The Way of Tarot: The Spiritual Teacher in the Cards
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| |||||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £4.95
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in Way of Tarot: The Spiritual Teacher in the Cards for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £4.95, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Product Description
Filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowsky's insights into the Tarot as a spiritual path. Alejandro Jodorowsky's profound study of the Tarot, which began in the early 1950s, reveals it to be far more than a simple divination device. The Tarot is first and foremost a powerful instrument of self-knowledge and a representation of the structure of the soul. THE WAY OF TAROT shows that the entire deck is structured like a temple, or a mandala, which is both an image of the world and a representation of the divine. The authors use the sacred art of the original Marseille Tarot - created during a time of religious tolerance in the 11th century - to reconnect with the roots of the Tarot's Western esoteric wisdom. They explain that the Tarot is a nomadic cathedral whose parts - the 78 cards or arcana - should always be viewed with an awareness of the whole structure. This understanding is essential to fully grasp the Tarot's hermetic symbolism. The authors explore the secret associations behind the hierarchy of the cards and the correspondences between the suits and energies within human beings. Each description of the Major Arcana includes key word summaries, symbolic meanings, traditional interpretations, and a section where the card speaks for itself. Jodorowsky and Costa then take the art of reading the Tarot to a depth never before possible. Using their work with Tarology, a new psychological approach that uses the symbolism and optical language of the Tarot to create a mirror image of the personality, they offer a powerful tool for self-realization, creativity, and healing.
About the Author
Alejandro Jodorowsky is a filmmaker who made the legendary El Topo and The Holy Mountain. He also is a psychotherapist and author of many books on Tarot and spiritualism.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
32 of 39 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
There are so few books in English about the Marseilles tarot that I was thrilled to learn that Alejandro Jodorowsky's "La Voie du Tarot" had been translated into English. My excitement quickly turned to confusion, then disappointment. This book is probably the most illogical, uninformed, arrogant, and inept book on the subject that I've ever read.
A few years ago, Jodorowsky embarked on a project to "restore" the Marseilles-style tarot. "...we observed that some Tarots have identical and superimposable drawings, and yet each contains symbols that do not appear on the others. We deduced that they had been copied from the same Tarot, an older version that is now missing. It is this original missing Tarot that we wanted to restore." He criticizes, quite rightly, Waite, Dali, Crowley, and others who have re-interpreted the tarot over the years. "Each new deck of cards contains the subjectivity of its authors, their vision of the world, their moral prejudices, their limited level of awareness... every occultist alters the original structure."
After reading this book (actually, about 50 pages in or before) it becomes apparent that Jodorowsky and Philippe Camoin (his partner is this project) have done exactly what he has criticized the occlutists for. He has essentially created his own personal Marseilles tarot, and imposed upon it his own "esoteric" system of belief, without offering any documentation or substance in the way of proof or explanation. "The Way of Tarot" is over 500 pages long, yet has only 10 "notes" (which actually aren't notes, but bibliographic entries). This book, then, is not really about the Marseilles tarot, but the supposed "restored" cards done by the author and Camoin.
Details on their process and methods would have been welcome. For example, which details came from which decks? Why were some details chosen over others? Camoin claims to be the direct descendant of Nicholas Conver, but no proof is offered. Also, reference is made to a mysterious, "very old" tarot found in a shoebox belonging to a dead friend -- which supposedly provided the authors with important clues toward a rectified color scheme -- though no effort is made to identify the deck or explain why it was considered important. Also, no proof. Photographs of some of the cards should have been included.
This book is a frustrating read, often due to Jodorowsky's habit of making broad statements, and then completely contradicting them, like in the examples below. He usually seems unaware he is doing this. Breaches of logic, reason and perception occur, nay, abound, on nearly every page. At one point he writes, ludicrously, that he believed (before the completion of his own deck) the most authentic Marseilles tarot to be Paul Marteau's 1930 version (Grimaud), and that the 17th and 18th century versions could not be trusted because they had become corrupt over time. And although Jodorowsky chooses to call the cards "arcanum", hypocritically adopting the pretentious term coined by the occultists he despises, he never satisfactorily explains why this terminology is acceptable to him. Those of us who use the Marseilles deck are generally quite content with "trumps" and "pips".
