An Archetype Workbook

[JustLikeYou]

Hi everyone. I haven't contributed much here in quite some time. I have been reflecting and writing, though. I just recently completed a 60 page examination of the archetypes that some of you may find useful. It is my most recent work.

Here is a link:

https://larc.otherselvesworking.group/wp...rkbook.pdf

Edited to change the link

[xise]

Not anywhere close to finishing it yet, but really enjoyed your discussion of (emotional+other) responsibility with respect to experience of the mind.

Also, your discussion of the censor has revealed new conscious pathways for me to understand and embody the transformation of the mind.

Pure wisdom brother. Thank you.

[Highrculling]

This is so good. Much appreciated.

[Plenum]

that's definitely an outstanding Resource

Thanks for posting Sephy.

G

[Quan]

Hi everyone. I haven't contributed much here in quite some time. I have been reflecting and writing, though. I just recently completed a 60 page examination of the archetypes that some of you may find useful. It is my most recent work.

Here is a link:

http://josephdartez.com/wp-content/uploa...rkbook.pdf

Excellent, after reading a lot of your comments posted years earlier in the main archteypes contents section be interesting to see your new perspectives. Furthermore Ive just finished reading a lot of Jims short analysis on his blog on the archteypes. This wil supplement it well. Thanks.

[flofrog]

Hello friends, I am bumping this thread because in the last three weeks I have been working on Ra’s sessions between 70 and 77 and I have real difficulty understanding the Archetypal Mind.

I don’t know why but I understand the circuit of the spiritual cycle of the Archetypal Mind, like there’s a blueprint for spiritual evolution, but I have real difficulty understanding the fact there is an Archetypal Mind just because I feel everyone’s emotions of experimenting life are so unique to each one, that the concept of an Archetypal Mind common to all is really hard for me, so I think there’s something I don’t get here, and it’s bugging me so much.

So I was wondering if anyone had had the same difficulty...

So the workbook linked above is definitely something I am going to study, it seems awesome, and I thank its writer, and I would love if anyone had any view on this subject...

[Taralie Peterdaughter]

Well yes I have much difficulty as well, which is why I keep reading and studying these archetypes. I just spent a few hours reading this workbook and found it really added clarity. To answer your question I think now that archetypes are a structure of the way emotions, mind, spiritual yearning, and physical accomplishments are experienced. Like the way in which things go down. Or kinda like the order of experience. Things naturally lead to the next, but things don't always happen in the perfect order of one card to the next. Sometimes you cycle through a few cards for awhile before you are ready to really ingest that lesson and move on to the next card, but generally one card naturally leads to the next. I think tarot helps cuz it gives one a sense of time and place and purpose, in whatever process you are inquiring about. While it definitely keeps the integrity of each unique experience valid. It also helps you see Really an impressive investigation written here I look forward to reading it more and using it as a resource.

[Taralie Peterdaughter]

Also a good way to understand how the major arcana work is to get cards and ask questions and pull cards for yourself! Then you can really start to experience the steps of the archetypes.

[JustLikeYou]

Just so you all know, I edited the first chapter pretty thoroughly and uploaded it. I have just now changed the link so that it leads to the newest version.

I'm very glad to hear it has been helpful for some.

[Sacred Fool]

Okay, I got about 20 pages in before I wilted, but do want to mention a boo-boo I noticed on page 6, first full paragraph:"...choosing a traditional a sticking to it." Should be, presumably: choosing a tradition and sticking to it.

Anyhow, have you ever noticed Q'uo, Latwii and that gang ever mentioning the archetypes? Probably there's a little something mentioned somewhere, but doggone little. Why do you think that might be? Obviously, it must, in part, be a function of the questioning. But isn't it interesting that the archee-types are almost never referenced in the ordinary discussion of spiritual evolution by these prominent Confederation sources?

[Taralie Peterdaughter]

Question. In the last section the chapter on potentiators, you draw distinction in how the mind, body, spirits interact. Why do you think the spirit doesn't directly interact with the body? But always through the mind......i'm not sure I agree and would love to hear very much why you make this assertion.
Thanks!!!!

