Shuffling The Cards for Someone Else

[ScorpioGayle]

I am curious how the energy works in the cards when you are reading for someone else and you are the one doing the shuffling.  How does the energy of that person work?  Would it not be your energy or do you think about what the person is asking as you are shuffling the deck?  I know this might sound ridiculous but it is something that I am a little confused about as a beginner?  

[Saturn Celeste]

It isn't the shuffling as much as the intention.  I do online readings so I don't pick up on person to person energy but instead it's more like keyboard to keyboard with me.  The client asks me their question, then I repeat it all the while I shuffle.  Then I lay the cards out and do the reading for them.  We offer a mentor program here if you would like to join it.  Sign up on this thread.  I'm going offline now so if you do sign it up, I'll be here tomorrow to settle you in.

 

[Thoughtful]

Love the cat picture its priceless, just had to mention!

 

l do the shuffle for others when l give readings.  l just concentrate my thoughts on the persons energies and their name, and inwardly ask that l receive their energies into the cards and the reading.   From the readings l have done for others none of them have related to me in any way.  So l am sure you can be safe in doing the shuffle if you want to.

[chanap]

Hi,

 

I usually go with signifier cards to fetch card for him/her.

I shuffle cards, think of question person ask and then check cards until signifier card reached and fetch 4-5 cards to read about the question.

I am a beginner so not using any specific spread.

 

Thanks

[Nordica De Spell]

@ScorpioGayle, it’s not ridiculous at all. On the occasions I’ve shuffled for family, a few times I haven’t been sure if the reading was actually for me. 

 

Just keep at it, I think, and you’ll notice. If it’s consistently for you it will become evident. Maybe also try different decks. Some may be more personal to you than others. 

 

Or, if this becomes a problem, maybe keep a deck that is only for others, and let them shuffle it.

 

(But, majority of times it’s probably not an issue.) 🌻 🌻

 

Edited June 16, 2019 by Nordica De Spell

[Barleywine]

This is a subject near-and-dear to my heart, and I've made several posts about it on my blog (they're mainly rants, so I won't post them here but you can find them there). I read the cards from 1972 to 2011 and never knew there was such a thing as "remote reading" except for psychic connections. I discovered a thriving internet practice when I joined Aeclectic Tarot in 2011, and immediately felt ill-at-ease with it, for the reasons you mentioned. Whose subconscious awareness is going into the cards if we shuffle for our querents? I don't really consider it reading the cards, it's more "psychism with props," which is OK as long as we recognize it for what it is. I've reconciled myself to it by requiring anyone I read for remotely to pull their own cards, either manually or through an app. (Tarot apps are a whole other subject, but I accept that pushing a button with sincere intention and relying on a Random Number Generator to pick the cards isn't much different from shuffling; the Universe doesn't care either way, but you do miss out on a lot of the charming "theater of tarot" if you do so.)

 

If I have a "live" sitter who is reluctant to handle the deck (hasn't happened yet), I would just have them cut to "induce" their subconscious knowledge of the situation into the arrangement of the cards.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Barleywine

[katrinka]

21 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

Whose subconscious awareness is going into the cards if we shuffle for our querents? I don't really consider it reading the cards, it's more "psychism with props," which is OK as long as we recognize it for what it is.

Ahem. 😆

 

 

Sorry, Barley, but I've obviously got to take issue with this.

1. "Subconscious awareness going into the cards" is one theory among many about how the cards work. And even assuming it's true, if a person's subconscious awareness can somehow be transferred to a deck of cards, why would it require them to personally shuffle the cards? Why would it only be able to travel via the hands and not via some astral tube, where physical distance is not an obstacle? What would you say to a client who was physically present but unable to shuffle, due to some disability?

 

2. I don't consider myself a psychic reader. I don't have that on tap. I've learned my cards, that's what I use, and they work. They aren't "props". And yes, I'm reading them.

3. I am by no means unique. There are legions of card readers (not "psychics") who read for people who are not physically present, have a good hit rate, and are not using the cards as "props".

4. Can you explain why ANYONE would require "props" to do a phone reading for a client who is in another state, or on another continent, and can't even SEE said "props"?

5. I've seen you post readings about political figures. Unless Donald Trump shuffled your cards (and I don't think you want spray tan and "hamberder" grease all over that nice Thoth) you did a long distance reading. Asking the cards if someone will be elected is no different than asking if Suzy in Decatur will get the job she applied for.

Ask the cards, and the cards answer.