Even though he's made his position clear on the "occult" tarot of Waite, The Golden Dawn and others, he more often than not adopts their ideas (errors and all) about the cards. For example, he uses their elemental attributions of the suits -- and never once questions it. He simply says something along the lines of "Why not? Makes sense to me.". At least a discussion of why a weapon forged in fire is attributed to air, or why Sticks (excuse me, Wands) is attributed to an element that consumes it, would have made this section more interesting. Unfortunately, Jodorowsky is neither a scholar or an intellectual; he's an artist, and he's simply not equipped to deal with problems such as these.
Some of the cracks in the foundation may be due to the translation by Jon E. Graham. The suits are translated as Swords, Cups, Wands(!) and Pentagrams(!) -- and I can't really believe the Jodorowsky would use these terms as the French names would be clear to his French readers. I question why the translator chose to use Rider-Waite terminology when the author spent the better part of the introduction criticizing Waite and other occultists' alterations to the "original" tarot. Again, we who use the Marseilles tarot call the suits what they are: Swords, Cups, Sticks and Coins.
The Rider-Waite titles are used for the trumps as well: The Magician, The High Priestess, The Tower, etc. The only trump that is not called by its traditional name is Death, which Jodorowsky absurdly calls "The Nameless Arcanum". While it's true that in most Marseilles decks Death is not titled, the author fails to note (probably due to his ignorance of historical matters) that in the earliest tarots, all of the trumps were untitled. He explains that the term "death" is too simplistic to convey the real meaning of the card -- and then goes on to give a basic and traditional interpretation of card XIII. I am at a loss to see how "the Nameless Arcanum" is more precise and descriptive than "Death".
Many sentences make no sense in their English translation:
"Simply creating new versions of the Tarot of Marseilles, anonymous like all sacred monuments, by imagining it is enough to change the drawings or the names of the cards to achieve a great work, is pure vanity."
Yes, you can pick out the meaning. It could have been written more clearly, and there are numerous examples of this sort of thing throughout the book. One wonders if an editor even saw it before it went to the proofreader.
Here's an example of the author's style, from the chapter on "The Magician":
"Although represented by a male figure, The Magician is an androgynous individual working with light and shadow, juggling from the unconscious to the superconscious. He is holding an active wand in his left hand, while in his right he hold a receptive pentacle. This yellow coin, a miniature sun, symbolizes perfection and truth, but it also tells us that The Magician does not overlook the daily necessities. The blue wand in his other hand is seeking to capture the cosmic force. We can also see an extra flesh-colored object there, like a sixth finger, that will find an echo in the second decimal series, in the sixth toe of Strength..."
That's enough. Needless to say, he never explains why he believes any of this to be true -- he simply states it as fact, and assumes we are willing to accept what he says without question. Male, yet androgynous? Also, the Magician does not have a sixth finger -- either in Jodorowsky's deck, or any other Marseilles that I could find. Strength's "sixth toe" is a detail that was probably added by Jodorowsky as I can't find one in any of the Marseilles decks that I own. It's clear that the details of this "restoration" were incorporated (or invented) not because of any sort of in-depth research or study, but from the author's own mystical ramblings. Another indication that this deck is not a restoration, but a personal reinterpretation of the traditional Tarot de Marseilles.
