Are we pulling the cards all wrong for our spreads ?

[Diana]

There's been something that's been bugging me since the very early days of my apprenticeship in reading the tarot. It's a very long apprenticeship. Apparently no-one's ever finished - even the Hermit is still looking for some answers it is rumoured. Others say he's looking for questions. No-one knows for sure.

The thing that's bugging me is the fact that once you've drawn a card for a certain position, there's no possibility that the same card can be drawn again. Like let's say you're doing a Past/Present/Future spread. You get the Wheel of Fortune or any other card for the Past. But maybe the Wheel of Fortune should also ideally represent the Present and/or the Future. Which means that maybe we should each time be drawing just one card for the first position, Past, put it back in the pack, shuffle again and draw the card for the second position, Present. And then put it back in the pack, shuffle and draw a card a third time for the Future position.

This means of course potentially that the same card could come up twice, even three times. (It's such a pity that we don't say thrice anymore. Once, twice, thrice. That was very adequate. What on earth happened that this lovely word disappeared.)

I'm doing a reading for myself in the Readings section. My spread that I decided to do was a three card spread. a) How has this situation affected my outlook on life; b) What are, if any, the benefits, and c) What are, if any, the disadvantages.

I looked at the 3 positions. And then I looked at my cards. And I felt very strongly that I should be using all 78 cards for each question. Sort of like three separate readings. But I didn't want three readings - I wanted one cohesive one with no separation between them. I wanted to do a normal spread but each position had to have the 78 cards and their full potential. Now of course, this means that maybe the same card will come up twice in the same spread. The idea sounded appealing. I tried to argue against this idea though - quite strongly in fact, like "what if the benefits and disadvantages is the same card - that won't make sense", but then I thought immediately afterwards "well, that just means that they cancel each other out. That the situation is neutral." Then I thought, but there are other cards that could represent this neutrality just as well. But then immediately I thought "But what if the ideal card for that has already been used up for question 1". I had this sort of internal dialogue with myself. It went on for quite some time.

I also told myself that maybe I'm being a heretic and will be burned at the stake in the Tarot of Marseilles hell. But that too I had a good argument against. So I relented.

I decided to use all 78 cards for each position. But they're not three readings. When they're finished (I've still got to draw the card for position 3), this will all be put together and considered as one. With the implication that it is possible that the third card may be the same as one of the other others. So far the first two are different. It's unlikely this will happen and I'm not holding my breath. Not this time - I don't intuit that. But still, I have to consider that possibility if I'm doing a three-in-one or one-in-three reading (which is it by the way ? what's the difference between three-in-one or one-in-three ???)

I'd like to very much hear your thoughts on this. Thank you.

[Ailsaek]

That is a really interesting idea. Instead of putting the card back and reshuffling, what if you used a different deck for each position? Or just dealt from multiple decks for each position? I’ve been feeling drawn to that lately, and I am seeing a fair number of repeats. I treat the multiple cards in each position as a compound word - it’s been fascinating. (Sorry the picture is so dark, I do my readings at night.)

[Diana]

I've noticed recently that the usage of using multiple decks for the same reading is becoming popular. I've nothing against it per se. But I really prefer to use only one deck for my readings. I prefer for one deck to give me all the answers. I'd feel almost like I'm not trusting my deck to tell me what I want and I do trust my TdM implicitly. And also if I use a Conver or a Noblet or a Hadar, it's the same thing really. I could never mix up two different traditions - I wouldn't use a Wirth with a TdM for instance if I went down the multiple decks for one reading.

I have 78 cards - I don't need more. One teacher per lesson. I wouldn't know which teacher to listen to if there are too many in the classroom.

But I'm going to experiment more in my future readings the idea of putting back the cards drawn back into the pack and see how it goes.

But I'm still wondering if I'm not being a heretic. A blasphemer. I wonder if the tarot gods issue fatwahs.

Gosh, that's a lot of cards you have there on your example of your reading !! Makes my head spin. I can't read so many cards - I usually do three card readings - and maximum 5. Beyond that, I get lost and don't know where I am anymore. I've always admired people who can read with so many cards. I think also I get a bit bored when there are too many cards !! Sort of like "okay... but get to the point now for heaven's sake."

