. I save big questions for the runes and save the trivial ones for the cards. Tarot is Italian and always loves to gossip!

Love the post- and completely concur. Mine are made from bone and are unbelievably powerful. I agree on the cards- yuck :p
 

Haizea

Le Fanu, I don't think being Germanic should matter. First, I have this idea that something like runes must have been practiced everywhere at some point, and the practice persisted in the North. The letters are similar to alphabets from the South, aren't they? And second, we don't know our origins, so someone living now in the United States could perfectly have a lot of Roman blood in them, because a Roman soldier fathered one of his ancestors. In general, most of us are mixes. Maybe I am aware of this because I am a Mediterranean, but not dark-skinned.


I enjoyed very much my practice with Runes, but I did not go on learning. One reason can be that when I started with tarot I practiced a lot on myself, and when I started runes I didn't feel like asking so much.

Le Fanu, from what you are saying, it seems that you have a style with tarot that can't be applied to runes. My style with tarot is similar to what is done with runes: I have associated particular meanings to each card. I mean, I am not drawn by the visual...it is all related to the CONCEPT I have already fixed in my mind.

I only know one book, so I am not the best one for reviews :D but I can say that I like my book. The author is called Macarena Rojo (probably only good for someone interested in learning Spanish :D ).
 

AJ

.

AJ, you mention getting single words as a focus for a reading, do you get those from the LWB/a book? Or do you have them at your fingertips now?
I mean instead of "how will the job interview go next week" or "What field of endeavor should I pursue as a career choice", narrow down the focus to one word. Job. Employment. Career.
I shake them up then reach in my bag and grasp some runes. Usually three to five come out, I drop them from about a foot high onto my reading cloth. Where they fall in the circles is the start of the reading process. That was what I kept from the Eason book.

I had to go to google to find it but this is the thread for the first Rune Circle sign up

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=129460
From that thread, my throw cloth
http://www.tarotforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=39783&d=1260911935. I think it's about 2' square.

Somewhere in that thread is the link to the first experimental circle, where I asked each person to use a one word query. The results were both entertaining and educational, at least to me.

My learning style is read everything I can lay my hands on, keep what I want and leave the rest. Blum has detractors but I will give his book credit for bringing back rune reading from nearly lost obscurity.

Keep it simple is my method. I draw my mind to images of those ancient runic stones...carving sigils in stone wasn't a fast job, it seems obvious brevity of word and thought applied. It is little wonder they are associated with ancient magic.
 

Le Fanu

I like your take and agree; keep it simple. Love that cloth and I can identify with your way of reading. Feels suitably non-tarot to me.

There are so many people reading runes and so many who are "intuitive" as opposed to "read everything you can lay your hands on" (as you did and I too have a tendency to do when I want to understand something) that surely there must be away into them for me!

I haven't given up.
 

Emily

My first introduction to Runes was while I was at school, I must only have been 14ish. And our class did a study of the Vikings, which included the Runic alphabet. I also did a separate study for my exams which was really in-depth. But for a while our teacher had the whole class reading and writing using Runes, I didn't know at that time they could be used for divination, just thought it was a really cool way to write in my diary and that no one else could read.

Maybe to really familiarise yourself and to connect with them better, practise writing them. Just the alphabet, then do a crib sheet with one word meanings. Also they are written phonetically. I don't use Runes as much as I should because I always seem to find them really blunt and to the point.