At this point I should mention that most of the various details that Jodorowsky points out in the cards appear to be in his deck only, and therefore are probably his own creation. On "The Magician" he makes a great deal about the three dice and the knife that looks like a serpent's tail. Also, "orange balls" in the Magician's hair. A fingernail painted red on Strength. A secret "egg" hidden in the wreath on The World. All of these tiny details appear only in the "restored" deck. I've not been able to find precedence for any of this -- and the author's list of secret symbols and hidden meanings is endless. Of course, he doesn't offer to fill us in either. Instead we are given page after page of opinion and subjective observations stated as fact.
Jodorowsky also sees things that simply do not exist, and often writes at length about them: plants that supposedly look like vaginas, hidden planets in hair, extra fingers and toes, etc. Somehow he is able to identify eagle feathers in Strength's hat. Truth be told, there is simply not enough detail in the original woodcut prints to allow us to identify the bird from which the feathers came, or even if they are feathers at all. Nevertheless, our Author builds a whole argument around them.
If the book has anything to recommend it, the sections on numerology and the pips (oh, excuse me, the Minor Arcana) are interesting and engaging -- after all, numbers don't lie. The interpretation of this numerological data is not entirely free of the sorts of flaws that pervade the rest of the book, however.
Jodorowsky's conclusion, titled "The Tarotic Philosophy" (one wonders why the translator shied away from "Popess" yet uses a made-up word like "tarotic") contains this amusing and self-damning statement:
"The bad tarologist, who mistakes thinking for believing, delivers whimsical interpretations and then searches in the Arcana for those symbols that can confirm his conclusions. For him, truth is a priori, followed a posteriori by the quest for the truth."
Officially and without a clue Jodorowsky has qualified himself as a "bad tarologist". He goes a step further. When he cannot find a symbol that confirms his conclusions, he either has had Camoin draw the symbol on the card for him, or he simply chooses to see something that isn't there (extra fingers and teeth usually, and also vaginas).
I rarely feel this way about books I have purchased, but I honestly wish I hadn't spent $26.95 for this. Read more ›
A few years ago, Jodorowsky embarked on a project to "restore" the Marseilles-style tarot. "...we observed that some Tarots have identical and superimposable drawings, and yet each contains symbols that do not appear on the others. We deduced that they had been copied from the same Tarot, an older version that is now missing. It is this original missing Tarot that we wanted to restore." He criticizes, quite rightly, Waite, Dali, Crowley, and others who have re-interpreted the tarot over the years. "Each new deck of cards contains the subjectivity of its authors, their vision of the world, their moral prejudices, their limited level of awareness... every occultist alters the original structure."
After reading this book (actually, about 50 pages in or before) it becomes apparent that Jodorowsky and Philippe Camoin (his partner is this project) have done exactly what he has criticized the occlutists for. He has essentially created his own personal Marseilles tarot, and imposed upon it his own "esoteric" system of belief, without offering any documentation or substance in the way of proof or explanation. "The Way of Tarot" is over 500 pages long, yet has only 10 "notes" (which actually aren't notes, but bibliographic entries). This book, then, is not really about the Marseilles tarot, but the supposed "restored" cards done by the author and Camoin.
Details on their process and methods would have been welcome. For example, which details came from which decks? Why were some details chosen over others? Camoin claims to be the direct descendant of Nicholas Conver, but no proof is offered. Also, reference is made to a mysterious, "very old" tarot found in a shoebox belonging to a dead friend -- which supposedly provided the authors with important clues toward a rectified color scheme -- though no effort is made to identify the deck or explain why it was considered important. Also, no proof. Photographs of some of the cards should have been included.
This book is a frustrating read, often due to Jodorowsky's habit of making broad statements, and then completely contradicting them, like in the examples below. He usually seems unaware he is doing this. Breaches of logic, reason and perception occur, nay, abound, on nearly every page. At one point he writes, ludicrously, that he believed (before the completion of his own deck) the most authentic Marseilles tarot to be Paul Marteau's 1930 version (Grimaud), and that the 17th and 18th century versions could not be trusted because they had become corrupt over time. And although Jodorowsky chooses to call the cards "arcanum", hypocritically adopting the pretentious term coined by the occultists he despises, he never satisfactorily explains why this terminology is acceptable to him. Those of us who use the Marseilles deck are generally quite content with "trumps" and "pips".
