The Devil: not a bad boy, just misunderstood?

euripides

Mittkait said:
I know what you are going through, the whole Sympathy for the Devil thing. it usually afflicts the young'uns.

erm, no you don't. I'm a scholar, interested in comparative mythology. Your characterization of my interest as juvenile is not appreciated.

(EDIT TO ADD: I should clarify, I'm a scholar with a background in visual art, classics and psychology - not a scholar *of* comparative mythology, so I'm by no means expert)

The devil is a gatekeeper card that wants to keep the seeker in the physical realm and cut him/her from the spiritual.

What you mean is "one view of the Devil is that it is...."

you must start reading, not only about hermeticism but to undertake the journey of a classical education.

I've read all of Homer, some Euripides, Caesar's Civil Wars, speeches of Cicero, letters of Pliny the Younger, and the Bible cover-to-cover. Currently working on Euclid and translating The Odyssey.

To learn about the Quadrivium and that symmetry itself is beauty and reflects the mind of god.

You mean "how believers think it reflects the mind of God".

Ruby Jewel

euripides said:
Each to their own.

Of course. My apologies. I tend to simplify life as much as possible, but I realize it takes all kinds of art and all kinds of people to make up this beautiful planet, and I do appreciate the variety.

SweetSiren

You're question is kind of vague, but I think I understand what you are getting at. I can only tell you from personal experience that the devil rarely means decent things, but it doesn't always mean that these things will hurt you.

I had someone who my life whom I liked quite a bit (this was a friend). He had a good heart, I liked the way he saw the world. He was just an all around great person. But at that point in time, the devil hung around my readings. I wondered if maybe he was actually a pretty bad person. I learned later that he had an alcohol problem that would change his behavior quite a bit and was kind of a slave to his impulses. So although he was kind to me, we could ever be close friends because his mind was on the next high. So, the devil in that case was still not a good thing, but it wasn't warning me of extreme heartache from the devil's actions.

I have also seen the devil in a bad relationship of mine. And I learned not long after that it was worse than I even thought. Drugs, cheating... The list goes on and on. I learned that he too was a slave to his impulses and this couldn't ever feel deeply or connected. He just got himself in one mess after another. On that case, I was hurt very badly.

Those periods of my life are the only times I've ever had the devil in my readings, so I'm hesitant to put a positive spin on it.

Mittkait

euripides said:
erm, no you don't. I'm a scholar, interested in comparative mythology. Your characterization of my interest as juvenile is not appreciated.

Your attempt to change the meaning and journey of the cards then expecting everyone here to confirm it/confirm to it is juvenile. What you want to do is create a new system. By all means, go ahead. Plenty of people have done it. Crowley's Thoth Devil is more in line with your interpretation.

euripides said:
I've read all of Homer, some Euripides, Caesar's Civil Wars, speeches of Cicero, letters of Pliny the Younger, and the Bible cover-to-cover. Currently working on Euclid and translating The Odyssey.

Yet you haven't made the connection with the classical past to the hierarchy of the major arcana. All the esoteric writers such as Manly Hall, C.C. Zain, Blavatsky, Franz Bardon and even Crowley himself have acknowledged the Platonic/Neo-Platonic Classical nature of the tarot. By denying it, you cut Tarot off from its source.

euripides said:
You mean "how believers think it reflects the mind of God"

The tarot can be used psychologically. But at some point every user of the tarot MUST come to terms with the fact that the Tarot is spiritual even religious in nature. All the big writers of esoterica were believers. It's true. You can hardly argue that they were atheists. Some, like Crowley, decided to be Satanists.

euripides said:
What you mean is "one view of the Devil is that it is...."

There is no other view of the devil in the Marseilles or even Rider-Waite version of the cards (Coleman Smith borrowed heavily from all the Renaissance decks). There is a three stage journey that is reflected in what Hall writes about in his "Lectures on Ancient Philosophy". The Circle (Inferior world/Earth), The Line (Interior World) and the Dot (Supreme World or God). The devil card is the gate to the Supreme. If the seeker fails they are sent back to the Fool. If they succeed, they weather the Tower and move on to the Star. The devil is the disharmony that prevents the seeker from seeking and seeing harmony and beauty.