[Rose Lalonde]

I see what you mean, and I like it. The same card drawn again could be a good way to show that very little or even nothing changes depending on where it comes up, but when I remove it from the deck there's no possibility to express that. Now that you say it, I feel a bit silly that it never occurred to me.

I'm going to give it a try. (Since I have 2 copies of the deck I read with most, I could actually even take a picture of the spread if it were a reading for someone else... Unless it came up thrice. )

[Diana]

I'm going to give it a try. (Since I have 2 copies of the deck I read with most, I could actually even take a picture of the spread if it were a reading for someone else... Unless it came up thrice. )

Thrice is highly unlikely though. But some people do win the lottery.

[Natural Mystic Guide]

[quote=Ailsaek post_id=14889 time=1580185122 user_id=864]
That is a really interesting idea. Instead of putting the card back and reshuffling, what if you used a different deck for each position? Or just dealt from multiple decks for each position?

There is one instance in which I do use multiple decks in one reading. Typically I do this at the beginning of a professional reading. I call it a 'pre-reading' and it gives a snapshot of where the Querent is right now. This is before they even start talking to me. I just do it cold. At any given moment I have 4 go-to decks that represent each of the four kaballistic worlds. I am doing an elemental reading. This is a reading without reversals. The card is viewed as positive or favorable or challenging in a lesson depending on how a given card relates to the assigned element/position. It is fairly common the two of the same cards will appear in this 4-card spread. Once three of the same card appeared. I like the meaning this conveys -- the double or triple influence of a certain energy pouring over into multiple aspects of a person's life.

[DarkWing]

I remember playing with multi-deck spreads back ‘in the day’. I found that it has a purpose.

Then a couple weeks ago I was talking with Denise Hesselroth about her book Intentional Tarot: Using the Cards with Purpose, at the North Star Tarot Conference about drawing cards face up. It was something I’d learned from James Wanless, who teaches that rather than pulling a Card of the Day, choose your card from a face up deck – and manifest what kind of day you need!

Different spreads, different choosing methods, different purposes – or intent.

I think the real issue is dealing like it's Blackjack.

Just my zwei cents

[AeonHorus]

There's been something that's been bugging me since the very early days of my apprenticeship in reading the tarot. It's a very long apprenticeship. Apparently no-one's ever finished - even the Hermit is still looking for some answers it is rumoured. Others say he's looking for questions. No-one knows for sure.

The thing that's bugging me is the fact that once you've drawn a card for a certain position, there's no possibility that the same card can be drawn again. Like let's say you're doing a Past/Present/Future spread. You get the Wheel of Fortune or any other card for the Past. But maybe the Wheel of Fortune should also ideally represent the Present and/or the Future. Which means that maybe we should each time be drawing just one card for the first position, Past, put it back in the pack, shuffle again and draw the card for the second position, Present. And then put it back in the pack, shuffle and draw a card a third time for the Future position.

This means of course potentially that the same card could come up twice, even three times. (It's such a pity that we don't say thrice anymore. Once, twice, thrice. That was very adequate. What on earth happened that this lovely word disappeared.)

I'm doing a reading for myself in the Readings section. My spread that I decided to do was a three card spread. a) How has this situation affected my outlook on life; b) What are, if any, the benefits, and c) What are, if any, the disadvantages.

I looked at the 3 positions. And then I looked at my cards. And I felt very strongly that I should be using all 78 cards for each question. Sort of like three separate readings. But I didn't want three readings - I wanted one cohesive one with no separation between them. I wanted to do a normal spread but each position had to have the 78 cards and their full potential. Now of course, this means that maybe the same card will come up twice in the same spread. The idea sounded appealing. I tried to argue against this idea though - quite strongly in fact, like "what if the benefits and disadvantages is the same card - that won't make sense", but then I thought immediately afterwards "well, that just means that they cancel each other out. That the situation is neutral." Then I thought, but there are other cards that could represent this neutrality just as well. But then immediately I thought "But what if the ideal card for that has already been used up for question 1". I had this sort of internal dialogue with myself. It went on for quite some time.

I also told myself that maybe I'm being a heretic and will be burned at the stake in the Tarot of Marseilles hell. But that too I had a good argument against. So I relented.