Even though he's made his position clear on the "occult" tarot of Waite, The Golden Dawn and others, he more often than not adopts their ideas (errors and all) about the cards. For example, he uses their elemental attributions of the suits -- and never once questions it. He simply says something along the lines of "Why not? Makes sense to me.". At least a discussion of why a weapon forged in fire is attributed to air, or why Sticks (excuse me, Wands) is attributed to an element that consumes it, would have made this section more interesting. Unfortunately, Jodorowsky is neither a scholar or an intellectual; he's an artist, and he's simply not equipped to deal with problems such as these.
Some of the cracks in the foundation may be due to the translation by Jon E. Graham. The suits are translated as Swords, Cups, Wands(!) and Pentagrams(!) -- and I can't really believe the Jodorowsky would use these terms as the French names would be clear to his French readers. I question why the translator chose to use Rider-Waite terminology when the author spent the better part of the introduction criticizing Waite and other occultists' alterations to the "original" tarot. Again, we who use the Marseilles tarot call the suits what they are: Swords, Cups, Sticks and Coins.
The Rider-Waite titles are used for the trumps as well: The Magician, The High Priestess, The Tower, etc. The only trump that is not called by its traditional name is Death, which Jodorowsky absurdly calls "The Nameless Arcanum". While it's true that in most Marseilles decks Death is not titled, the author fails to note (probably due to his ignorance of historical matters) that in the earliest tarots, all of the trumps were untitled. He explains that the term "death" is too simplistic to convey the real meaning of the card -- and then goes on to give a basic and traditional interpretation of card XIII. I am at a loss to see how "the Nameless Arcanum" is more precise and descriptive than "Death".
Many sentences make no sense in their English translation:
"Simply creating new versions of the Tarot of Marseilles, anonymous like all sacred monuments, by imagining it is enough to change the drawings or the names of the cards to achieve a great work, is pure vanity."
Yes, you can pick out the meaning. It could have been written more clearly, and there are numerous examples of this sort of thing throughout the book. One wonders if an editor even saw it before it went to the proofreader.
Here's an example of the author's style, from the chapter on "The Magician":
"Although represented by a male figure, The Magician is an androgynous individual working with light and shadow, juggling from the unconscious to the superconscious. He is holding an active wand in his left hand, while in his right he hold a receptive pentacle. This yellow coin, a miniature sun, symbolizes perfection and truth, but it also tells us that The Magician does not overlook the daily necessities. The blue wand in his other hand is seeking to capture the cosmic force. We can also see an extra flesh-colored object there, like a sixth finger, that will find an echo in the second decimal series, in the sixth toe of Strength..."
That's enough. Needless to say, he never explains why he believes any of this to be true -- he simply states it as fact, and assumes we are willing to accept what he says without question. Male, yet androgynous? Also, the Magician does not have a sixth finger -- either in Jodorowsky's deck, or any other Marseilles that I could find. Strength's "sixth toe" is a detail that was probably added by Jodorowsky as I can't find one in any of the Marseilles decks that I own. It's clear that the details of this "restoration" were incorporated (or invented) not because of any sort of in-depth research or study, but from the author's own mystical ramblings. Another indication that this deck is not a restoration, but a personal reinterpretation of the traditional Tarot de Marseilles.
At this point I should mention that most of the various details that Jodorowsky points out in the cards appear to be in his deck only, and therefore are probably his own creation. On "The Magician" he makes a great deal about the three dice and the knife that looks like a serpent's tail. Also, "orange balls" in the Magician's hair. A fingernail painted red on Strength. A secret "egg" hidden in the wreath on The World. All of these tiny details appear only in the "restored" deck. I've not been able to find precedence for any of this -- and the author's list of secret symbols and hidden meanings is endless. Of course, he doesn't offer to fill us in either. Instead we are given page after page of opinion and subjective observations stated as fact.
