"Core" tarot?

CORE TAROT

Is there such a thing? By this term I mean Tarot meanings, technique and design that lie close to the heart of the art; items that can be pointed to that say "this is the heart of Tarot". It would be like Core Shamanism in that way.

Certainly, as ages roll, more and more Tarot "comes on line" and ideas are circulated. Some are more "fringe" than others. And as time passes, it can be observed that some these ideas have stuck around and have moved in from the outer reaches of the Tarot galaxy, closer to the gravitational center. I am referring to this center as the "core".

For example, the general structure that belonged to the TdM has stuck. But many of the meanings and usages of those cards have not. That form has become "Core Tarot".

Ozzie Wirth came out with some innovations, which, while not ubiquitously accepted because they were then "fringe", nevertheless attracted a bunch of people who adopted his ideas.

From that came the Golden Dawn. Who had a bunch of new fringe to add....but the ideas were related to the core, so the core's gravitational pull drew the ideas inward "into the fold".

Next, about 100 years ago, the Rider Waite Smith deck was rolled out. While to some purists, it is still not "core", it's technology of scenic minors has been largely adapted, and new meanings have started coming to the cards. At first, these design changes and divinatory meanings were "fringe" and now have moved closer to "core", because they were related to the things that were already at the core.

30 something years later, Al Crowley came out with his spin...much was related to core...Golden Dawn, RWS...but he made some changes that "improved" or "rectified" the Tarot to what he thought "it should be". These ideas, while not universally accepted, nevertheless have become a main artery that pulses from the heart of tarot...the "core".

In examining Tarot decks, comparing them, and looking for the ones that will best serve my growth as a reader, and best serve my sitters, I have become aware of this notion of CORE...I tend to want to exercise it, for fitness' sake. Just like it's important for physical health to exercise and strengthen those muscles that lie around our spinal column, because these form our core, I think it's important to work from our core, flexing it and strengthening what we come to percieve as lying at the heart of Tarot. As we examine new methods, new decks, new meanings, we automatically relate them to the core, to see if they even fit in the Tarot Universe. Some new decks, which are dubbed as "tarots", upon examination, do not have any relationship to the core, and so we see them as counterfiets...they are oracles, perhaps, and maybe even good ones, but because they bear no similarity to the core, they have to find a different galaxy to play in, because they will not be attracted inward towards the hub. They will remain fringe. They're like wandering comets who pop in and out...and eventually either burn out or get trapped in a different rotating galaxy of cards. They are "pseudo tarots". Again, this is not a value judgement...it's more of an assessment of affinity with established Tarot core structure.

I believe it's important for a student of Tarot to learn tarot core structure...from a "core" deck...(preferrabley decks). Once a person can read RWS decks, can swap in Crowleyisms (not the really esoteric ones...just the general card substitutions), and even read pip cards such as the TdM's one can say they have mastered core Tarot. This does not mean they can read all forms of oracle, nor does it mean they can read playing cards or Lenormand decks...those belong to their own galaxies. But they can happily jump between these areas of the known tarot universe and be right at home interpreting the cards...even with all the individual deck idiosyncracies that exist in the Tarot universe.

Some folks preferr Wands/fire Swords/Air. Others reverse it: Wands/Air, Swords/Fire. No problem...we're all in the same universe. Core Tarot. Element attributes were added later. There are even a number of Swords/Water Cups/Air decks out there (the Spanish Picard school). Once you "get it" that elements are tricky and have components that belong to each suit, these distinctions become less important, and we can see the harmony that underlies the decks, and that they indeed "belong to our universe". (As an example of this, let me demonstrate: cups. Cups themselves are not made of water. They are vessels which can contain--among other things--water. But they are made of earth: metal, stone, ceramic, glass, wood, etc. They surround an "empty" space (Air?) and may have been forged in Fire. ) Element attributions were added to the tarot later, and are not universally agreed upon because elements to not really like to be pigeon holed like that. Nevertheless, the notion that they can align or have an affinity with the suits of Tarot now go back in time a ways, and that notion has successfully been assimilated into the gravitational pull of the hub.

