Rite or Religion

[ravenest]

I think it could easily be considered a religion - here anyway.

During Supreme Court case, we had to have an S63 hearing, part of which was a Supreme Court judges decision on what constitutes or can constitute a religion in this country. The judge used astrology as an example and explained why that could be considered a religion if people decide to use it that way.

Basically, any system that is looked into and gives one advice as how to run one's life can qualify as a religion.

If it did become a religion for some (and the tarot then would be its 'sacred book' ) then a 'reading' would become the central rite of that religion.

 

[Teheuti]

I have no problem with individuals or even groups who see the Tarot as a sacred book/tool in their religion. Wiccan prisoners do that routinely in the U.S. (although not all prisons accept it). What I would object to is someone trying to co-opt Tarot-as-a-whole as "A RELIGION". An individual or group can do what they like, but I would fight their trying to "own" or define my Tarot for me.

 

[Grizabella]

I do certain things "religiously", like take the medications I need every morning and evening and coming to AT every day. They're not religions though.

I use Tarot to get messages from the Creator/God/My Higher Power (as in AA) or at least that's what I believe.

Religions, to my way of thinking, are connected with showing up at church or synagogue and being instructed or giving instruction in the Bible or Torah or whatever it might be. Going through ritual motions that happen every week, saying whatever you're supposed to say every week---that's religion to me. Organized religion.

I have a spiritual nature and practice a spiritual way of living but for me, Tarot is a tool, not a religion. The religions I'm familiar with often as a whole think Tarot is evil and don't condone its use at the worst and at the best just think it's milarky.

So I'm with those who say it's a tool.

 

[Frater Benedict]

I have to reject your definition, or any definition, that links religion to "sacred" things. I have thought for a while that we create false distinction between "sacred" and "mundane" things. If we have spirit, then everything you do is spiritual.

I am vaguely Panentheistic myself, but I still make a distinction between sacred and prophane. Everything is holy, but not everything is permanently sacred. If, let's say, I were in an altered state of consciousness 24 hours a day seven days a week, I would probably become ill, and I wouldn't be able to work or communicate with other people – so the distinction between sacred and prophane is a good one (Sacred and prophane TIME in this case).

As to the community of practice, is that not what we are forming in a way? To form rites and commonality we must communicate and find out what we need.

No. We are not forming rites and a community of practice. You probably practice in a way which is significantly different from what I practice, and that is good. We are different persons after all.

 

[Frater Benedict]

Religion is a process to worship deities.

Not necessarily. Some forms of Buddhism doesn't contain worship of deities, and the forms of Buddhism which does, do not consider such worship a constituent or central part of Buddhism (despite its popularity in several Buddhist milieus, including Lankese and Japanese).

 

[Frater Benedict]

What is Tarot really? Is it just a tool? Is it a religion in itself? I'm wondering how other feel.

Is there enough to Tarot to be a religion? or just a rite of divination for several religions?

I would appreciate your opinions.

It is a tool that may or may not be used within a religious context, but I wouldn't say that it is a religion in itself. Holy water is a tool used by at least Christians, Daoists and Neo-Pagans (It may occur in some other religions as well) when each of them practice their religions respectively, but the holy water itself is not a religion.

Tarot is not necessarily used for divinatory purposes. Some persons use the cards for contemplative or therapeutic purposes.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

From my perspective, every religion that deserves this name has an exoteric as well as an esoteric side to it. The exoteric side, that's the collective rituals and a system of basic beliefs that not least serve to hold a society together. The esoteric side however is the domain of the initiates and mystics. It is in fact the source of the external symbolism, which is often drawn from systems like Astrology, the Kabbalah, Numerology, Alchemy, Hermeticism, in other words the Archetypical world that C. G. Jung described.

Tarot seems to be a synthesis of several such systems, yet a complete model of the Archetypical world in its own right. As such, it does not really lend itself to an external religious interpretation. It shares much of its symbolism with external religions but is rather a representation of the Perrenial Philosophy that stands behind them all.

 

[Teheuti]

It shares much of its symbolism with external religions but is rather a representation of the Perrenial Philosophy that stands behind them all.

Or not.

Tarot are pieces of painted cardboard with pictures that are held to have allegorical significance that varies according to different groups at different times. The Hierophant is a kindly, wise spiritual guide to one group (see Oswald Wirth) and a bastion of dogma and corruption to another (a trend coming out of the 1960s penchant for questioning authority).

 

[ravenest]

I agree with Michael in that RATHER ( it is more of more of a ) representation of the Perrenial Philosophy that stands behind external religion than being an actual external religion itself.

I read his comment and the two things comparatively . And note his 'much of its symbolism' reference, which is different than referring to the whole deck.

The view may change over time and, as we have seen, people can give any meaning to any card whatsoever. With this as a 'rudder', tarot can seem just a set of pictures on card that can mean anything, and tarot devolves (IMO) more to a pop venture.

But for the hermeticist and an hermetic interpretation, a passing trend or 60s rebellion is insignificant.

I see them as two worlds, and one need not cancel out the other.

 

[Frater Benedict]

Religions, to my way of thinking, are connected with showing up at church or synagogue and being instructed or giving instruction in the Bible or Torah or whatever it might be. Going through ritual motions that happen every week, saying whatever you're supposed to say every week---that's religion to me. Organized religion.

I do not entirely recognise the image of religion as necessarily being about 'instruction'. When attending a Hindu sacrifice of a lamp, some flowers, some yoghurt and some incense it is not at all about 'instruction', but about worship, connectedness to the divine and contemplative mindfulness about the symbolic actions. The same is true about a weekday Eucharist – Anglican or Roman Catholic – which, unlike the Sunday Mass, doesn't have a sermon. A sermon is usually not a part of a weekday Shacharit in a synagogue: It is purely a prayer service, and among the Hasids it is celebrated in a contemplative way informed by Kabbalah. A Buddhist meditation session may be preceded or followed by a Dharma Talk, but most of the time it is not. So 'instruction' is not a universal feature of religion. In most religions it occurs now and then, but far from all the time, and it is not the centre of religion. Personally, I would say that connectedness to The Absolute is the centre of religion.