Med. on the Tarot - Letter 1

[punchinella]

I have just started to read this book. I aquired it today, started reading the first letter & could not put it down until I came to the very end. It's . . . to say it's gorgeous is a sad understatement. It's breathtaking, it stops my heart. Particularly the first 'practical' portion of the letter, the discussion of silence.

It's interesting to read other people's synopses of significant points, since what different people choose to emphasize varies so much (from, at least, what jumped out at me in this first reading . . . ) I am reminded of a classroom.

Jmd, I too was quite taken with the initial definition of symbols that you mention in your post (dated 19-06-2002). &, as I mentioned above, with the discussion of silence/concentration. The logical connection between this--which UA characterizes as 'practical'--& the discussion of analogy, which s/he characterizes as 'theoretical', at the moment eludes me. To quote:

"As concentration without effort finds expression in the whole picture of the Card--as well as in all its details--and thus constitutes the practical Arcanum here, one also finds expressed in it the method of analogy, which constitutes the theoretical Arcanum. For, seen from the level of the intellect, the practice of the method of analogy corresponds completely to the practice of concentration without effort. Also, it appears there not as 'work' but as 'play.' "

I suppose the connection must be, simply, not so much logical as procedural: the mind can only 'see' analogy when being as a whole is concentrated & relaxed. --Not understanding this connection the first time through (well, I still don't really understand it, above was just a guess) did plague my reading to a certain extent.

On a more superficial (?) level, I would very much like to know:

1) Who UA is--specifically, & generally (gender?) --It strikes me that this is a major piece of writing, & posterity needs to be able to identify its author. (If UA really is U, which I have trouble believing, work should be done on this before the trail goes cold.)

2) Which deck, specifically, s/he is looking at (card described in detail on page 7 of my edition)--It strikes me that color might indicate a particular deck, although, Marseilles newcomer that I am, I'm totally underequipped to identify it myself . . . if such identification is even possible.

Perhaps this thread is really too old for resurrection. On the other hand, I know I'm not the only one who has recently taken this book up (I got the idea from--was it Moongold??)

Anyway, it'd be great to hear from other people also reading UA.

Punchinella

 

[jmd]

Great to see you found the book and are thoroughly enjoying it.

With regards to the author's identity, and since you ask, it is generally not written for it allows for the author's wish to remain. I will personally avoid typing it within discussions on the specific letters, but do not hesitate to include it elsewhere (I'll post in another thread his name - which I also previously have, by the way).

With regards to the identification of the author for posterity, this is precisely what the UA wished to somewhat leave behind... though he clearly marks with his authorship his other works (which are, by the way, as good).

There is a modern tendency to want to identify the messenger, rather than focus on the message. In line with a number of more famous texts within his native Russia, some especially more mystically oriented texts tend to avoid the author's name, and various mediaeval texts are so left, or ascribed (in ways we these days view as fraudulent) to another.

Does posterity need to know the name of an author who wishes to maintain anonymity?

With regards to the deck used, and irrespective of the image included, he clearly refers to the Marteau/Grimaud within the text. Small bits of precise description, as to colouring as well as to detail, point in that direction. I cannot now remember where these are, for it was when I first read the book a few years ago that I took the time to try to isolate the deck from which came the descriptions - if I have kept those notes (which I doubt), I'll refer to them...

...but to finish this post by quoting part of your own quote: 'the method of analogy corresponds completely to the practice of concentration without effort'... and then some more:

• 'If one wants to practise some form of authentic esotericism - be it mystical, gnosis, or magic - it is necessary to be the Magician, ie, concentrated without effort, operating with ease as if one were playing, and acting with perfect calm.'

[p11 of the Element 1993 edition, pp30-31 of the French Aubier 1984 edition]

Interestingly, by the way, another translation of the same passage may be rendered differently, somewhat thus:

• 'In other words, if we will the authentic practice of esoteric form - whether mysticism, whether gnosis, whether magic - one must be Bateleur, concentrating without effort, operating with ease as though playing, and doing with perfect calm.'

I note this for two especial reason: the first is that he uses the term 'Bateleur', though one of the activities mentioned is magic. Thus, the Bateleur is seen to be not so closely connected to any of those three terms, but rather to all three by the nature of his inner activity; the second is that translating will inevitably lose some of the connotations - which is, of course, unavoidable. The translation of some words has become, however, unfortunate.

...now to dig up that older thread

 

[punchinella]

Yes, I was curious to see throughout the letter the term Magician exclusively used. But I take your post as indication that this reflects translation only.

I am relieved to discover that the identity of the author is indeed known . &, thank you for identifying the deck.

I'm still feeling confused by the precise relationship between concentration without effort & analogous reasoning, possibly because I'm looking for something concrete, which may not actually exist. Perhaps it would be better to accept the language & argument in a more holistic manner, rolling with it rather than attempting to master or control it.

Another point that gave me pause over breakfast this morning was UA's assertion that dissolution of heirarchy leads consistently & inevitably to war (I see that you made note of this earlier as well.) This strikes me as strong reflection of a specific ideological/political perspective, worked so smoothly into the texture of the prose that in spite of disagreeing with it (?) I failed to isolate it the first time through Knowledge of the writer's identity/social position would, I suspect, help to contextualize this particular claim.

