My take on spreads (spontaneous/intuitive)

[Grizabella]

The messages we receive and give to ourselves or others through readings come from us. Decks, spreads, etc., are the tools that we choose to use to facilitate our receipt of that message. The messages come from us, not the tools.

When someone publishes a book, they are sharing what has worked for them. The only rule is that there are no rules. Everyone can and should use whatever works for them. I don't think that researchers or philosophers or "deep thinkers" throughout history have any more valid input into how I use Tarot than I do.

There are alot of successful, accurate Tarot readers out there that have never picked up a book, nor have any idea of when the first Marseilles deck was created. It doesn't matter to them and they are not short changing the querent or themselves by not knowing this.

If someone chooses to follow the historical or traditional methods and meanings - good for them!

If someone chooses to follow their own path - good for them!

In this area, everyone gets to be right

valeria

I agree! If I had to wait till I could educate myself to all the myths, archetypes, legends or whatever, I'd never have been able to start reading at all. I don't think the person(s) who first started using tarot for fortune telling did that. They just got the idea to read the cards.

What about in the 60's and 70's when people decided to read the cards and only had the LWB and sometimes not even that? What did they have to go on? They had their intuition and they had their own imagination and stick-to-it-ive-ness.

God bless Mary Greer and Rachel Pollack, and I'm sure their extensive experience and knowledge serve them well, but I don't think that takes a bloomin' thing away from anyone who just follows their own drummer. I'll bet you good money that they started out pretty much like we all do------with some cards, an inquiring mind, some intuition, imagination, and stick-to-it-ive-ness.

 

[zach bender]

For a long time, I read for myself only a celtic cross, trying to keep the position assignments flexible. I wanted to remain open to seeing the arrays of cards -- two knights competing over here, a two and a three flanking (5) hierophant over there, positions 7 through 10 all reversed -- as possibly signifying something for which the position assignments were merely markers. Often the spread would take a left/right perspective, or maybe everything pointing toward position 8, or whatever. These days, more often I lay out three or four cards, or maybe two rows of three, maybe look at the next card or bottom card. And the meanings of the individual cards I also try to keep general -- six swords is about moving on but carrying something with you, etc. -- so that the specifics might emerge. But I still get some very powerful readings from the celtic cross. I would say my reading these days is intuitive.

zb

 

[SunChariot]

I've never been that crazy about spreads either. I rarely use them now, sometimes I'll be in the mood to try something different and will, but it's very rare. I really like your method, sounds wonderful!

Bar

 

[rebecca-smiles]

Shockingly, they don't.

Sorry, maybe that came across wrong i was inviting discussion from the people who said that you shouldn't move the cards in a spread because it ignores the tradition, history, symbolism etc. It was a question, hence the "?" at the end.

perhaps you would care to elaborate upon my mistake? (that is also a question).

 

[Sophie]

please, may i, with the best possible intent, politely ask *whose culture, whose myths*? who is the *our* here?

because with all due respect, in all the tarot literature i have read in the brief time i have been here, i don't see much about, for example, ogun.

the *our* cultures and thier archetypes, which are widely presumed to be universal, seem to be celtic, norse, 19th cent. understanding of egypt, a little hinduism or buddhism tossed in, maybe some wicca, etc.

our cultural understandings have moved on nowadays! i hope. and how is that included in tarot? this is why i am so sympathetic to the intuitive view, and to papageno's mind-buster on the maleness of the moon. i mean, if buddhagoddess were nigerian, what would waite mean to her? why should he mean anything? jes curious. . .

The culture and myths that shaped the Tarot, which is the subject of this forum. The Tarot did not evolve in a vacuum: it grew in a culture, and out of a series of Judeo-Christian myths, and a long and rich occult tradition - the Western Mysteries - to which were later added Egyptian and - latterly - Celtic myths. Themed decks - even the most out-there - all pay tribute to this culture, as do any decent tarot creator. Even a deck like the New Orleans Voodoo Tarot has incorporated Kabbalah, alongside Ogun. If Buddhagoddess were Nigerian, I would recommend she read a book on the Judeo-Christian traditions and symbolism - and the Bible - for starters. Just as if I were stufying Ifo divination I would study Nigerian mythology and world-view.

Ignoring all this just results in readers who don't know the tarot, who are just using a lot of lateral thinking without any kind of context - it's like wearing blinkers, or trying to read a book without knowing what the words mean. Believing we know it all today, and can do without the past and without the traditions that SHAPED the tarot and what it is today is simply arrogance. It also shows in some abysmal readings I have read or received.