[Barleywine]

As I see it, the only theory that really matters is the one that works best for us as readers, everything else is academic. Regarding phone readings, I like the Anthony Louis approach. He gets the client on the phone and starts shuffling the cards, having the person on the other end tell him when to stop; he then takes the card off the top of the deck for the spread position. For a Celtic Cross, he does this ten times. This seems appropriately interactive to me; the way I like to read, interaction is a key component.

 

When reading about political or other "outer world" situations (like "missing person" scenarios), I place tarot reading in the same bucket as mundane astrology. It's essentially impersonal, even if it touches on individual personalities. So I have no problem with doing the shuffling.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Barleywine

[katrinka]

On 6/16/2019 at 8:19 AM, chanap said:

I usually go with signifier cards to fetch card for him/her.

I shuffle cards, think of question person ask and then check cards until signifier card reached and fetch 4-5 cards to read about the question.

I am a beginner so not using any specific spread.

Actually, you are!
Finding the significator in the deck and reading it along with a couple of cards on either side of it is called the "Lost Man Spread". You can use a person card as a significator, or a card that represents your issue: love, health, work, etc.
It's a venerable and respected old spread.

[katrinka]

2 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

As I see it, the only theory that really matters is the one that works best for us as readers. everything else is academic. Regarding phone readings, I like the Anthony Louis approach. He gets the client on the phone and starts shuffling the cards, having the person on the other end tell him when to stop; he then takes the card off the top of the deck for the spread position. For a Celtic Cross, he does this ten times. This seems appropriately interactive to me; the way I like to read, interaction is a key component.

As a preference, that's fine (assuming both you and the client have time for all that. I wouldn't advise anyone to do it on a pay-per-minute phone line!)
As long as the rest of us aren't assumed to be using "props".
I'll let you live that down, though. Someday.

I haven't decided when yet.

2 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

 

When reading about political situations, I place tarot reading in the same bucket as mundane astrology. It's essentially impersonal, even if it touches on individual personalities.

The boundaries are somewhat murky. Election results are a world event, but they're also one person rather than another securing a job.

[Barleywine]

4 minutes ago, katrinka said:

I'll let you live that down, though. Someday.

I haven't decided when yet.

 

Like Marty Feldman's quip when Gene Wilder said "Damn your eyes!" to him in Young Frankenstein: "Too late!" It's a clear case of technology running head-on into tradition, with some of the "soul" being lost in the collision. Or so it seems to me.

[JohnLetter]

On 5/18/2019 at 1:16 AM, Saturn Celeste said:

It isn't the shuffling as much as the intention.  I do online readings so I don't pick up on person to person energy but instead it's more like keyboard to keyboard with me.  The client asks me their question, then I repeat it all the while I shuffle.  Then I lay the cards out and do the reading for them.  We offer a mentor program here if you would like to join it.  Sign up on this thread.  I'm going offline now so if you do sign it up, I'll be here tomorrow to settle you in.

 

I can't that pic  

[katrinka]

13 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

Like Marty Feldman's quip when Gene Wilder said "Damn your eyes!" to him in Young Frankenstein: "Too late!" It's a clear case of technology running head-on into tradition, with some of the "soul" being lost in the collision. Or so it seems to me.

I miss old Marty.

But I'm sure that before the current technology existed, some readings were being written out and sent via snail mail. And while I generally prefer the older books, the stock instruction that you must let the sitter shuffle always struck me as similar to the other stock instructions stating that the cards must be cut into three piles to the left with the left hand, the cards must be wrapped in silk, etc.

[Barleywine]

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

I miss old Marty.

But I'm sure that before the current technology existed, some readings were being written out and sent via snail mail. And while I generally prefer the older books, the stock instruction that you must let the sitter shuffle always struck me as similar to the other stock instructions stating that the cards must be cut into three piles to the left with the left hand, the cards must be wrapped in silk, etc.

I'm also suspicious of the conventions presented as gospel; I coined the phrase "theater of tarot" to explain to sitters why I do certain things during a reading, letting them know there's no good reason for them other than tradition - they're just part of the performance art that is card reading. I still do some of the things you mention, but I'm clear that there's no mysterious reason for them, they're essentially window-dressing. Their only advantage is consistency over time.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Barleywine

[katrinka]

3 hours ago, Barleywine said:

I'm also suspicious of the conventions presented as gospel; I coined the phrase "theater of tarot" to explain to sitters why I do certain things during a reading, letting them know there's no good reason for them other than tradition - they're just part of the performance art that is card reading. I still do some of the things you mention, but I'm clear that there's no mysterious reason for them, they're essentially window-dressing. Their only advantage is consistency over time.