[unity100]

Question. In the last section the chapter on potentiators, you draw distinction in how the mind, body, spirits interact. Why do you think the spirit doesn't directly interact with the body? But always through the mind......i'm not sure I agree and would love to hear very much why you make this assertion.
Thanks!!!!

Ra describes the mind being a projection of spirit, and the body being a projection of the mind. So the flow from above is spirit -> mind -> body. Whereas the flow from bottom is body -> mind -> spirit.

[Taralie Peterdaughter]

Another thought! Or curiosity rather...under the significator section in the last section, you made that cool graph. My question is that you put the experience and matrix entirely under the veil if i am understanding tbat correctly. Really? The experience and matrix are completely unconscious?? Or maybe you dont think of whats under tbe veil as totally hidden? I'm curious what you really mean by that ?

[flofrog]

Would you think the matrix has complete access to the veil but the entity through the experience might find itself at times able to lift the veil and this way sees the matrix ?

[rva_jeremy]

Anyhow, have you ever noticed Q'uo, Latwii and that gang ever mentioning the archetypes?  Probably there's a little something mentioned somewhere, but doggone little.  Why do you think that might be?  Obviously, it must, in part, be a function of the questioning.  But isn't it interesting that the archee-types are almost never referenced in the ordinary discussion of spiritual evolution by these prominent Confederation sources?

I have definitely noticed this. There's a few possible explanations I can think of:

1. The Ra contact never got to that information until dozens of sessions in, after trance became so routine to Carla that it started to directly cause her weariness. It's possible that the conscious channeling is simply not deep enough to afford this instruction, or the intentions of the participants preclude this information somehow.
   
2. It's important to keep in mind that most of Ra's discussion that we consider pertaining to the archetypal mind uses the vehicle of the tarot, and the tarot may be more relevant to Ra's message than other Confederation sources' simply because of its Venusian pedigree. There may be lots of discussion of the archetypal mind that just doesn't use this easily identified symbology.
   
3. Those driving contact with Confederation entities at L/L Research have not embarked on the same systematic study and questioning that Don and the gang pursued. They literally have not asked for instruction the way Don did, at least to my knowledge.
   

Of all these possible reasons, I think #3 is the most likely. If it is possible to get Confederation friends to return to this path of instruction, it must be expressly requested in the context of a clear dedication to a rather lengthy course of individual study as well as a more thematic and systematic approach to asking questions.

I also think that, since we've lost our most archetype-aware senior channel, we're at quite a disadvantage relative to where we could be. I hope Q'uo is afforded the opportunity to speak through Dr. Tyman at some point in the future.

Peregrine, what do you think about the Confederation's relative silence on this topic?

P.S. I did ask a question of Q'uo about archetypes at a session in the not too distant past; search for J's question including the phrase "I have been contemplating the archetypes of catalyst and experience."

[Jade]

Anyhow, have you ever noticed Q'uo, Latwii and that gang ever mentioning the archetypes?  Probably there's a little something mentioned somewhere, but doggone little.  Why do you think that might be?  Obviously, it must, in part, be a function of the questioning.  But isn't it interesting that the archee-types are almost never referenced in the ordinary discussion of spiritual evolution by these prominent Confederation sources?

It is in my experience that I often find discussion of the archetypes in Q'uo, and the other conscious channelings. The problem is, as Jeremy mentioned, that most who have channeled Q'uo haven't spent a ton of time "learning the language" per potentiator, significator, etc. But, the symbology is still there - being a Fool, bearing fruit, catalyst repeating itself, catalyst in general (duh), dark night of the soul, heeding the call of the higher self, taking the positive interpretation of catalyst, harvesting biases from previous experiences, etc etc. In fact, I'm usually hard pressed to NOT see archetypical discussion or resonance in a Q'uo channeling. At one point I came to the conclusion that this is basically all Q'uo, and even Ra, talk about, unless they get taken totally off topic.

I understand this is not everyone's experience and may be part of the "deep threnodies and joyful ditties" that Ra mentions are the reward for studying the archetypes. Once you recognize the movements of energy that invoke the archetypes, you can see the description of those movements of energy appear everywhere.