On the other hand, I can see that contextualization for such a purpose may be exactly the sort of thing he wished to avoid, when he chose to go unnamed. There is certainly a logic to this.

 

[Rusty Neon]

Esoteric works are notorious to translate. Given the translation problems highlighted by Jean-Michel, I also shudder to think how Paul Marteau's _Le Tarot de Marseille_ would be translated into English.

And imagine, we have all these problems with French, a relatively approachable language of version originale. Imagine a dead language or a non-Western language.

 

[the gabe]

I'm still feeling confused by the precise relationship between concentration without effort & analogous reasoning, possibly because I'm looking for something concrete, which may not actually exist. Perhaps it would be better to accept the language & argument in a more holistic manner, rolling with it rather than attempting to master or control it.

I just started the book recently and here's a bit from my notes on Letter one about just this.

Analogy, to the intellect, is seen as play, not work. One either sees the Analogy or does not. It has an immediacy beyond intellect.

Don't know if that actually helps anyone understand the relationship between analogy and and effortless concentration, but that's how the whole idea clicked with me.

 

[punchinella]

Hee hee gabe --since the 'relationship' I'm looking for might also be termed an 'analogy', I guess I simply don't see it!!!

(& welcome, by the way--yeeeah, ANOTHER PERSON READING THIS WONDERFUL BOOK!)

Punch

 

[tmgrl2]

My copy came in the mail today....I begin...

ty, jmd

terri

 

[tmgrl2]

I am chuckling to myself. I just did a three page post, quoting parts of Letter I and bringing forth some elements from The Course in Miracles, since some of the concepts overlap.

I hit post and lost the whole thing!

I guess the cosmic author is telling me I said WAY too much.

Anyhow, I'll just do a quick in -my -own -words summary. I like the idea of effortless concentration contained within TheMagician, I.

I also believe quite strongly in the element of "transforming work into play," that Punchinella refers to in her post.

In the Course in Miracles the separation is also described as an illusion since the Spirit cannot perceive and the Ego cannot know. The ego can learn, but learning can be frightening, since learning can lead to the relinquishment of the ego to the light of spirit. Again, the idea that there is only love. Fear is an illusion. One cannot be fearful and experience love. The converse is true. If one is still, one learns that only the spirit, the Unmoved Mover is real. We author fear, not the Zero/the one who created.

Smleite's discussion of the numbers in another thread have also tied this together more for me. Instead of paraphrasing, I will add the link here, since her discussion of Zero and I stand best in her words:

http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28304

What I am coming away with as I read Meditations on the Tarot, threads like smeilte's and as I revisit The Course in Miracles
is that no matter how much I "study" literature about reading the Tarot cards, it is the quiet reflection, the understanding that "as is above, so it is below," and the idea of "transforming work into play," that will ultimately be the best "guide" to tapping into that which is there for us if we choose to let it in. The one who has created does not need revelation returned. However, it is perhaps our role to help bring revelation to others. Also, being truly helpful does not mean we are vulnerable, because we are not in the business of protecting our ego, so we cannot be hurt, since ego is an illusion.

Just musings. I have read Letter II. This is not a race, so as I reread it, I may comment more as we go along.

terri

 

[Moongold]

Meditations on the Tarot

I am writing this where I don’t have access to what has already been written so please be understanding if I cover ground which has already been covered.

This book touches again the longings of my child hood and early teenage years for some kind of union with God. Some people say we choose to come back to this life to learn lessons we need to learn. I am in the late afternoon of my life now and think I am just beginning to understand the lessons that perhaps I needed to learn. Every experience in my present life has meaning if I see it thus. I remember the most pure longing as a child for God, experienced as a deep loss and emptiness filled by the things of the world, but still with a sense of loss and seeking.

As a teenager, the life of Teresa of Avila enraptured me, and she appears in the pages of Meditations on the Tarot as well. In my bookcase I found a battered copy of The way of perfection and have begun to read this again.

The UA says:

Learn at first concentration without effort; transform work into play; make every yoke that you have accepted easy and every burden that you carry light.

I thought initially that concentration without effort may have been simply like the zen notion of living completely in the present, and whilst that is partly true, it is in reality much more than this. UA speaks of the silence which is in some way connected I think with what Teresa calls contemplation. She says;

Contemplation is Divine union in which the Lord takes His delight in the soul and the soul takes its delight in Him..

There is much more to it than this of course. Before one gets to contemplation one must know how to be silent, how to hear. The contemplation of which Teresa speaks is a very advanced state of being. Forgive my rambling – these are predawn thoughts on a Sunday morning.

I am interested in the Magician as the Tarot’s symbol of all of the quotation referred to earlier – the fact that he is a joker and a trickster, his position at the beginning of the Tarot, the simplicity of the image representing the sacredness of everyday life, the tools and gifts that he has to live the life of grace ( the symbols of the suits) – the simple grounding things of everyday life. It is interesting indeed that the symbols of our passage through this life and our connection to the Divine should be exemplified in a set of playing cards ……transform work into play ……….

Anyway this is just the beginning. I hope others contribute, and that we continue to go through this book in some way. For people just to contribute their thoughts on this book would be immensely valuable to me.

 

[tmgrl2]

Lovely, Moongold....