If we were to pull back, and look at the "cartmancy quadrant" of the galaxy, we'd also find other systems of card-divination floating around in our section of space...with several interior rotating vortices...Tarot, Lenormand, Oracles (do oracles have sub-vortices that they rotate around? Are there other affiliations?) Playing cards....Tarot is really just a sub vortex of the cartomancy universe, which is a sub vortex of the larger divination universe.

Wow. Suddenly I feel so small and insignificant!

Mallah said:

CORE TAROT Is there such a thing?

Click to expand...

Not at least in regard to what you called meaning and technique. However, I do generally agree with you that the structure of the Tarot or what you called its design is “core”. Although, my statement should not be construed to imply that I do not believe that there is a core meaning, however, I cannot state that.

New readers look at Waite's deck and Crowley's deck and they see the different symbology and esoteric systems employed and they think that it is obvious that they are very different decks. After studying and learning more about the Tarot, many come to the conclusion that Waite and Crowley are saying the same thing in different ways, or simply using different symbolism. However, upon further study this realization may become confused by a subtle intimation that they are saying very different things, although in the same way, or using the same structure. From a more esoteric perspective, I would say that Waite's deck is an expression of the path of The Woman clothed with the sun and Crowley's deck is an expression of the path of Our Lady of Babylon. Eliphas Levi states that these are two faces of the same thing. However, it cannot be ignored that they are two very different faces. I think it is a disservice to Waite or to Crowley to learn one deck and then "simply transfer" that interpretation to the other deck.

What I am saying can be related to a concept associated with the Perennial Philosophy. The fundamental idea is that all religions point to the same thing. However, I will reference the oft-repeated Hindu admonition not to confuse the finger that points at the moon with the moon itself. Although they may all actually refer to the same fundamental thing, one obviously cannot state that all religions are the same. They often even contradict one another. Hence, whether or not they actually point to the same thing is effectively irrelevant. If they are effectively different, then they are actually different, even if they are actually not. There can never be some “Universal Religion” because once that religion has been defined it then simply becomes “just another religion” whose members state that it is "the one, true religion", precisely because it is "Universal".

This is also analogous to a topic that I have noticed has emerged recently on these boards, which is whether Tarot has a belief system. It is quite obvious that an inert deck of playing cards does not have a belief system. However, it is equally obvious that every author of a Tarot deck as well as every Tarot reader does.

The biggest secret of all mysticism, spiritually, and even religion is that it has never been a secret, just very difficult to see. To state this very simply and logically, hopefully not distorting the idea too much, this can be expressed using the concept of Absolute Truth. Absolute Truth being herein provisionally defined as "something true for all people and for all time." Logically, Absolute Truth must exist, because to state that there is no Absolute Truth is itself an Absolute Truth. The intuitive truth is that we all take some truths to be self-evident, as we must in order to be able to function, to live our lives. But these Truths are Absolute only for us. We cannot know with any certainty whether these truths apply to anyone else, nor whether they were applicable before our birth or whether they will be applicable after our death.

I will summarize by saying that I do not believe that Tarot is simply and only a tool of divination. Hence, I obviously do not believe that Tarot can be categorized as simply a sub-category of cartomancy or divination. Eliphas Levi states that divination is a gateway, however, it is not the only one. Tarot is certainly an effective tool for divination and divination is certainly a valid means. However, Tarot is not only a tool for divination and divination is not the only means. Of course, that raises the question, a means to what? That is, however, a horse of a different color.

Mallah and JSNYC,

First, thank you, I got a lot out of both of your posts. Very thoughtful and thought-provoking.

Is there a 'core' to tarot, a beating heart, or a sun to follow your anaology? If there is, and something along the lines laid out better than I could by JSNYC, the 'core' is likely not a specific set set of cards, not a specific set of symbols.

The term 'archetype' is so used and mis-used that I hesitate, but back in the nineties I eagerly read verything CG Jung wrote that I could get my hands on. In his view everything that becomes solid, has structure, i.e. a specific deck like the Wirth, the Rider deck or the Thoth, becomes, once made solid, merely a 'sign' and ceases to be a symbol. The symbol is what he called 'the organizing principle' that caused these 'signs' to come into existence. So the decks that beat truest to the organizing principle, and we have to recognize these intuitively at least in part, are the ones that most closely reflect the core of tarot.

