Driley
Who goes where?
One of the reasons I suggested starting with the "small cards" is because I've seen relatively fewer ways of linking them to the tree of life than I have the major Arcana.
As jmd points out, the Golden Dawn tradition links the Major Arcana to the paths -- which is at least neat on its face as there are 22 paths and 22 Major Arcana cards. But I have seen at least two different systems for doing this. Other traditions link the Major Arcana to the Sephiroth, usually leaving off the fool and following a system which assigns the cards based on the Path of the Sword (or the Lightening Bolt) and then based on the Path of the Serpent -- or some such scheme. I have seen at least three ways of doing this -- all of which seem to me to have at least some merit.
My suggestion that we leave Court Cards and the Major Arcana aside for a moment wasn't based on merit or advocacy of a particular position. It was simply a suggestion for an initial topic of exploration. And, certainly, we should get to the Major Arcana at some point -- preferably soon. But we've a need to start somewhere and this seemed an interesting an approachable place to start.
Arguing against assigning the small cards to the Sephiroth is, of course, one position that is certainly possible. And, as I think can be seen, has a valid history.
I recently read William Grey's Qabbalistic Concepts and he suggests the following as a way to begin to understand the relationship between the suited, numbered cards and the Tree.
He suggests that the suits be seen as carrying the following spheres of influence:
Wands -- Learned
Discs -- Earned
Cups -- Glad
Swords -- Sad
Then you simply combine the suit sphere with the referenced Sephirah. So, for example, the 5 of Swords becomes "Sad Severity." Broadly speaking, Grey asserts, this gives us most of the traditional meanings of the cards.
I've tried this out -- trying to tie the meanings I know for the cards to this system -- and found that it seems to be an accurate pointer about 2/3rds of the time. Like most "Keyword" systems, it is shallow, sure, but no more so than others. And certainly it is meant as no more than a pointer to the meaning, rather than as a definition of the card. To imply otherwise would be doing a disservice to Grey.
What do you think?
Later, I'll suggest another system -- which is more complicated and has somewhat richer results. But for now, we can play with this (as well as whatever else others would like to suggest).
Have fun!
David
One of the reasons I suggested starting with the "small cards" is because I've seen relatively fewer ways of linking them to the tree of life than I have the major Arcana.
As jmd points out, the Golden Dawn tradition links the Major Arcana to the paths -- which is at least neat on its face as there are 22 paths and 22 Major Arcana cards. But I have seen at least two different systems for doing this. Other traditions link the Major Arcana to the Sephiroth, usually leaving off the fool and following a system which assigns the cards based on the Path of the Sword (or the Lightening Bolt) and then based on the Path of the Serpent -- or some such scheme. I have seen at least three ways of doing this -- all of which seem to me to have at least some merit.
My suggestion that we leave Court Cards and the Major Arcana aside for a moment wasn't based on merit or advocacy of a particular position. It was simply a suggestion for an initial topic of exploration. And, certainly, we should get to the Major Arcana at some point -- preferably soon. But we've a need to start somewhere and this seemed an interesting an approachable place to start.
Arguing against assigning the small cards to the Sephiroth is, of course, one position that is certainly possible. And, as I think can be seen, has a valid history.
I recently read William Grey's Qabbalistic Concepts and he suggests the following as a way to begin to understand the relationship between the suited, numbered cards and the Tree.
He suggests that the suits be seen as carrying the following spheres of influence:
Wands -- Learned
Discs -- Earned
Cups -- Glad
Swords -- Sad
Then you simply combine the suit sphere with the referenced Sephirah. So, for example, the 5 of Swords becomes "Sad Severity." Broadly speaking, Grey asserts, this gives us most of the traditional meanings of the cards.
I've tried this out -- trying to tie the meanings I know for the cards to this system -- and found that it seems to be an accurate pointer about 2/3rds of the time. Like most "Keyword" systems, it is shallow, sure, but no more so than others. And certainly it is meant as no more than a pointer to the meaning, rather than as a definition of the card. To imply otherwise would be doing a disservice to Grey.
What do you think?
Later, I'll suggest another system -- which is more complicated and has somewhat richer results. But for now, we can play with this (as well as whatever else others would like to suggest).
Have fun!
David