Why runes are NOT as popular as tarots ?

[Flavio]

Perhaps people just don't dig deep enough when they work with the runes, so they think them more superficial than tarot? But then, Flavio - I'm a story oriented person

Thank God there is something for everyone! and if not we can always invent it.

 

[Umbrae]

…I am also drawing upon the power of the beginning of creation, the power of the cow that formed the first man-god by…

Here’s a question for ya…

So Runes harken back to the preliterate shamanic European.

Their alphabet begins with Fehu, which translates as Fire and means Cattle.

The Hebrew alphabet begins with Aleph which means amongst other things – Ox.

What is it that man needs to transform from to a non-nomadic society? Cows. The ability to engage in structured agriculture on a scale to support an urbanizing society.

It all begins with cattle or oxen. Domestication of animals.

Sorry…just rambling…they probably taught that in schools, huh…? What was the question?

 

[Sheri]

I started my journey into the metaphysical with runes. I liked the tactile feel of the stones in the bag (still do)...sometimes I would just run my fingers through them in the bag. I also liked the idea that they were letters AND numbers. My set had a blank too. I read my runes by touch with my eyes closed. I don't think I will ever be able to do that with cards (the 3D feeling of it).

What is interesting is that had I not had runes, I probably would not have been introduced to the Tarot. I would post a rune-of-the-day on my cubicle wall at work (after I threw caution to the wind and moved to this glorious Washington state). A coworker stopped by and asked me about runes and told me she about Tarot. That was it for me and I have never looked back.

In my opinion, Tarot seems more popular because the card format allows for an infinite variety of artwork or interpretation. I think this speaks to many more people than runes because the nature of a rune limits the artistic interpretation of its meaning. It would be like the Tarot world being limited to only a couple of styles of decks. Can they still be used? yes! but not as much fun and not as "electric" as the anticipation of a new and interesting Tarot deck coming out. I think the variety and the anticipation of something new keeps Tarot interesting and exciting (not that runes aren't interesting and exciting).

Before I joined the forum, I had just one reading deck, a classic RWS. I couldn't imagine having more than one deck - that was just plain CRAZY talk! Now I think I have 17! Woo hoo bring on Victorian Romantic Gold Edition! Woo hoo bring on Sherman Douglas reprint! I just can't get that excited over runes...but I still love them!

valeria

 

[Sophie]

Here’s a question for ya…

So Runes harken back to the preliterate shamanic European.

Their alphabet begins with Fehu, which translates as Fire and means Cattle.

The Hebrew alphabet begins with Aleph which means amongst other things – Ox.

What is it that man needs to transform from to a non-nomadic society? Cows. The ability to engage in structured agriculture on a scale to support an urbanizing society.

It all begins with cattle or oxen. Domestication of animals.

Except the domestication of animals was first done by nomads and nomads still live from their animals. Vikings were semi-Nomads, as were the ancient Hebrews. It was immovable property (Othala) that indicated that someone had settled. Strange - the runes are like a snapshot of an evolving civilisation - from creation and nomadism, to settled village life, via marriages, children, planting and harvesting, travels and raiding parties, cataclysms (maybe the neighbours raiding ), the voice of god, laws and times of joy.

I've also wondered about the similariy between Fehu and Aleph. It's strange, these two peoples - the ancient Jews and the ancient Norsemen - are considered so different, and yet the similarities are obvious. Both semi-nomadic with a strong taste for raiding, both finding challenge, meaning and spirit in a desert (the hot desert of the Middle East for the Jews, the cold desert of ice and sea for the Norsemen), both using their alphabet magically. The relationship with a special and demanding god (Yahweh/Odin) is also strong, though unlike the Jews, the Vikings never developed monotheism. But for a long time, neither did the Jews. Comparisons go as far as they go. It's an interesting exercise, however. Has anyone compared Kaballah with the runes? Haindl used both in his Tarot.

And to come back to this thread, at least tangientially, () - Haindl's Tarot seems to me more and more like a fascinating experiment in complementary divination tools. The Majors feature an archetypal image, a Hebrew letter, a Rune. The Minors feature the implements & number against an atmospheric background, a keyword, and an I-Ching hexagramme.

 

[Sophie]

Thank God there is something for everyone! and if not we can always invent it.

Invent, invent! The tarune oracle

Or maybe give the Haindl Tarot a try - he's got it all in there

 

[Fulgour]

Or maybe give the Haindl Tarot a try -
he's got it all in there

To say the least, I was unimpressed by Mr. Haindl's
application of Runes to Tarot~ causing me to view
his expertise in either disicpline as basically flawed.

The same goes for Crowley... just a bunch of noise,
as if waving your arms and shouting proves a point.

To discover the meaning of the Runes you can copy
down everyone's "keywords" but when you compare
them you will find that nobody is in agreement there.

So in the end, you must decide for yourself. It's true.
Nothing anyone else says can make the Runes 'speak'
to you: you must speak to them first, and then listen.

And then if you wish, you can match Runes and Tarot
in any way that works, possibly discovering new levels
of depth and appreciation. It's worth the effort to try.

 

[blackstormhawk]

Runes are different. If you are called to them, they hold a great deal of power and magic, and the readings can be as rich as some here say is the hallmark of tarot. I will admit they are a very no-nonsense method of divination, and of working magic. They are a reflection of Pre-Christian Northern European Culture, that's for sure. They are the tools of a strong, warrior people, and this is reflected in the messages they bring.

 

[Fulgour]

Uninspired Showmanship

I can see where the flaw in my argument would be,
that Haindl and Crowley each discovered their own
meanings and correlations. True enough... but they
give their views as authoritative to novice students
without first having 'gone to school' for themselves.

 

[Julien]

Well, I haven't learned to work with Runes, but I have wanted to for a long time... But I've had a really difficult time finding a set that were not the plastic-y fake kind; and because I can't find good "source material" to help me learn the symbolism... This leads me to think that some of us who would like to learn to work with them are not because they seem less readily accessible.

Which means I need to get on-line and find what I need and order it... But that's not as much fun as walking through my favorite esoteric store and finding lots of what I want. Which is always the case with tarot and oracle cards...

Just my two cents.
Julien

 

[Sophie]

So in the end, you must decide for yourself. It's true.
Nothing anyone else says can make the Runes 'speak'
to you: you must speak to them first, and then listen.

And then if you wish, you can match Runes and Tarot
in any way that works, possibly discovering new levels
of depth and appreciation. It's worth the effort to try.

Ah, I agree that the runes speak, if you listen. I am finding out for myself

I don't always "get" Haindl's matching of runes and tarot, but I imagine that he too was listening to the runes, when he put them on his cards. Maybe they talk to different people in different ways - give them different messages? I don't feel obliged to hear everything other people hear from the runes - nor will everyone hear the same as me from the same rune. I am finding out that are far more subtle than they are credited with . But I like Haindl, because I think he is honest in his approach. I take him as an artist, not a system-manager . He traced a way for others to do the same, perhaps completely differently - he did not lay down a law. Haindl does not give his views as authoritative. If anything, his approach is more meditative and experiential.