Jodorowsky also sees things that simply do not exist, and often writes at length about them: plants that supposedly look like vaginas, hidden planets in hair, extra fingers and toes, etc. Somehow he is able to identify eagle feathers in Strength's hat. Truth be told, there is simply not enough detail in the original woodcut prints to allow us to identify the bird from which the feathers came, or even if they are feathers at all. Nevertheless, our Author builds a whole argument around them.
If the book has anything to recommend it, the sections on numerology and the pips (oh, excuse me, the Minor Arcana) are interesting and engaging -- after all, numbers don't lie. The interpretation of this numerological data is not entirely free of the sorts of flaws that pervade the rest of the book, however.
Jodorowsky's conclusion, titled "The Tarotic Philosophy" (one wonders why the translator shied away from "Popess" yet uses a made-up word like "tarotic") contains this amusing and self-damning statement:
"The bad tarologist, who mistakes thinking for believing, delivers whimsical interpretations and then searches in the Arcana for those symbols that can confirm his conclusions. For him, truth is a priori, followed a posteriori by the quest for the truth."
Officially and without a clue Jodorowsky has qualified himself as a "bad tarologist". He goes a step further. When he cannot find a symbol that confirms his conclusions, he either has had Camoin draw the symbol on the card for him, or he simply chooses to see something that isn't there (extra fingers and teeth usually, and also vaginas).
I rarely feel this way about books I have purchased, but I honestly wish I hadn't spent $26.95 for this. Read more ›
8 of 11 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
I read the review by mr Stanton first (is it 'mr'? my apologies if it isn't), then decided to buy the book anyway, mainly out of curiosity. Please do read his review too, because it accurately describes the books flaws.
On the added fingers and toes: Jodorowsky assumes that the space between two fingers (can't remember which card it was, but the review of mr Stanton will tell you), which has been given the same colour as the hand, probably a printing mistake, is an extra finger. The extra toe is really clearly a part of the slipper in the regular Marseilles, and the adaptation in Jodorowsky's tarot does not look convincing to me.
And that is what makes the theories of Jodorowsky so unreliable. He sees his interpretation, or the interpretation of the 'original' Marseilles tarot, which he claims to have found in a shoebox, as the True Interpretation, without looking at it critically and without investigating other possible interpretations. With respect to the fingers and toes: nowhere does Jodorowsky mention the very possible other way I suggested of interpreting of what he sees.
He has many interesting views on the meanings of the cards though, and interesting suggestions for spreads.
His main interest in the Tarot seems to be the magical, occult side of the cards and their system. His psychological views are very Freudian, with a lot of emphasis on genitals.
So, whether this will be a useful book for you, is for you to decide.
If you are, like me, interested in Jungian psychology, and see the cards mainly as a psychological tool, this book will probably be a disappointment to you.
If you like hermetic societies, magic, and occult things, you will probably like the book.
If you are looking for a trustworthy book on the tarot of Marseilles, this book will not make you happy.
If you are curious, and interested in reading about unusual and strange theories on tarot history and meaning, you may like this book.
I do find this book an interesting read, it does sharpen my mind and makes me think - when I do not agree with J., which is almost all the time - why exactly I do not agree, and whether I can accept his theory as at least a possibility.
I do hope my review will have helped you to make up your mind about this book.
On the added fingers and toes: Jodorowsky assumes that the space between two fingers (can't remember which card it was, but the review of mr Stanton will tell you), which has been given the same colour as the hand, probably a printing mistake, is an extra finger. The extra toe is really clearly a part of the slipper in the regular Marseilles, and the adaptation in Jodorowsky's tarot does not look convincing to me.