I decided to use all 78 cards for each position. But they're not three readings. When they're finished (I've still got to draw the card for position 3), this will all be put together and considered as one. With the implication that it is possible that the third card may be the same as one of the other others. So far the first two are different. It's unlikely this will happen and I'm not holding my breath. Not this time - I don't intuit that. But still, I have to consider that possibility if I'm doing a three-in-one or one-in-three reading (which is it by the way ? what's the difference between three-in-one or one-in-three ???)

I'd like to very much hear your thoughts on this. Thank you.

Interesting idea Diana.
If you are doing a three card spread then why not just use three decks. One for each position then if a card does appear twice or even thrice then you will still be able to read it concurrently in the given storyline.

Just a thought!

[AeonHorus]

Oh hahaha
Maybe I should have read all the thread before commenting lol

[jobarghest]

I think that's a really interesting idea. Personally I like to imagine the deck is arranging things for the best and prefer to have a different angle for each question. I think I would find it hard to interpret that way, partly as I see the reading as an interlinked system of different archetypes rather than being a 1-2-3 sequence. ( I am not sure if that makes sense lol). Also I think for me having multiple copies would reduce the impact to me of the more dramatic, or favourite cards.

I also have poor concentration so it would be really hard to read without seeing all the cards together.

What makes me giggle is the possibility ( if using multiple copies) of getting a reading of solely Death cards for a client. Imagine trying to reassure them- it reminds me of those comedies where the reader reassures after the first Death, but then draws multiple versions, exclaiming that there should only be one in a pack.

[cloudberry]

Yo
First of al, are you a thinker? I mean, you must be a very clever person.
This post gave me realisation and insight.
May the tarot is not ment for repeating itself in a spread?
I have thought about your question and i have come to realize that when doing a spread, the right answer will show itself.
If one cards meaning is meant to represent two positions, then the powers will give you an answer ( a card) that can be interpreted in the same way.
Trust in your self and the tarot to give you the right answer, i believe im aiming at.
have a great day/night
/ cloudberry

[Nemia]

It's possible to draw cards from different decks - that would prevent this problem. It might even be interesting to pick a different deck for each spread position.

And what I nearly always do for deep insight readings is permutations. I move the cards from one position to the next. I always like to use fewer cards (my ideal number is 4) and then move them around, as described here.

[Joan Marie]

It's possible to draw cards from different decks - that would prevent this problem. It might even be interesting to pick a different deck for each spread position.

And what I nearly always do for deep insight readings is permutations. I move the cards from one position to the next. I always like to use fewer cards (my ideal number is 4) and then move them around, as described here.

This is really interesting. Thanks for the link Nemia. I had never heard of using permutations before.
At first I thought it sounded really, well, wrong to move the cards around like that, but as I read more I started to see what a truly interesting perspective this would give to a reading, and what a kind of magical stretch of the cards if that makes any sense to say it like that.

Anyway, I can't wait to try this. I wonder if anyone would be interested in trying it in a reading group/circle.

[Nemia]

I've been doing this for years, long before I read Mary Greer. Probably because in my very first reading, the friend who did the reading for me, did it, too. I wrote it in my diary whch is lost, but I remember we looked at the spread and asked: now if we have to fix the situation, which powers would you need? and we answered concrete questions from the cards on the table.

I have never liked this "pull another card" game, I don't see it really clarifies a lot and then there's the temptation to pull until you get the Ace of Cups and can say: oh well, he loves me!!! Even if you drew all the other cards before

I like working with what I have. And working with permutations, I don't really need reversals. You tickle out a lot of meanings from each card anyway.

It's one of the greatest techniques in Greer's wonderful tool box imho.

[Merrick]

It's possible to draw cards from different decks - that would prevent this problem. It might even be interesting to pick a different deck for each spread position.

And what I nearly always do for deep insight readings is permutations. I move the cards from one position to the next. I always like to use fewer cards (my ideal number is 4) and then move them around, as described here.

This is really interesting. Thanks for the link Nemia. I had never heard of using permutations before.
At first I thought it sounded really, well, wrong to move the cards around like that, but as I read more I started to see what a truly interesting perspective this would give to a reading, and what a kind of magical stretch of the cards if that makes any sense to say it like that.

Anyway, I can't wait to try this. I wonder if anyone would be interested in trying it in a reading group/circle.

You rang?