QueenOfTemperance

I personally focus more on numerology (and Astrology as that's what I was trained in before I picked up Tarot) when reading the cards as I don't like to get too caught up in any particular lore; I find that things can very quickly become convoluted when one places too much emphasis on one (or many/all) philosophical/spiritual stories and the message can get diluted rather than become clearer.

I agree with what others have said here - that card 15 is about ambition, wealth, and physical satiation. I believe most modern Tarot guides don't typically associate this card with good/evil but rather talk about these topics as strengths as well as vices (I have seen card 15 as promising some level of success in career endeavors for example as Astrologically it is associated with the driven energy of Capricorn). But as others have already mentioned, ultimately, it's energy carries a warning/a test (much like Capricorn's planetary ruler, Saturn. Scorpio/Pluto is associated understandably with card 13 Death - NOT the Devil as some might think) and I don't see how that can be misunderstood.

In some traditions, the Devil is less about helpless addiction to the material world and more about deliberately embracing the physical. It means accepting the transience of life and as the saying goes, 'sucking the marrow from the bone, not choking on it'.

I believe herein lies the Saturnian test: 1+5=6 the number representing the process of achieving harmony. 1 = individualism, self-centered interest (because of the lack of recognizing the "other" as part of the self), ambition and exerting one's willpower. 5 = an upset of that which was once stable/balanced causing discord or upheaval, chaos, and ultimately the opportunity for expansion.

I don't believe this energy is saying that it's a good idea to deliberately embrace the physical or that it is ever in the querent's best interest to fully succumb to the temptation of fully living in the physical. For me, it is important to stress the test aspect here. Part of the maturation process (again here we find Saturnian energy) is to recognize that we do not live in a vacuum and that our actions, desires, and willpower affect the "other" (and ultimately ourselves) for better or worse. It is a slippery slope and is a difficult concept for us as humans, being grounded in the physical, to grasp but it is ultimately an important one for growth.

EDIT: I also wanted to mention that with Capricorn/Saturn and the number 5, there is a very serious energy/gravitas associated with this card which doesn't fit with either a "bad boy" or "misunderstood rebel" characterization. It is a severe and important stage in which the querent's actions can have a serious impact on him/herself, others, and ultimately his/her journey toward happiness and fulfillment.

That being said, my big disclaimer is that I am a staunch proponent of reading intuitively, so any gut feelings you have with this card over time should ultimately be how you come to understand it's energy - books, lore, and other Tarot scholars can only provide guidance to help you conceptualize how the energy of 15 is being manifested but they certainly aren't the end-all interpretation. Many experiences with this card have come to shape the way I view it and the way I interpret it when it appears in a reading, so perhaps spending more time with this card in your own practice will help you answer any questions you have regarding its symbolism in your readings.

Also, I highly recommend checking out the Tarot of the Name by the Tarot School. It is a dramatically different interpretation of the Tarot system that definitely helped me to strip away too much superfluous information and provided a unique perspective devoid of traditional doctrines.

euripides

QueenOfTemperance said:
I believe herein lies the Saturnian test: 1+5=6 the number representing the process of achieving harmony. 1 = individualism, self-centered interest (because of the lack of recognizing the "other" as part of the self), ambition and exerting one's willpower. 5 = an upset of that which was once stable/balanced causing discord or upheaval, chaos, and ultimately the opportunity for expansion.

I don't believe this energy is saying that it's a good idea to deliberately embrace the physical or that it is ever in the querent's best interest to fully succumb to the temptation of fully living in the physical. For me, it is important to stress the test aspect here. Part of the maturation process (again here we find Saturnian energy) is to recognize that we do not live in a vacuum and that our actions, desires, and willpower affect the "other" (and ultimately ourselves) for better or worse. It is a slippery slope and is a difficult concept for us as humans, being grounded in the physical, to grasp but it is ultimately an important one for growth.