And that is what makes the theories of Jodorowsky so unreliable. He sees his interpretation, or the interpretation of the 'original' Marseilles tarot, which he claims to have found in a shoebox, as the True Interpretation, without looking at it critically and without investigating other possible interpretations. With respect to the fingers and toes: nowhere does Jodorowsky mention the very possible other way I suggested of interpreting of what he sees.
He has many interesting views on the meanings of the cards though, and interesting suggestions for spreads.
His main interest in the Tarot seems to be the magical, occult side of the cards and their system. His psychological views are very Freudian, with a lot of emphasis on genitals.
So, whether this will be a useful book for you, is for you to decide.
If you are, like me, interested in Jungian psychology, and see the cards mainly as a psychological tool, this book will probably be a disappointment to you.
If you like hermetic societies, magic, and occult things, you will probably like the book.
If you are looking for a trustworthy book on the tarot of Marseilles, this book will not make you happy.
If you are curious, and interested in reading about unusual and strange theories on tarot history and meaning, you may like this book.
I do find this book an interesting read, it does sharpen my mind and makes me think - when I do not agree with J., which is almost all the time - why exactly I do not agree, and whether I can accept his theory as at least a possibility.
I do hope my review will have helped you to make up your mind about this book.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
11 reviews
41 of 43 people found the following review helpful
The Spiritual Teacher in the Cards
21 Mar 2010
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
(Review by RNT's wife, C. A. Taylor)
I firstly purchased the Jodorowsky tarot deck which quickly made it plain to me that I needed to brush up on my numerology, symbols and so forth in order to understand this particular deck, so I was compelled to buy the corresponding book for the price of two cheesecakes. A month into my study of the book, I can say that it has impacted my perceptions beyond what words can describe. This inability to describe "that which is beyond us" is precisely why we are given symbols, colors, all elements in their respective places (etc.) on the cards - and I feel that I moved quickly from "novice" to "humble minor expert" without straining my brain one iota. This book would be sufficient for understanding and employing all decks of cards.
Jodorowsky approaches the wisdom-seeker as a patient teacher who does not strive to sound omniscient but, rather, presents his insights and information logically and with a respectful eye-to-eye style of delivery.
Upon reading The Way of Tarot, the mind opens, receptive as the beak of a birdling, to numbers, orientation, suits, degrees, order, color; the infinite possibilities of card combinations; mind exercises and layouts devoid of that "hocus-pocus" feel. Contrary to the singular negative review, I find this book to be abounding with logic and coherence even in its esoteric obscurities. It seems to make perfect sense once the various pieces are put together. Jodorowsky seems well aware that the more angles from which we study a subject, the greater our understanding:
He addresses the Major Arcana and how the cards correspond to one another in various ways. He works the reader up the suits of the Minor Arcana and across by level, which thoroughly ingrains the essence, value and placement of each card. As if that were not enough, he (firstly) divides the individual card into sections: receptive versus active; earth/matter versus air/spirit; and the interplay and perpetual cycle of the suits.
He trains the reader to apply common-sense in scrutinizing details such as the direction of leaves and the openness of flowers, and to expand the impressions through the understanding of colors, the direction of gazing eyes, etc.. Everything within the Jodorowsky tarot, right down to the dots, is deliberate and worth study for as broad an interpretation as possible and, in turn, for an invitation to the subconscious mind to awaken and unleash its divining potential.
But one of the most valuable pleasant surprises within this book, in my opinion, is its lesson of the practical application of the Tarot in determining one's placement in life for guidance on one's personal path, and it even hints toward how one can analyze the dynamics of relations with others according to where The Fool lands in their lives and their development within their representative suit (actually, one can analyze anything by way of the Tarot).
The possibilities are boundless, and now, as each and every card presents its universal wisdom, my mind opens, confidently, expansive as a rainbow, to define a plethora of possibilities within each moment, and to divine that vital truth to resonate deeply within me.
I can only assume that, except by plagiarism, there will not, for a long time, be a more worthy, resourceful and helpful book on understanding the Tarot in general than that which was simply yet eloquently presented as Jodorowsky's The Way of Tarot.