There are quite a few that I have found that do explicitly describe and expound upon specific archetypes. But again, I think Carla probably never felt comfortable with the words "Significator of Spirit" etc coming out of her mouth. It's a cumbersome system. But there are definitely ways of talking about it without explicitly showing your hand and having people go "ARCHETYPES?! This is too complicated!"

Jim has been studying the archetypes more so I would suggest those who visit the circle start feeding some more questions of that specific variety in and see what comes out! I'd be stoked.

[Sacred Fool]

Once you recognize the movements of energy that invoke the archetypes, you can see the description of those movements of energy appear everywhere.

There are quite a few that I have found that do explicitly describe and expound upon specific archetypes.

It's important to keep in mind that most of Ra's discussion that we consider pertaining to the archetypal mind uses the vehicle of the tarot, and the tarot may be more relevant to Ra's message than other Confederation sources' simply because of its Venusian pedigree. There may be lots of discussion of the archetypal mind that just doesn't use this easily identified symbology.

Good points.  I tend to think of the Ra archetypes in association with tooth-pulling, head-splitting, cyborg-sounding discussions which seldom seem useful.  I.e., I was basically conflating the archetypes with the tarot deck.  I see very little discussion of the deck in the Q'uo channeling, but, as you point out, there are various passing references to the general concepts.  Mea culpa.

Here's J's Q & A referred to in his post.

J: Q’uo, I have one. I have been contemplating the archetypes of catalyst and experience. As I have modeled these in my mind, this is a unified concept of learning, separated solely by the veil—catalyst being this concept before the veil in the subconscious, and experience being this concept in the conscious increment life. Does this capture a sufficient amount of the significance of this concept, or am I missing some subtleties of this that you could comment on? Thank you.

Q’uo: I am Q’uo and we believe we understand your query, my brother. What you say is correct, and in fact, insightful, with regard to the way catalyst and experience function in the veiled condition. That is to say, that the veil does introduce a kind of break between the functioning of catalyst and the functioning of experience that can arise from it. However, it is also true that the archetypes have their distinct being independently of the question of the veiling. This constitutes an interesting subject of investigation. We will attempt to be somewhat brief in our address to it, and invite further queries at some future time.
The catalyst can, in a general sense, be described as that which occurs—that which occurs particularly within the sphere of action and interaction of a mind/body/spirit complex. What occurs, however, as it is received by that mind/body/spirit complex, will be subject to interpretation, and subject to a principle of selection with regard to what merits further focus. This process, as you point out, can be largely unconscious when one is in the veiled condition. The result being that, effectively speaking, there can be a conflation between the concept of catalyst and the concept of experience, for one’s access to the catalyst is always already characterized as one’s experience.
In a condition which is not veiled, the distinctness of those two elements is more on display, and that can have the result that a greater freedom, shall we say, can be shown, in experience making its selection from its catalyst concerning that which will be taken in as significant from that catalyst. This, we believe, gives the beginning of an approach to an answer to your query, my brother.

Does this strike you as rather different from most questions posed in these sessions?  It seems almost absurdly abstract to moi.  I wonder how hard it would be--and how much would be lost and gained--to cast the dialogue in plain English (instead of ceremonial Ra-sprach)?  Might that be refreshingly practical?

 

[Jade]

Does this strike you as rather different from most questions posed in these sessions?  It seems almost absurdly abstract to moi.  I wonder how hard it would be--and how much would be lost and gained--to cast the dialogue in plain English (instead of ceremonial Ra-sprach)?  Might that be refreshingly practical?

I think part of the whole thing with the archetypes is that the student needs to do a good deal of work on their own before they can freely be taught by entities on the other side of the veil.

The answer doesn't seem that abstract to me. From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, Jeremy) - Jeremy is asking about the process of catalyst/experience, and if experience is catalyst having been distilled to the other side of the veil. Q'uo basically says no and says that basically there is more nuance than that, because much processing of catalyst remains unconscious, and that, because of the veil, it's easy to conflate what is catalyst and what is actually distilled experience. Before the veil, things were obviously not hidden. But with the veiling, there is still a lot of confusion in this process.

