eugim
Hello Bradford:
I think you are right.Kabbalah has its own deep meaning and don t need Tarot link as also Tarot didn t.(Imean to relates them each other).
For me the clumsy misunderstood comes from Pico della Mirandola attempt to then Eliphas Levi irrespect and again clumsy Madonna approach to Kabbalah.
He died not knowing where place LE MAT he named as Shin...
We have 22 cards,21 named,21 numbered.
So we haven t 22 cards named and numbered.If 22 were the purpose they were 22 named and numbered.
So I strong believe there isn t any serious connection with the 22 Tarot cards.
Surely you best know that Kabbalh in it s origin was a Neoplatonic attempt at the syncretism times of Alejandria School ( Filon for example ).
Then Pico christianized it as Scholem strongly pointed it.
And from there comes for me the BIG clumsy error.
As I posted on another threads I want to add this here.Is a paragraph of A. C. Doyle novel "A Scandal in Bohemia"
I think is very useful as an approach to Tarot for example.
-Watson:"This is indeed a mystery," I remarked. "What do you imagine that it means?"
-Sherlock Holmes: "I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
My best regard to you.
Eugim
I think you are right.Kabbalah has its own deep meaning and don t need Tarot link as also Tarot didn t.(Imean to relates them each other).
For me the clumsy misunderstood comes from Pico della Mirandola attempt to then Eliphas Levi irrespect and again clumsy Madonna approach to Kabbalah.
He died not knowing where place LE MAT he named as Shin...
We have 22 cards,21 named,21 numbered.
So we haven t 22 cards named and numbered.If 22 were the purpose they were 22 named and numbered.
So I strong believe there isn t any serious connection with the 22 Tarot cards.
Surely you best know that Kabbalh in it s origin was a Neoplatonic attempt at the syncretism times of Alejandria School ( Filon for example ).
Then Pico christianized it as Scholem strongly pointed it.
And from there comes for me the BIG clumsy error.
As I posted on another threads I want to add this here.Is a paragraph of A. C. Doyle novel "A Scandal in Bohemia"
I think is very useful as an approach to Tarot for example.
-Watson:"This is indeed a mystery," I remarked. "What do you imagine that it means?"
-Sherlock Holmes: "I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
My best regard to you.
Eugim