I'm with Dadsnook on this: intuition is a key element of reading, but it has to be built on knowledge and study, or it's just adrift in an ocean of ignorance. I'm sorry, but doing without the books (and I don't mean only tarot books) and the knowledge of symbolism and myths is simply not an option if you want to be a half-way decent reader.

Having said all that - because of the wealth of themed decks out there, by all means we need to widen our studies! I am a fan of the Osho Zen Tarot - that means I need to know (and practice) something of Zen, even if I don't intend going to a monastery.

As for archetypes - it's a new concept, and we can - if we want - do without it, because it did not shape the tarot. It works for some people very well.

For spreads - well, I like freeform conversations with my cards myself. But when I have a very specific question to ask, in order to avoid ambiguity, I create my own spreads. There are also one or two classics I find invaluable, like the Tirage en Croix, the simple 3-card spread (which can be extended to any number of cards, by simple dint of laying out several groups of three), the 7-card horseshoe and Joan Bunning's Yin-Yang. But when I want to explore something, then I go for the conversation style (between me and my cards), which can take up the whole pack!

 

[Elnor]

When I first started studying Tarot, the Celtic Cross was the first spread that was taught on the course that I went to. It seems to be THE spread of spreads for a lot of us in the beginning... and I spend ages memorising every position and all the different nuances possible.

But after awhile, I found it SO frustrating... sometimes it just wasn't necessary to the question to know 'how others see me', etc.etc, but I didn't have the experience to know that I could alter the spread as needed. It was only after doing readings for several years that I got the confidence to change it, (and I went through a phase of 'collecting' spreads like recipes... that was fun! My Tarot journal's full of 'em now).

Now, I often just build a spread to suit the question or situation, which I find works really well for me at this point- but i suppose that could change again in the future. Last night I did one like that because I've got the opportunity to move house, so I did a double three-card spread: one for staying where I am, and one for moving.

There are a couple of 'spreads', (and that's a loose definition really- they are not proper spreads) made up of lots of cards when I want to do an 'intuitive' reading. No card is actually given an allocated meaning, I just lay out about 24 cards in rows and wait for patterns and connections between cards to emerge. It's kind of like seeing a story come out- I can't really explain it very well, but that's how it feels. I don't get the chance to do these very often, unfortunately... most of the people I've read for do prefer the traditional relationship-career spread.

I do still collect spreads that appear in the forums here- I like things like the "Heart of Darkness" one that was recently posted, or the "12 Days of Yule"... spreads that allow a more personal inner searching.

Since I stick with the RWS, (or it's clone the Hoi Polloi) I suppose the culture of that deck for me would be the esoteric British one that seems to be associated with it, which has led me to study more about Druidism and shamanism.

Elnor

 

[rebecca-smiles]

I have to say, that although i read freeform mostly now, i don't know what i would have done without spreads in the begining. I felt lost at sea even with spreads, and they gave me a strong foundation for seeing how cards become contextualised from their general symbolic meanings. Otherwise I would have felt certain i was 'making it up.' if someone feels more comforable without spreads....but i wouldn't recommend it to someone just starting with tarot, talk about throwing them in at the deep end! well done to anyone who just can.

 

[Sheri]

Originally posted by Fudugazi:
It also shows in some abysmal readings I have read or received.

I'm off to look through my past posts and see if I did any readings for you, Fudugazi

I don't know of anyone who doesn't have the background say that they "know it all." Also, the people I know who choose not to learn all the background do not come across as they know it all, or arrogant - in fact, I have frequently found the opposite is true.

That said I have gotten great readings by people who have the background, and I have received great readings by people who don't have the background. Actually, I don't know who is who, I never bothered to ask for resumes or credentials, I gauge a good reading by its applicability to me as the sitter. The last time I checked, readings were not supposed to be Tarot history/traditional meaning lessons - its about using a tool to "tune in" to the person we are reading for.

I also don't think that there are any clear "boundary" lines with this either. I started out without the "backstory" and started reading the cards - as I used them I started noticing things and had questions - which has lead me on a path to learn more about the history of the Tarot and why things are the way they are. I am sure that it will enhance my readings, but I don't think I did anyone a dis-service by reading for them without this information, or that anyone that chooses not to learn all the background is any less a card reader for it.

We don't have to know how the English language evolved in order to communicate. We shouldn't have to know how our Tarot decks evolved in order to communicate either. Unless we choose to do so.

We need to embrace and acknowledge the validity of both paths - and all the variants in between. As I said before, we all get to decide how we follow our individual paths - and each of our paths is just as valid as another's.