I can agree that face-to-face involves theater. While I don't do costumes, I certainly wouldn't work a party wearing the same thing I'd wear to a job interview - people expect us to be a little different and eccentric-looking. So yes - in that situation you're probably using an inexpensive, easily replaced deck. By all means let them shuffle. Bring your cards in a silk bag or scarf. You might even put a crystal on the table as a prop.  Theater generally requires props. 😈
But if a regular were to swing by the house to get a reading on some ongoing issue, I'd just dispense with all that and be me. YMMV.

I can't find it now, but Cat Yronwode, who lives and breathes traditions, once compiled a list of the "you musts" and systematically debunked them - she knew the origins of many of them. "You must sleep with the cards under your pillow" probably started with Edgar Cayce claiming to know the contents of a book by sleeping on it. "You must wrap the cards in silk" was nicked from the tradition of wrapping the I Ching in yellow silk. These things are like memes: somebody comes up with them and they get endlessly parroted and passed around. Eventually people accept them as canon, but when you examine them closely, they're unnecessary, and a lot of them are pretty silly, IMHO.
 

[Barleywine]

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

I can agree that face-to-face involves theater. While I don't do costumes, I certainly wouldn't work a party wearing the same thing I'd wear to a job interview - people expect us to be a little different and eccentric-looking. So yes - in that situation you're probably using an inexpensive, easily replaced deck. By all means let them shuffle. Bring your cards in a silk bag or scarf. You might even put a crystal on the table as a prop.  Theater generally requires props. 😈
But if a regular were to swing by the house to get a reading on some ongoing issue, I'd just dispense with all that and be me. YMMV.

I can't find it now, but Cat Yronwode, who lives and breathes traditions, once compiled a list of the "you musts" and systematically debunked them - she knew the origins of many of them. "You must sleep with the cards under your pillow" probably started with Edgar Cayce claiming to know the contents of a book by sleeping on it. "You must wrap the cards in silk" was nicked from the tradition of wrapping the I Ching in yellow silk. These things are like memes: somebody comes up with them and they get endlessly parroted and passed around. Eventually people accept them as canon, but when you examine them closely, they're unnecessary, and a lot of them are pretty silly, IMHO.
 

Another one I can think of is "non-reversible backs make a difference to the reading" To be honest, I turn all of the cards face-up as I deal them (except maybe the last one if I'm feeling especially dramatic), so I hardly even glance at the backs. I intentionally introduce reversals anyway. Tarotbear (remember him?) once wrote a book on ridiculous tarot myths, but I've never read it.

[katrinka]

36 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

Another one I can think of is "non-reversible backs make a difference to the reading" To be honest, I turn all of the cards face-up as I deal them (except maybe the last one if I'm feeling especially dramatic), so I hardly even glance at the backs. I intentionally introduce reversals anyway. Tarotbear (remember him?) once wrote a book on ridiculous tarot myths, but I've never read it.

That would depend. It makes no difference to me. I generally just riffle, cut, and draw, all the while barely even glancing at the cards. But some people fan the cards out face down, and have the client pick. (Again, theater.) A client could certainly be influenced by whether a back was reversed or not.

 

[Barleywine]

15 minutes ago, katrinka said:

That would depend. It makes no difference to me. I generally just riffle, cut, and draw, all the while barely even glancing at the cards. But some people fan the cards out face down, and have the client pick. (Again, theater.) A client could certainly be influenced by whether a back was reversed or not.

 

Perhaps, but would the average sitter even know what it means unless it's explained to them? It also raises the question do we read the orientation from their vantage point or ours? (I dodge the issue by having them sit next to me rather than across.) Even though I ask my sitters to shuffle, I don't expect them to mess around with creating reversals. But whatever they do is fine since I assume that anything produced by their intervention is valid, whether "normal" or not. If they create a reversal where I wouldn't have, so be it. It's their reading, not mine.

[katrinka]

13 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

Perhaps, but would the average sitter even know what it means unless it's explained to them? It also raises the question do we read the orientation from their vantage point or ours? (I dodge the issue by having them sit next to me rather than across.) Even though I ask my sitters to shuffle, I don't expect them to mess around with creating reversals. But whatever they do is fine since I assume that anything produced by their intervention is valid, whether "normal" or not. If they create a reversal where I wouldn't have, so be it. It's their reading, not mine.

