How does Kabbalah fit in with the Tarot....

mac22

As with many things the Tarot/Qabalah connection depends on your perspective, age, wisdom & sagacity.

Mac22
 

Grigori

I find using Qabalah clarifies the cards and my readings. Others find it causes unnecessary confusion. Either way its not necessary, but some find it illuminating and useful. Depends which camp you fall in I guess, and if you have other interests that the Qabalah may also be sympathetic with (astrology for example).

Some decks are intended to be looked at in this way, and I think those decks are more fully comprehended when approached in a qabalistic manner. Others were never intended to be qabalistic, and may not benefit or may be reduced by attempting to do so.

There is one particular system of Qabalah/Tarot correspondences that I prefer, though I don't think its any more correct than any other, just more suitable for me and my interests.

If you have an interest in Qabalah Ange, I'd say you are likely to benefit from some study, and so should go for it. Get a book or two and see if they appeal to you. If your not really attracted to it, but were asking because others have mentioned it, then pfft :p Spend the money on a new deck, and don't worry about the book :D
 

Ange

It certainly seem to be confusing to me....maybe because of how my memory is at this time.....and reading all the posts and a couple of PMs I really feel that it is something that I personally don't need to use my cards....:)

I know from the posts above that others find it useful, or they swear by it, or they just plain don't think of it, but I think this may be one of the things with the Tarot that you can either use or leave, without being detrimental to the outcome of a reading....:)

This is one bit that helped to make up my mind...

Yygdrasilian said:
Until you work through the constellations yourself and solve the Tarot you'll never be able to resurrect the Hanged Man.
.

As I can't do with anything that even mentions the occult, then of all the good postings, this swung it for me and made me decide to leave it alone.

So, thanks for all the info everyone, and all the posts.....where I was confused I'm not now......and you have all helped me to decide with a really good thread...:)
Thanks

Love Ang x
 

Gavriela

I withdraw all participation in this thread.
 

Ange

I suppose it's like a lot of other things.....sometimes associated with something different to that which it was meant.

I think I'll stay with not getting into it....:):)

Ang x
 

Nevada

Gavriela said:
At its most basic, kabbalah is the Jewish spiritual science that connects everything to everything else. It's the thing that makes you realise not that 'all of us are God', but that 'God is all of us', that we each have that divine spark within us.
What a beautiful definition.
Gavriela said:
The Waite deck is shot through with Christian mysticism, and with a great deal of kabbalah as well. Tarot and kabbalah are a bit of a forced marriage; as Rosanne said, the only way to understand tarot is to understand tarot. But if it's a path you intend to follow, I do believe you're shorting yourself a bit if you don't have at least a passing acquaintance with kabbalah - unless you're coming from the strictly Jungian school of things.
Even in the Jungian school, I think Kabbalah might be useful. I'm only a beginner with both, but I can see similarities between the process of individuation and the Tree of Life.
Gavriela said:
A book I'd recommend to anyone interested in the basics of kabbalah is In the Shadow of the Ladder, by the Baal ha Sulaan. You want the translation Yedidah Cohen did, available from Nehora Press, if you don't read Hebrew. It's stark and beautiful and the Baal ha Sulaan was of the belief that kabbalah is there for everyone who wants to learn it, for everyone who wants to try to get to the place of wanting to bestow goodness in the world and not simply to receive it.
Gavriela, is that book the same as what's listed at Amazon as In the Shadow of the Ladder: Introductions to Kabbalah by Rabbi Yehudah Lev Ashlag, Mark Cohen, and Yedidah Cohen? Is this the translation you mention?

I've been looking for my next book on Kabbalah, and I think you just provided the tip I needed. Thanks! And thanks to Ange for her thread. :)

Nevada
 

Gavriela

------------
 

Nevada

Gavriela said:
It's the same. I think you'll enjoy it, and Yedidah did a marvellous job on the translation. She's a really sweet lady, too - might be worth looking up the Nehora Press blog, because I know there's one out there now - I just can't remember where it is.
Found the blog, here:

http://nehorapress.wordpress.com/

Nevada
 

firemaiden

How does Kabbalah fit in with the tarot?

In my not-so-humble opinion, the Kababalah fits in with the tarot about the same way the ugly step-sisters fit into Cinderella's glass slipper. You can get the big-ugly foot in the dainty little shoe if you cut off the heel, or cut off the toes, but either way it's a forced fit (and turns the shoe red).

If attaching an outside system of philosophy to the 22 trumps proves useful to you, then go for it.

But then you must decide who is correct, the Jews or the Hermetists - Will Aleph (a word that has 'One' as one of its meanings) be 1? or 0? You get to choose....
 

venicebard

Strategeus said:
Let's remember that the fact that knowledge is old doesn't necessarily make that knowledge correct. [etc.]
Are you aware that Newton himself -- who despite Einstein is not in the least outdated (well, except of course for his view of light) -- was a seeker of the prisca sapientia, the pristine knowledge of an age before man degenerated to his present state? He found a morsel or two of it, to be sure, and I have since confirmed that even more exists, embedded in Tarot of Marseilles and the Hebrew and Keltic traditions whose partial preservation of earlier science through numerico-alphabetic symbol informed that deck. It was an understanding that corrects modern physics on several counts, one being that quark theory is a bridge too far (the need to go back to the original parton interpretation, where mesons, not 'gluons', were the medium of the strong force), plus demonstrates clear understanding of how atom-types (chemical 'elements') interact in living matter.

I can of course back the above up with detailed argument, detail only depending on others' interest (and my limited ability to 'surf' the net). (Outta time, but will return in a moment.)