EDIT: I also wanted to mention that with Capricorn/Saturn and the number 5, there is a very serious energy/gravitas associated with this card which doesn't fit with either a "bad boy" or "misunderstood rebel" characterization. It is a severe and important stage in which the querent's actions can have a serious impact on him/herself, others, and ultimately his/her journey toward happiness and fulfillment.

Oh this is an interesting perspective, thanks QueenofTemperance. I've never really looked at numerology (beyond a very simple idea of one as whole/seed, two as duality, three as trinity, four as balance/earth) and while it's not a system I'm likely to explore, it's interesting that it shines some useful light on this card.

I like this idea of Gravitas. The Greek gods often seem so comical to us and even some of the ancient writers would talk about how inappropriate their behaviour was (name escapes me) - and yet they certainly evoked genuine fear and respect.

QueenOfTemperance

euripides said:
Oh this is an interesting perspective, thanks QueenofTemperance. I've never really looked at numerology (beyond a very simple idea of one as whole/seed, two as duality, three as trinity, four as balance/earth) and while it's not a system I'm likely to explore, it's interesting that it shines some useful light on this card.

I like this idea of Gravitas. The Greek gods often seem so comical to us and even some of the ancient writers would talk about how inappropriate their behaviour was (name escapes me) - and yet they certainly evoked genuine fear and respect.

Yay

I'm glad it was helpful. Thank you for the interesting discussion - it got me thinking more deeply about this card and it's associations in my practice, which was a nice little exercise for me since it's been a while since I pulled this card

And yes I agree: these archetypes seem silly now, but behind the stories exist real complex concepts that do deserve respect.

Tanga

Thank you for The Devil euripides

Interesting input to read.

QueenOfTemperence I also enjoyed your numerological breakdown.

I am sorry to hear of those who's experience of The Devil has been pointedly horrible for them - and thank you for sharing that too.

- and my goodness Mittkait - autocratic much?
To say "The Devil card is in this box and absolutely cannot fit anywhere else - and you youngster - should just get over it" - is presumptuous for other users imo.
That's how it occurs to me.
I am not an advocate of Aleister Crowley - and I do believe he was not a Satanist though often depicted that way.
Neither did it come across to me, that euripides was "expecting everyone to conform" to his idea of The Devil.
And Doreen Virtue - deliberately took "the dark side" out of her decks because it made her feel uncomfortable - and she admits that.
I agree - it doesn't work. Lol.

However, we all agree it seems, in the "gravitas" of The Devil... it's that grass-on-the-other-side, by-the-pricking-of-my-thumbs, ill just stay in this tunnel..., where might I draw the line? (wobbles), there's my WILL power (or lack thereof), watch out! - energy.

Greek Gods as silly? My - I've never quite thought of that.
But then I'm Pagan so I'm biased.

euripides

Tanga said:
Greek Gods as silly? My - I've never quite thought of that.
But then I'm Pagan so I'm biased.

Silly isn't quite the right word... comical might not be either - but when you read about their antics from a modern perspective - changing into creatures, the abductions and squabbles and infidelities - it all seems a little chaotic and undignified. If I get a chance tomorrow I'll rifle through my bookcase and try to find out which classical author I'd been reading. It was something about what was appropriate for the young, and there were some tales of the gods he considered entirely unsuitable for the ears of young citizens.

Tanga

euripides said:
Silly isn't quite the right word... comical might not be either - but when you read about their antics from a modern perspective - changing into creatures, the abductions and squabbles and infidelities - it all seems a little chaotic and undignified. If I get a chance tomorrow I'll rifle through my bookcase and try to find out which classical author I'd been reading. It was something about what was appropriate for the young, and there were some tales of the gods he considered entirely unsuitable for the ears of young citizens.

- yes - quite undignified. Lol. **Kids in a playground - with us poor mortals as the chess pieces...
Modern invokers might not quite think of them in a neo-classical context - but conjur them with a more modern visage.
More Lol.

now - "unsuitable for the ears of young citizens"... dot dot dot.

The Devil: not a bad boy, just misunderstood?

euripides

Ruby Jewel

SweetSiren

Mittkait

QueenOfTemperance

euripides

QueenOfTemperance

Tanga

euripides

Tanga