I think there is a flaw in Jeremy's question (no offense!) because, for the mind cycle, while Catalyst is the female portion, and Experience in the male, Catalyst is the female portion ennobled by the conscious mind, and Experience is the conscious mind ennobled by the subconscious mind. So the subconscious mind is still thoroughly in play in the Experience card even though it is represented by the male principle. I believe the concept that Jeremy is talking about, distilling experience to the point of piercing the veil for use in a conscious manner, is more of a Great Way type energy.

So, yeah, I think you have to be knee-deep to be able to grok meaning from this type of question/answer. Not saying I have all the answers, either. I could be entirely wrong by this interpretation. It's my understanding, though, that the archetypes are a language that we learn so that we can communicate with our subconscious and intuition more thoroughly. Beyond that, there's not a lot to them - but of course, communicating with the subconscious is communicating with infinity, so it's well worth the effort IMO.

[Sacred Fool]

Does this strike you as rather different from most questions posed in these sessions?  It seems almost absurdly abstract to moi.  I wonder how hard it would be--and how much would be lost and gained--to cast the dialogue in plain English (instead of ceremonial Ra-sprach)?  Might that be refreshingly practical?

I think part of the whole thing with the archetypes is that the student needs to do a good deal of work on their own before they can freely be taught by entities on the other side of the veil.

The answer doesn't seem that abstract to me. From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, Jeremy) - Jeremy is asking about the process of catalyst/experience, and if experience is catalyst having been distilled to the other side of the veil. Q'uo basically says no and says that basically there is more nuance than that, because much processing of catalyst remains unconscious, and that, because of the veil, it's easy to conflate what is catalyst and what is actually distilled experience. Before the veil, things were obviously not hidden. But with the veiling, there is still a lot of confusion in this process.

I think there is a flaw in Jeremy's question (no offense!) because, for the mind cycle, while Catalyst is the female portion, and Experience in the male, Catalyst is the female portion ennobled by the conscious mind, and Experience is the conscious mind ennobled by the subconscious mind. So the subconscious mind is still thoroughly in play in the Experience card even though it is represented by the male principle. I believe the concept that Jeremy is talking about, distilling experience to the point of piercing the veil for use in a conscious manner, is more of a Great Way type energy.

So, yeah, I think you have to be knee-deep to be able to grok meaning from this type of question/answer. Not saying I have all the answers, either. I could be entirely wrong by this interpretation. It's my understanding, though, that the archetypes are a language that we learn so that we can communicate with our subconscious and intuition more thoroughly. Beyond that, there's not a lot to them - but of course, communicating with the subconscious is communicating with infinity, so it's well worth the effort IMO.

So, please help me out here, Jade. Having verbalized all that above, does it assist you in any way? Does it guide you or comfort you, or is it all functionally abstract?

Please compare it to this mundane line of thinking. As I go through my day, various experiences befall me and from time to time a particular snippet of experience seems to have a charge to it which is higher than random. I try to mull these charged items over because I suspect they might be interesting catalyst. Some of these may have intrinsic charge, like a fist fight, and some may be charged only to me because my mind is drawing my attention to them. Exploring the catalyst often leads to experience inspired by that exploration. Over the years, after having discharged thousands of these things, my conscious relationship with my mind, conscious and otherwise, has deepened because our ability to talk to one another has become far more facile.

Am I wrong or is this not a construct that is 10 times more practical than being able to say things like, the experience of the mind is ennobled by the subconscious? I just don’t see (yet, perhaps?) how the tarot deck is even in that league of spiritual utility.


On the other hand, maybe this post is just me talking to myself? I mean, maybe my unconscious is consciously talking to my conscious, which is unconscious of this?

[Taralie Peterdaughter]

why do you think Carla would be uncomfortable saying "significator of spirit"? I mean she has dedicated her life to this work. I spent 3 hours one night reading about it and I almost got it down. it seems rude.

[Jade]

So, please help me out here, Jade.  Having verbalized all that above, does it assist you in any way?  Does it guide you or comfort you, or is it all functionally abstract?

Please compare it to this mundane line of thinking.  As I go through my day, various experiences befall me and from time to time a particular snippet of experience seems to have a charge to it which is higher than random.  I try to mull these charged items over because I suspect they might be interesting catalyst.  Some of these may have intrinsic charge, like a fist fight, and some may be charged only to me because my mind is drawing my attention to them.  Exploring the catalyst often leads to experience inspired by that exploration. Over the years, after having discharged thousands of these things, my conscious relationship with my mind, conscious and otherwise, has deepened because our ability to talk to one another has become far more facile.