Sometimes a guy holding a stick is just a guy holding a stick - even if he is the Archduke Beaureveier's second cousin's ex-fiance who borrowed money from Visconti

*valeria dives quickly behind sofa to avoid pies and beer bottles thrown at her because of her blasphemic statements that were intended as humor*

 

[Sophie]

I'm off to look through my past posts and see if I did any readings for you, Fudugazi

LOL, don't think so

I don't know of anyone who doesn't have the background say that they "know it all." Also, the people I know who choose not to learn all the background do not come across as they know it all, or arrogant - in fact, I have frequently found the opposite is true.

I don't think not having the background is arrogant - what's arrogant is saying that it's not necessary, all old stuff, irrelevant, etc. or saying that because it belongs to Western culture of the past, we no longer need it. I know some good readers who are pretty ignorant about mythology etc. but they would never say that it's not important. In fact most readers I know are interested and go looking for more. There is always more we can learn - "the background" is so vast that we could study for ever and still learn. I don't, actually, think it's just background either: to quite a degree study of certain things is central to the cards themselves, their meanings and the progress through the arcana. Tarot didn't just land in our laps ex nihilo, and I think it behoves us to find out about the tools of our trade and how to use them.

I also don't think that there are any clear "boundary" lines with this either. I started out without the "backstory" and started reading the cards - as I used them I started noticing things and had questions - which has lead me on a path to learn more about the history of the Tarot and why things are the way they are. I am sure that it will enhance my readings, but I don't think I did anyone a dis-service by reading for them without this information, or that anyone that chooses not to learn all the background is any less a card reader for it.

That's pretty much my path too, as I read from day one. But I guess we both had some other background in Western culture - I mean I knew what Grail was for instance, and I recognised the World card as being based on the Christ in mandorla imagery you get on churches in Southern Europe, etc.

As I said, I don't just mean backstory. Reading with the RWS without knowing something of the occult tradition and symbolism, the positions of the cards on the Tree of Life, and Christian mysticism, is perfectly possible, and some good readers do it: but we miss out on some pretty central stuff if we do, given that the deck - and how to read it - was made with those things completely in mind.

So reading cards without such knowledge can work perfectly well for some - but it's more like reading oracle cards than tarot. Because tarot has a certain tradition and inner structure, and most of the classic decks from Waite onwards were made with strict occult and symbolical meanings in mind, and designed to be explored on the Tree of Life, or in specific layouts.

Spreads and layouts were designed by occult creators (and less occult ones) specifically with their own decks in mind, or were designed and remained classics because they work. Like Rebecca, I think they give grounding and context when you are starting out, and even once you are experienced, they provide a map. But sometimes it's fun to travel without a map

 

[buddhagoddess]

Reply from buddhagoddess - thread starter

I just wanted to jump back in and give another couple of cents. First, I never expected the thread to get so much response. Holy moly. I also would like to clarify a couple of points on my end. I did not intend to say that I disregard spreads as unnecessary or without meaning, but just that I have a hard time working with them. I get the definite sense that the words intutive/intuition are sometimes translated by others as saying that I completely disregard the traditional meanings and symbolism of the cards. That is so far from the truth. I look at the majors in a very traditional manner because they are after all archetypes of human kind. Who wants to mess with that? Since I am still learning, where I really sometimes plug my intuitive side into is when I am working with the minors (pips/courts). I am struggling to retain in my brain the traditional meanings of these cards because I am finding such a wide range of definitions in the books and other resources I study. Sometimes I feel I need to just let me intuition seek out something in the imagery to help me along with these cards. The elemental associations with the minor suits I respect greatly and use that information extensively in my readings (elemental dignities).

As for spreads, I would also like to say that I do use a couple of very simple spreads. Mind/body/Spirit, Past/Present/Future, an elemental spread - earth/air/fire/water/spirit. I did work with the CC for a while, but response to my readings was basically that the messages I was giving were very "choppy" - it was hard to create a single cohesive message using that many cards in that configuration. Again, I am a beginner so it is definitely a lack of experience. Sometimes I feel that the saying "less is more" can really apply to tarot spreads, that's why I use smaller spreads when I do use them. For me, anything beyond 7 cards seems like overload.

Many thanks to all for the sharing of opinions. I have learned a great deal from AT and I have come to love Tarot these last few months. I have known for years that it was something I should explore. But, the time was not right until I found AT. I definitely think Tarot will be in my life for the rest of my days.

Thanks again for sharing...

Namaste and Bright Blessings,

BG