Tarot and Numerology

[Richard]

I could actually see the worth of using non-Kabbalistic numerology with Tarot, provided it was a fairly neutral Marseilles-type of deck.

Maybe so, maybe not.

I tend to agree with those who seem to think that folk numerology doesn't have any definite relation to tarot. There is a different sort of numerology that is catching on among new Marseille readers. It consists of relating each pip to the corresponding trump with the same number. Mary Greer thinks that this is almost equivalent to using Pythagorean number symbolism. Whether or not that's true, one thing is certain, the pips as trumps method ultimately associates each pip with the corresponding Sephirah (whether or not the user realizes it). That can't be all bad, but it does circle back to Qabalism. (It also raises the question of what to do about Justice and Hod, but that issue gives me a headache.)

What I haven't studied much is how Pythagorean symbolism relates to the Sephirah. I would imagine that Westcott's numerology treatise might be applicable, but I tend to fall asleep reading his stuff.

 

[firecatpickles]

In Helenistic society information was shared freely between philosophers and mystics, the Greeks, the Kabbalists, etc. (modern Jews are descended mostly from Greeks lines and came to Orthodoxy late). All this numerology stuff borrows one from the other so there is some connection. You could make the argument that the planets connect the two systems, with each planet having an orb of influence, or a number, associated with it.

 

[frejasphere]

Thats what I dont understand ... if you dont see the point of trying to fit one path into another (I dont either) ... then why do it. Why mix up modern superfluous numerology with the numerological in depth system of the Tarot?

That, I believe is where you may be misunderstanding me - I have never suggested any melding/mixing of methods - I am merely acknowledging that different paths may lead to the same advice

 

[Richard]

That, I believe is where you may be misunderstanding me - I have never suggested any melding/mixing of methods - I am merely acknowledging that different paths may lead to the same advice

There is no melding or mixing of different methods. Tarot already has numerological foundations. Since numerology is already implicit in tarot, there is no reason to consciously plaster it on. It is already there.

 

[Zephyros]

What did 'non-Kabbalistic' numerology originate from (no cheating now ... like citing the Greek 'Kabbalah' or something) ?

I may be wholly and totally wrong but if modern 'numerology' did not originate in 'sacred language' ...( one that used letters also as numbers - so letters and words {and concepts} can relate to numbers) or the Tetractys where did it come from?

I don't know, and I won't quote from some convenient source of forgotten lore that proves everything I say (although given time, I can probably find something!). But, people have always played with numbers in some form, Lewis Carroll was a master at it. Whether all forms of numerology have their root in Kabbalah is doubtful, as there must made been other influences in the mix. Rather, I would argue that it seems that way just because Kabbalah works so well, in an if-it-hadn't-been-invented-someone-would-have-invented-it-anyway kind of fashion. It is certainly complex enough to deal with a complicated tool like Tarot. Other forms of numerology may not be up to the task, and in fact do deal with wearing green and lucky numbers.

What I find interesting about Pytagorean numerology is that it is very similar to Kabbalistic thinking, in that one is unity, two is duality, etc. Rough parallels can be drawn. The planets and their sounds were also added to this in some fashion, although I'm not too sure about that in any case.

In any case, I would be interested to see some reverse-engineering with something like the Waite deck and some other form of numerology tacked on. I know, for example, why the Five of Cups is what it is according to the rules the deck itself runs on, but if another form was added on, would it "work?"

 

[frejasphere]

There is no melding or mixing of different methods. Tarot already has numerological foundations. Since numerology is already implicit in tarot, there is no reason to consciously plaster it on. It is already there.

True English, French, Spanish and Italian all share words derived from Latin... Despite this, they are very different languages. I agree that numeral influences are part of Tarot, it is more that I see the language of Tarot as different from say the language of Numerology (even when they agree or say similar things)...

closrapexa: I know, for example, why the Five of Cups is what it is according to the rules the deck itself runs on, but if another form was added on, would it "work?"

Good point

 

[nisaba]

I know that numerology wise, my tarot cards are the hermit and the moon, but that's about it.

Does that make sense in terms of your experience of life? That is - is it useful to you?

 

[frejasphere]

OK, I think I see what you're getting at. For me, reading is "all of a piece;" intuition operates seamlessly for the most part. I may pull in something related to a geomantic figure (the Thoth deck even has some of that embedded in the imagery), but it isn't usually anything I consciously reach for. Or I might tap into something connected to I Ching, paganism or Egyptian mythology, through a kind of free association between the card images and something I may have read in the distant past that made an impression on me. This occurs most often when I'm reading for someone sitting in front of me and I have to keep the monologue rolling, sometimes under pressure to find coherent meaning where it isn't immediately obvious ("inspiration" or "groping," take your pick. ) Crowley's attempt at an inclusive condensation of his esoteric knowledge in the Thoth deck and the Book of Thoth was the starting point for many of my side trips into other avenues of inquiry, which in turn factor themselves as needed into my interpretations, more or less automatically.

Sorry Barleywine for missing your earlier comment - at times I flit between things too much to be able to maintain consistency, for that I do apologise You pin-pointed several aspects of precisely what I was getting at (though in a more articulate and interesting way ); the seamlessness and what I read to be a perhaps more intuitive journey between avenues or ways of interpretation makes perfect sense ...

Does that make sense in terms of your experience of life? That is - is it useful to you?

To me, this sums it up

 

[firecatpickles]

I think that it's the other way around: that Kabbalists borrowed heavily from the Greeks. They may have even borrowed the entire system The texts we have from the Greeks from the period are limited.

This would be like someone finding your archaeological remains with an I-phone thousands of years from now and claiming you invented it. Kabbalists ended up with the I-phone.

 

[Zephyros]

Well, I don't think there's any argument about that. Something always comes from something, and ideas conveyed through Kabbalah certainly have a more ancient source. I would argue, though, that those ideas were developed and embellished upon, adapting them to more complex uses. So the first Kabbalists didn't exactly get an iPhone,they more likely got a telephone.