Am I wrong or is this not a construct that is 10 times more practical than being able to say things like, the experience of the mind is ennobled by the subconscious?  I just don’t see (yet, perhaps?) how the tarot deck is even in that league of spiritual utility.


On the other hand, maybe this post is just me talking to myself?  I mean, maybe my unconscious is consciously talking to my conscious, which is unconscious of this?

I find the framework of the archetypes to be immensely helpful for myself. It's not just about learning to talk to you subconscious, it's about learning how to do it properly through the framework of The Choice. One of the benefits I find of studying the archetypes is that there are catches, there are delineations that help elucidate the framework from which we do the distilling of catalyst by means of left hand vs right hand. Obviously it it not necessary. But personally I find my own understanding of these processes immensely heightened and deepened.

For instance, I find the concept of courting vs plundering immensely valuable. I also think it's important to know that "both the virginal and prostituted deep mind invite and await the reaching" - that you will have synchronicities and confirmations that will lead you down either path. So having a frame of reference for which deep mind I am courting I have found helpful.

If you have a system that works for you and the tarot seems unappealing, then I'm not here to convince you to use it. Like I said, I feel like it is a tool to learn to communicate with the infinite subconscious, our higher selves. The main benefit of the tarot is that it is thousands of years old, and, if you resonate highly with Ra, possibly has been a part of your experience for millennia. The "threnodies and ditties" I believe come from the resonance that exists in the deep mind from having used this framework of concepts before. I honestly set my intentions to learn the tarot, so I would be an anchor for these energies that nobody really feels comfortable getting into. It's basically like learning the language of the deep mind, and using it more and more fluently to communicate with the self. I think the framework can be a compass of sorts, to make sure we don't deceive ourselves and get off track. Of course it's still possible, but it's just an extra tool to help one focus on purity of intention.

It's kind of like we have this great play of our lives, with all of these emotional scenes and happenings, and using the tarot is kind of like turning on the director's commentary. It helps with extra insights at key moments, helps give a frame of reference, helps you pull back and look at what's happening from a higher vantage point than wallowing in the emotions of experience. Personally, I use and ponder them with every passing day, and I find them to be a beautiful companion.

[Jade]

why do you think Carla would be uncomfortable saying "significator of spirit"?    I mean she has dedicated her life to this work.  I spent 3 hours one night reading about it and I almost got it down.  it seems rude.

Carla admits herself she is a bad student, in fact I just read these words from her in a Q'uo channeling just yesterday. Carla has also talked about how sometimes when people ask Q'uo questions, she has a little bit of a freak out because she has no idea what the answer is. Of all of the writings on the LOO that Carla has completed, I do not believe she has written anything at all about the tarot. For most people, it's way over their heads, and they don't even try. Carla was never that into the Ra material anyway. She did it all for Don.

I'm not saying that Carla is ignorant or anything like that. It's just that the Tarot takes a special dedication to be able to understand it.

I have been studying the Tarot for over 4 years now, and I'm not sure that I would be able to explain "Significator of Spirit" with enough clarity and surety that I think most people would understand it. I would definitely be interested to hear what you think of the Significator of Spirit, Taralie.

[rva_jeremy]

The answer doesn't seem that abstract to me. From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, Jeremy) - Jeremy is asking about the process of catalyst/experience, and if experience is catalyst having been distilled to the other side of the veil. Q'uo basically says no and says that basically there is more nuance than that, because much processing of catalyst remains unconscious, and that, because of the veil, it's easy to conflate what is catalyst and what is actually distilled experience. Before the veil, things were obviously not hidden. But with the veiling, there is still a lot of confusion in this process.