Horrors, Barley! The Beast certainly didn't use reversals! LOL.

As for the "average sitter", it depends. Some are not familiar with the cards at all. Others are regulars (either yours, or the type who goes to multiple readers) and have a smattering of knowledge.) Yet others are readers who feel too stressed over something to read for themselves. And then you have aspiring readers who just want to see you in action. And surely other permutations that I'm not remembering ATM.

I don't have statistics, of course, but out of all the types, I'd say that the people who are unfamiliar with the concept of reversals are in the minority.

 

Edited June 28, 2019 by katrinka

[Barleywine]

I think the Beast was a "living reversal," if you catch my drift. He seemed to look at almost everything from the opposite perspective to that of his contemporaries. Divination, although he touted its virtues for learning to experience the cards as "living beings," seemed exceptionally remote from his main calling as a magus.

 

I always ask my sitters whether they have had previous readings, and tailor my approach accordingly. I tend to explain only as much as necessary to avoid confusion, after which I let the cards do the talking. I allow them to shuffle any way they want, although their handling might make me cringe; as you surmised, I don't take any irreplaceable decks to reading sessions.

[katrinka]

3 hours ago, Barleywine said:

I think the Beast was a "living reversal," if you catch my drift.

Not quite.
One of our Inversive Brethren? LOL.
He was an a-hole, but I'm not quite buying the hype. If there is a personification of evil, a "Great Beast" or "Wickedest Man On Earth", it's profoundly stupid and therefore quite different from Crowley.
Not naming names because politics, but, well, you know. Evil is virtually always stupid.

Quote

He seemed to look at almost everything from the opposite perspective to that of his contemporaries.

Everybody: "It's impossible to draw a unicursal hexagram."
Crowley: "Hold my drugs." 😉🤣

It's a good way of looking at things. Not necessarily "opposite" (because then you're still bound by what everybody else is doing), but "outside".
Buddhism: "Be ye lamps unto thyselves."
Discordia: "Think for yourself, schmuck."

Quote

Divination, although he touted its virtues for learning to experience the cards as "living beings," seemed exceptionally remote from his main calling as a magus.

Yes. I still can't find a quote, but he commented in his writings that it was an activity suited to shopgirls. (I can see his point. "How does he feel about me?", "Is he cheating?" and "Will he take the relationship to the next level?" are still common questions. And remember, in those days marriage was often a ticket out of wage labor.) He looked down his nose at it.

But he still wrote about it, though I do recall the preliminary snarking.

Quote

 

I always ask my sitters whether they have had previous readings, and tailor my approach accordingly. I tend to explain only as much as necessary to avoid confusion, after which I let the cards do the talking. I allow them to shuffle any way they want, although their handling might make me cringe; as you surmised, I don't take any irreplaceable decks to reading sessions.

I recall you saying that you like the Albano. I agree - it's iconic (remember the reading for Pat Loud at the Chelsea?) and it's sturdy.
It's currently $16.02 on amazon. You might want to stock up!

Edited June 28, 2019 by katrinka

[Barleywine]

8 hours ago, katrinka said:

It's a good way of looking at things. Not necessarily "opposite" (because then you're still bound by what everybody else is doing), but "outside".
Buddhism: "Be ye lamps unto thyselves."
Discordia: "Think for yourself, schmuck."

Yes, he said he couldn't possibly be a Satanist because you have to be Christian to begin with to even consider the concept of Satan. As I see it, his Devil card wasn't an intentional  personification of Satan. But isn't this thread starting to go seriously OT?

Edited June 28, 2019 by Barleywine

[Raggydoll]

24 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

Yes, he said he couldn't possibly be a Satanist because you have to be Christian to begin with to even consider the concept of Satan. As I see it, his Devil card wasn't an intentional  personification of Satan. But isn't this thread starting to go seriously OT?

Yes, I agree @Barleywine that things have gotten quite off topic. So I ask that we get back to the topic at hand. But please feel free to start a new thread to discuss anything to do with Crowley and his (or your) views on divination. I find it fascinating @katrinka 

[katrinka]

I'm a bit of a thread drift queen. *blush*

[GreatDane]

I don't like others, including querents, to touch my cards.  That's JUST me.  I don't feel my reading is lessened by it.  It's about my intention and focus and my connection to that person, as in I try to connect with them during the reading.  For those who want the querents to shuffle, I see nothing wrong with that either.  It's about whatever you do works for you and your querent.