Tarot as a Magical Instrument
Tarot is now used everywhere. Divination and Tarot meditation are among the leading occult practices.
It is clear that the system of the Arcana, which arose primarily as a initiatory instrument, is a universal philosophical machine capable of answering virtually any question. We have already discussed how each Arcana symbolizes a certain principle lying at the foundation of the cosmos; or, to put it another way, a certain fixed reference point within the mutable process of the world. The principles symbolized by the Arcana are equally true at both the macrocosmic and microcosmic levels, so the Tarot system can be used both to understand the macrocosm and for self‑knowledge.
At the same time, to grasp the meaning of the Arcana the practitioner must cultivate in themselves a heightened capacity for synthesis (the so‑called “higher intuition“). Therefore the Tarot is rightly regarded as an instrument of the wise. If, for understanding the Runes, for example, only inspiration is required, and a runemaster may know very little factual knowledge about the Runes, then, by contrast, working with the Tarot requires a clear understanding of the meaning and symbolic fields of a given Arcana, which delineate the domain of the Principle that this Arcana symbolizes. Understanding the Tarot demands above all authority; power plays a secondary role in this process. But for that very reason history has known many powerless sages (it is sometimes said that philosophers are failed magicians who lack the power to bring about results), and likewise many inspired fools (“holy fools”), whose power was chaotic yet significant.
However, aside from its obvious divinatory use (in the broadest sense), the Tarot can also have a practical magical application.
Unlike the Runes, which arose precisely as a magical instrument and only later acquired divinatory meaning, the Tarot, by contrast, is divinatory by nature, and its realizational application is secondary.
Since the sephirothic principle underlies the construction of the entire Arcana system, using the Tarot with a practical aim requires the practitioner to combine qualities that at first glance seem incompatible. On the one hand, they must be sufficiently receptive, sensitive, and able to gather fragments of information from the surrounding currents. On the other — they must be skilled at working with that information: to synthesize and analyze it, and must also have good knowledge of the sephirothic system and of the Arcana.
It is precisely in this case that, using a sephirothic spread of the Arcana suited to the current situation, and skillfully rearranging cards within that spread, the practitioner can effectively alter situations in the desired direction. Needless to say, mistakes can be dangerous. But, once again, we should stress that the assurance of error-free practice in this matter is precisely as complete an understanding as possible of the meaning of each Arcana and its place in the sephirothic system of the situation or object being modeled.
Based on the text, the text in your blog example suggests that Runes are simpler to use than Tarot.
There is nothing “simpler” or “more complicated”. The world is diverse, and this is its value. Some Paths, approaches, and methods are closer to some people, while others are closer to others. And purely “technically,” using “simpler” is actually Tarot.
“And purely ‘technically’ using ‘simpler’ is actually Tarot.”
Please give an example to clarify the difference.
Tarot does not require the same degree of inspiration as Runes; Tarot is more “technical,” while Runes are more “poetic.”
I will not argue with the esteemed, I will only express my point of view: the poetic or non-poetic nature of runes or tarot is a matter of taste for the practitioner. Both divinatory items bring their results when they resonate with the perception of the inquirer working with them. For example, I prefer to work with runes, while my spouse prefers Tarot.
Enmerkar, you inspire so much. Thank you immensely.