(I am very grateful to the team of individuals who put this book together. If I were to not yet own this book while knowing what I do of it, I would buy it - right now. It's worth a cheesecake's weight in gold!)
I firstly purchased the Jodorowsky tarot deck which quickly made it plain to me that I needed to brush up on my numerology, symbols and so forth in order to understand this particular deck, so I was compelled to buy the corresponding book for the price of two cheesecakes. A month into my study of the book, I can say that it has impacted my perceptions beyond what words can describe. This inability to describe "that which is beyond us" is precisely why we are given symbols, colors, all elements in their respective places (etc.) on the cards - and I feel that I moved quickly from "novice" to "humble minor expert" without straining my brain one iota. This book would be sufficient for understanding and employing all decks of cards.
Jodorowsky approaches the wisdom-seeker as a patient teacher who does not strive to sound omniscient but, rather, presents his insights and information logically and with a respectful eye-to-eye style of delivery.
Upon reading The Way of Tarot, the mind opens, receptive as the beak of a birdling, to numbers, orientation, suits, degrees, order, color; the infinite possibilities of card combinations; mind exercises and layouts devoid of that "hocus-pocus" feel. Contrary to the singular negative review, I find this book to be abounding with logic and coherence even in its esoteric obscurities. It seems to make perfect sense once the various pieces are put together. Jodorowsky seems well aware that the more angles from which we study a subject, the greater our understanding:
He addresses the Major Arcana and how the cards correspond to one another in various ways. He works the reader up the suits of the Minor Arcana and across by level, which thoroughly ingrains the essence, value and placement of each card. As if that were not enough, he (firstly) divides the individual card into sections: receptive versus active; earth/matter versus air/spirit; and the interplay and perpetual cycle of the suits.
He trains the reader to apply common-sense in scrutinizing details such as the direction of leaves and the openness of flowers, and to expand the impressions through the understanding of colors, the direction of gazing eyes, etc.. Everything within the Jodorowsky tarot, right down to the dots, is deliberate and worth study for as broad an interpretation as possible and, in turn, for an invitation to the subconscious mind to awaken and unleash its divining potential.
But one of the most valuable pleasant surprises within this book, in my opinion, is its lesson of the practical application of the Tarot in determining one's placement in life for guidance on one's personal path, and it even hints toward how one can analyze the dynamics of relations with others according to where The Fool lands in their lives and their development within their representative suit (actually, one can analyze anything by way of the Tarot).
The possibilities are boundless, and now, as each and every card presents its universal wisdom, my mind opens, confidently, expansive as a rainbow, to define a plethora of possibilities within each moment, and to divine that vital truth to resonate deeply within me.
I can only assume that, except by plagiarism, there will not, for a long time, be a more worthy, resourceful and helpful book on understanding the Tarot in general than that which was simply yet eloquently presented as Jodorowsky's The Way of Tarot.
(I am very grateful to the team of individuals who put this book together. If I were to not yet own this book while knowing what I do of it, I would buy it - right now. It's worth a cheesecake's weight in gold!)
13 of 14 people found the following review helpful
Facinating book on Life and Tarot
3 Sep 2010
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
I am not a fan of the Tarot de Marseille, but the text and the logic of this book is fascinating and illuminating. I don't know if the casual Tarot reader would ever appreciate this book, but any Jungian or creative artist working with the collective unconscious would LOVE it.
Highly recommended.
Highly recommended.
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful
A Fascinating Read
2 Dec 2010
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
This is probably the most fascinating book on the Tarot of Marsielle that I have ever read. I'm learning more than I ever knew due to the authors deconstructing the symbology via numerology, colors used, earth squares, heaven squares, etc. I've just finished the first 100 pages and have ordered the Tarot of Marsielle deck through the Camoin website. Extremely fascinating! A+.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
|
|
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