That's more or less correct in my view. My intent was to have Q'uo speak to the way catalyst is conflated with experience. Everybody talks about catalyst in the sense of "bad things happening to me" but that's actually, I suspected in asking this question, a conflation of the catalysis with experience. I thought experience was much more about the emotional and phenomenological character of the "lesson", how it presents in our lives as opposed to what is behind the presentation, behind the things poking at us. Q'uo agree with me that this conflation occurs but disagree with the (unrecognized by me) implication that catalyst and experience are really one concept bifurcated by the veil. They are distinct archetypes, as Jade said. Moreover, Q'uo say that the veil, far from creating the distinctions between the two archetypes, actually muddies them, and that in an unveiled condition, the archetypes are much more obvious in their operation and significance. So the veil plays a role, but not a foundational role in the archetypes of catalyst and experience.

I think there is a flaw in Jeremy's question (no offense!) because, for the mind cycle, while Catalyst is the female portion, and Experience in the male, Catalyst is the female portion ennobled by the conscious mind, and Experience is the conscious mind ennobled by the subconscious mind. So the subconscious mind is still thoroughly in play in the Experience card even though it is represented by the male principle. I believe the concept that Jeremy is talking about, distilling experience to the point of piercing the veil for use in a conscious manner, is more of a Great Way type energy.

Yeah, I think we may just have a difference of opinion here, Jade. I do not consider the female to always represent the unconscious mind, or at least not solely the unconscious mind. Instead, I consider the male/female dichotomy an abstract representation of, for lack of a better word, the directionality of the cycle's subject. For example, the male/female dynamic in the catalyst/experience archetypes of the mind to indicate that experience strives towards the catalyst. In other words, experience is the more accessible archetype, but it functions, so to speak, through aspiring towards the catalyst, the true lesson. It does happen that indeed, in the mind cycle, the female represents the unconscious -- but this is, in my opinion, because that is the female aspect of the mind. In other words, I don't think the female in the experience of body indicates the unconscious -- instead, I think it indicates, roughly, that experience of body is about a receptiveness to the random body catalyst. 

As you can probably tell, I think this subject and the answer given definitely crosses into the land of the intensely abstract, precisely because it evades our ability to model concepts with language. This is also why I am really, really bummed we don't have a person with the vocabulary of phenomenology channeling Q'uo any longer. Philosophy does have rough terms for the kinds of concepts included in the complexes of the archetypes. It is language that is the barrier here. I mean, the exploration of archetypes might even be easier in a language like German, for instance.

Like Jade says, there's a lot of homework involved here, and I'm on record as not finding a great deal of value in talking about the archetypes much. However, I think if we were to make a dedicated study of the archetypes and involve Q'uo as a teacher (who, after all, includes Ra as a component of their complex), we would be able to have dialogues that would shed light on the subject, however narrowly subjective and personal the study may be. I often keep in mind that the Ra contact only affords us an understanding of archetypes in terms of what three people were able to see, grok, and explore. There is likely much, much, much more.

[Sacred Fool]

For instance, I find the concept of courting vs plundering immensely valuable. I also think it's important to know that "both the virginal and prostituted deep mind invite and await the reaching" - that you will have synchronicities and confirmations that will lead you down either path. So having a frame of reference for which deep mind I am courting I have found helpful.

I certainly agree that the conceptual teaching Ra offers verbally about the cards is way cool, but beyond the little bit which that encompasses, the cards themselves I find not especially helpful.  In other words, absent that teaching, I doubt I would have come to that conclusion on my own simply by viewing the cards.  And I think there's a reason for that.  (below)

I'm on record as not finding a great deal of value in talking about the archetypes much. However, I think if we were to make a dedicated study of the archetypes and involve Q'uo as a teacher (who, after all, includes Ra as a component of their complex), we would be able to have dialogues that would shed light on the subject, however narrowly subjective and personal the study may be. I often keep in mind that the Ra contact only affords us an understanding of archetypes in terms of what three people were able to see, grok, and explore. There is likely much, much, much more.

Here's another perspective.  Around the same time Ra was schooling the Egyptians, Indian masters were writing sutras on various topics, one of the most notable being The Yoga Sutras, attributed to Patangali.  These documents were NOT meant to be disquisitions so much as "Cliff Notes" for the purpose of reminding students what they had been taught over the course of years.  They were meant merely as memory aids.  I suspect the Tarot deck was intended the same way, as a pictorial summation of detailed teachings given over many years.  The problem for us is that we're getting the information in a backwards manner where Don Elkins was guessing about the symbols and trying to unscramble the codes, rather than receiving direct teaching.  I'm suggesting that this is the opposite of how the pictographs were intended to work.  And I'm suggesting that this accounts for the frustration some of us feel.  Of course, on the other hand, we can only work with what we have.