Going back to Mallah's original premise, we likely do have to look at many decks, especially the ones recognized as reflecting at least an aspect of the core tarot and eventually build up as best we mortal minds can, an image of an image. That's how I would answer, anyway.

I had another thought, if I may. There is a book Called "The Cloud of Unknowing" and while it is a Christian-based book, it is at its heart about mysticism and how we can never know 'the everything' exactly. But that it postulates that it is almost our duty and certainly our right to keep pressing into the cloud of unknowing to discern as much as we can.

If you look on the concepts of symbols versus signs, then even we souls are each but an aspect of some universal organizing principle (in my view). And even as readers and lovers of tarot, we can only be what we are and understand what we can, but it doesn't excuse us from stopping trying to understand the core of things.

Thank you both for your deep and thoughtful resonses. Words and writing are such a gross medium of expression, compared to symbol, music, gesture...no?

But thank you for your time and focus as we ponder this.

What really motivate my question, is that I'm beginning to have interested students, who have decks that I would not really condone learning tarot from, if you follow me. While these decks are excellent in their own right, and might even qualify as "tarot" (and as you know, some decks that call themselves tarot are actually oracle decks), and while these decks will obviously teach them to open their intuition and psychism (and maybe that's all that's important,) they won't teach them TAROT. Certain decks are more exemplary of "classic Tarot" or what I'm calling "core" than others, and I find myself wanting to urge them towards these decks, at least until they can tell the difference themselves...and then, I ask myself, after 30 years, can I tell the difference myself? I think I can, and yet I have a long way to go, much to learn as a reader/student of Tarot. I ask myself, do I know what CORE TAROT is, and does it matter?

And the "does it matter" begs the question, is TAROT superior to other forms of cartomancy? I would never discourage them from using their decks, or the growth they have already accomplished with their decks. But when they come to me to show them what i know, I have to teach it from a TAROT perspective, and sort of feel it's important to bring them to the vantage point OF that perspective, which I'm calling CORE tarot... I mean, I would want to come off as saying, "your deck sucks, here use one of these if you really want to learn Tarot." But more, "your deck sort of falls outside what might be called traditional, and will teach you many excellent things, but you are asking me to teach you Tarot, and I feel you will learn more of that with one of these decks as an alternate, or better example of what TAROT actually is".

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

Mallah said:

And the "does it matter" begs the question, is TAROT superior to other forms of cartomancy?

Click to expand...

Superior? No, I would say that any form of divination is only as good as the Diviner. Some may excel in one format and not another.

Nice to see you back, Hal! **waves**

Hey, TB!

Hi - back!

I do agree with your idea that there is 'Tarot', and then there are 'tarot-based-but not really Tarot' decks and oracles out there, and perhaps one should learn what is 'core' to Tarot and then learn its variations ... not the opposite.

One of the fortunate or unfortunate things that happend with my own learning process, not really having a guide other than my own "tarot angel" was that i got deviated into Qabalah sort of early on, and it, and other "non neccessary" additions took me on long side trips into fascinating areas of learning.

I sort of see Qabalah as something that got sucked into the vortex of Tarot...something that is now "orbiting" in the Tarot Universe. It's not neccessary to know Qblh to know about tarot, but as an "overall tarot" guy, it's safe to say that it's a subject that we commonly find orbiting about in the tarot universe. Several hundred years ago it was probably not associated, but then came a time when it got pulled in, and is now a common thread that is commonly (tho not universally) associated. One could call it a part of the big picture, tho not an essential part. You don't HAVE to know anything about it, and you don't HAVE to avoid it. Both ways are common tarot methods, and both will find you practicing tarot. Same with astrology, for example. It's not essential, but it's something that "glombed on" at a certain point, and is now, as a matter of history, something that is commonly associated with lots and lots of people. This is what I mean about things getting sucked in and becoming, with time, part of "CORE".

Your story mirrors mine, but for me Qabalah has become a core tenet of Tarot, I would find it hard to discard it.