 

[flofrog]

I am so glad,thank you peregrine, Jade and Jeremy, I love the yoga sutra despite the fact that some times I am lost in then, but what you all say makes so much sense to me. There’s much peace coming from the sutras, to ne , which I couldn’t quite find in the tarot, despite its own beauty. Many thanks.

[Plenum]

They were meant merely as memory aids.  I suspect the Tarot deck was intended the same way, as a pictorial summation of detailed teachings given over many years.  The problem for us is that we're getting the information in a backwards manner where Don Elkins was guessing about the symbols and trying to unscramble the codes, rather than receiving direct teaching.  I'm suggesting that this is the opposite of how the pictographs were intended to work.  And I'm suggesting that this accounts for the frustration some of us feel.  Of course, on the other hand, we can only work with what we have.

you make some strong points peregrine.

As per Ra's own thoughts on the matter:

88.18 Questioner: I will ask the following questions to clear up possibly only the method of teaching these concepts which may give me important clues to understanding the concepts themselves. Did Ra use cards similar to the tarot cards for the training purpose in third density?

Ra: I am Ra. No.




88.19 Questioner: What did Ra use in third density?

Ra: I am Ra. You are aware in your attempts at magical visualization of the mental configuration of sometimes rather complex visualizations. These are mental and drawn with the mind. Another example well-known in your culture is the visualization, in your mass, of the distortion of the love of the One Infinite Creator called Christianity, wherein a small portion of your foodstuffs is seen to be a mentally configured but entirely real man, the man known to you as Jehoshua or, as you call this entity now, Jesus. It was by this method of sustained visualization over a period of training that we worked with these concepts.

These concepts were occasionally drawn. However, the concept of one visualization per card was not thought of by us.



88.20 Questioner: Well, how did the teacher relay information to the student with respect to visualization?

Ra: I am Ra. The process was cabalistic; that is, of the oral tradition of mouth to ear.



88.21 Questioner: Then when Ra attempted to teach the Egyptians the concept of the tarot, was the same process used, or a different one?

Ra: I am Ra. The same process was used. However, those which were teach/learners after us first drew these images to the best of their ability within the place of initiation and later began the use of what you call cards bearing these visualizations’ representations.

[Jade]

Also, if the teachers in Egypt of these images were incarnate, or walking in their 6th density forms on this planet or whatever, there isn't the barrier of free will/the veil/transmitting information through densities. As I've said before, I think these are a way to begin a dialogue with the subconscious. This is why Ra wanted people to ponder them on their own, instead of saying "This is what the flying turtle means." Ra also says that anyone can do this work with any set of images. It's about creating a language so that the subconscious can speak to you through that language, through that set of imagery to which you have attached personal resonance and meaning.

Ra: I am Ra. The principle which moves in accordance with the dynamics of teach/learning with most efficiency is constancy. We could explore the archetypical mind using that set of images produced by the one known as Fathman or we could use those which have been used.

In point of fact, those which are being used have some subtleties which enrich the questioning. As we have said, this set of images is not that which we gave. This is not material. We could use any of a multitude of devised tarot sets. Although this must be at the discretion of the questioner, we suggest the maintaining of one and only one set of distorted images to be used for the querying and note that the images you now use are good.

[Sacred Fool]

Also, if the teachers in Egypt of these images were incarnate, or walking in their 6th density forms on this planet or whatever, there isn't the barrier of free will/the veil/transmitting information through densities. As I've said before, I think these are a way to begin a dialogue with the subconscious. This is why Ra wanted people to ponder them on their own, instead of saying "This is what the flying turtle means." Ra also says that anyone can do this work with any set of images. It's about creating a language so that the subconscious can speak to you through that language, through that set of imagery to which you have attached personal resonance and meaning.

Yes, I suppose one can do so.  Does it not have a feeling of reverse order to you though?  To me it feels like taking someone's condensed lecture notes and attempting to squeeze meaning from them and constructing some kind of framework of reality, instead of using the verbal teaching (channeling sessions) on a given archetypal  topic (Choice, for example) and then distilling one's own notes.  After that, then, perhaps comparing your understanding to the cards and others' ideas so as to possibly broaden your own base of comprehension.  Obviously, anyone studying the cards is doing this to some extent by default, even if they use the cards as a point of departure rather than the verbal teachings.  I'm just left a teensy bit uncomfortable by the deep veneration given to the Egyptian "lecture notes," which were not, as Plenum points out, created by Ra.  (So, I guess it just comes down to a personal problem.  After all, it's all about ME, isn't it?  Ha ha ha!  <subtle evil laughter!>)

 

[Jade]

Also, if the teachers in Egypt of these images were incarnate, or walking in their 6th density forms on this planet or whatever, there isn't the barrier of free will/the veil/transmitting information through densities. As I've said before, I think these are a way to begin a dialogue with the subconscious. This is why Ra wanted people to ponder them on their own, instead of saying "This is what the flying turtle means." Ra also says that anyone can do this work with any set of images. It's about creating a language so that the subconscious can speak to you through that language, through that set of imagery to which you have attached personal resonance and meaning.

Yes, I suppose one can do so.  Does it not have a feeling of reverse order to you though?  To me it feels like taking someone's condensed lecture notes and attempting to squeeze meaning from them and constructing some kind of framework of reality, instead of using the verbal teaching (channeling sessions) on a given archetypal  topic (Choice, for example) and then distilling one's own notes.  After that, then, perhaps comparing your understanding to the cards and others' ideas so as to possibly broaden your own base of comprehension.  Obviously, anyone studying the cards is doing this to some extent by default, even if they use the cards as a point of departure rather than the verbal teachings.  I'm just left a teensy bit uncomfortable by the deep veneration given to the Egyptian "lecture notes," which were not, as Plenum points out, created by Ra.  (So, I guess it just comes down to a personal problem.  After all, it's all about ME, isn't it?  Ha ha ha!  <subtle evil laughter!>)

Luckily in our infinite creation there is room for all reactions to all stimuli.

To me, I felt like Ra placed importance and emphasis on this information, so I sought to study it. It's now a huge part of my life. I've barely scratched the surface. I think part of why I do enjoy it is because it is such a mystery, such a slow process of unveiling: the courtship is certainly protracted. And it adds many new layers to the information that already exists, in the Ra books and also in the Q'uo channelings. So I'm happy with my decision, as I'm guessing you are as well. But it does sound like some part of you wants to be convinced of its efficacy and well, all I've got to say to that is that it's entirely subjective. Good luck!!

[rva_jeremy]

I suspect the Tarot deck was intended the same way, as a pictorial summation of detailed teachings given over many years.  The problem for us is that we're getting the information in a backwards manner where Don Elkins was guessing about the symbols and trying to unscramble the codes, rather than receiving direct teaching.  I'm suggesting that this is the opposite of how the pictographs were intended to work.  And I'm suggesting that this accounts for the frustration some of us feel.

I've often thought the same thing, Peregrine: how close is the course of study recommended by those of Ra in the contact to the past, direct course of study described by those of Ra? Of course, a landing/manifestation of Ra could clear all this up, right?

More seriously, I think the biggest thing missing is a concerted program of seeking. The images of the tarot are supposed to haunt. That means the answers don't lie in the images, as you seem to grasp, but instead lie within us, with the tarot as just a reminder. And in the western magical tradition, at least, there is the theory that rituals extend across incarnations, designed to "wake people up" and tap into the larger flow of learning than one lifetime. It is this seeking that is the missing element in my opinion, the element that seems backward to you, I think. Seeking in the Egyptian times was something that occurred in a more controlled and directed context than it now does, so there were things to build on that we are having to "reverse engineer".

Your point about the teaching aids being reminders is well taken. This is why I think casual discussions like this one will never be adequate to penetrate the archetypal mind in any truly helpful manner. We have to do the work within that allows the images to draw out purified, distilled aspect of the archetypal mind. There's also a sense in which we have to have our higher selves involved in order to work with mind at this level at all.

All of these points bespeak a rigorous dedication to study and contemplation, and if the contact is read closely, I believe you can easily see those of Ra suggesting just this.