Shuffling the cards at the beginning of the reading may seem like a simple technical action, but actually it has subtle aspects which deserve our keen attention. Shuffling the cards has two main functions. We can say that these functions are in some senses contrary to each other. One of them expresses our control of the shuffling outcome, and the other expresses our lack of control.
The first function of the shuffle is to establish a bond between our actions and the cards in the spread. We do this by shuffling the cards in our hands, deciding how to shuffle and for how long. In this way, the shuffling outcome – which cards are physically laid out on the table – is determined by our actions and choices, which are under our control. The second function of the shuffle is to introduce an open and uncontrolled factor into the reading. This is due to the fact that we shuffle the cards face down, not seeing their illustrations. Therefore we cannot have any conscious or deliberate control over the choice of cards for the spread.
The two functions of the shuffling express two key principles, which can guide us regardless of the precise way in which we choose to shuffle. The first principle is that our actions and decisions (that is the querent’s, the reader’s or both) should determine the choice of cards. The second principle is that the choice should be free of our deliberate control. In other words, in our conscious experience it should appear as effectively random.
To understand the logic behind the first principle, we can draw on two conceptual frameworks – magical and psychological. In magical terms, the shuffling in the querent’s hands creates an energetic link between him and the cards. In psychological terms, the querent can feel an emotional bond with the cards because they came out of his hands: in a sense they are “his” cards and he is the one responsible for their appearance in the spread.
This understanding can also guide us on the matter of the desired order of shuffling. The exact ordering of the shuffled cards depends on the querent’s and the reader’s actions, as well as on the previous shuffling of the deck in earlier readings. The role of the reader and of the previous reading is not problematic by itself. Within the reading space we can accept it as a sign: it is significant that the querent chose to have a reading with us and with our deck at this precise moment, in which the cards are thus ordered and not otherwise. Notwithstanding this, the reading is focused on the querent and the issues in his life. In order to strengthen his bond with the spread, it is better that he should have “the last word” in the choice of cards. For example, if both the reader and the querent take turns in shuffling the cards, let the querent be the last one to shuffle.
The second principle is common to all methods of divination as they always involve an uncontrollable and apparently random element. In this sense, shuffling the cards is not different from tossing coins, throwing seashells, observing a formation of tea leaves, or any other of the countless methods of divination used throughout human history. All of them are based on mechanisms which are regarded as random in the normal vision of reality. Therefore, even if we don’t understand the logic of this principle, in practice we should best observe it since it is an essential ingredient of the time-tested experience of divination.
Still, if we do try to figure out the reason behind the second principle, we would find that our two conceptual frameworks diverge from each other. The magical language applies within the reading space in which everything is a sign. In order to let the sign manifest “from the universe” we have to relinquish control and have the cards appear without depending on our deliberate intention. The psychological viewpoint is relevant outside the reading space. It can interpret the random factor as a trigger to disturb the existing thought processes and to drive them in a new and unexpected direction. Once this happens, the final message emerges not from the cards by themselves, but as a product of the dynamic process of reading which involves both the reader’s interpretation and the querent’s reaction and presence.
As these two sets of considerations apply in two different practical domains, one inside the reading space and one outside it, they don’t really contradict each other. Instead, they complement each other to give a more complete vision of the reading process. Those who are acquainted with the physical theory known as quantum mechanics can compare it to the question “what is an electron”. In quantum mechanics there are two disparate answers: “the electron is a particle” and “the electron is a wave”. Each one is valid in a different practical context of measurement, so that they complement each other to give the most complete possible answer to the question. In a similar way, the magical and the psychological visions can complement each other to give us a fuller understanding of the reading process.
Each reader has his own favorite way of shuffling, and no single way fits all. But however we choose to shuffle the cards, it advisable to do this in accordance with the two principles. My way of doing it is to take the cards out of their box, and to shuffle them gently face down while I listen to the querent’s story. In this way I renew my bond with the cards, reshuffle the arrangement that remained from the last reading, and also put in something of the querent’s presence as I feel it. Then I hand the cards to the querent, still face down, and ask him to shuffle the cards himself. Once this is done, the querent would return the cards to me still face down. One by one I would take the first cards from the back of the deck (that is, from the top side of the face-down pack), and arrange them on the table in the spread layout.
When putting the cards on the table I prefer to turn them face up all at once, so that I can see immediately the complete picture. But there are readers who prefer to lay them face down at first, and reveal each card one by one during the session. It is also possible for the reader to shuffle the cards face up, noting for himself cards that attract his special attention, and then to let the querent shuffle them face down. Another common practice is to ask the querent to “cut” the deck, that is to split it to two or three parts, put the parts side by side on the table, and then join them together again in an inverse order.
Readers of the Tarot de Marseille often only use the 22 cards of the major suit. In such cases it is also possible to use the following method. Instead of letting the querent shuffle the deck, we can spread it in front of him face down creating a fan-like form, and ask him to pick up cards by the intuitive feel of his hand. In this way we conform with the two principles: the querent picks up the cards by himself, but the cards are face down so that he can’t choose them intentionally.
When the circumstances do not allow us to use our usual shuffling method, we can improvise using other solutions while keeping in mind the two principles. For example, sometimes I have to do a reading over the telephone. Usually I prefer an actual meeting face to face, but it may happen that a querent needs an immediate advice and can’t come over. So I shuffle the cards in my hands with the querent on the telephone line, and ask him to tell me when to stop according to his feeling. At this moment I take out the first card from the top of the deck. I repeat the process for the next card, and so on. In this way the querent’s choice when to stop each time determines the cards that will come up. But this happens without him having a deliberate control over the outcome.
Another method popular today is to do a computer reading. As far as shuffling is concerned we can accept it as a legitimate method which conforms to the two shuffling principles. The card choice by the computer is not really random. It is dependent on the state of the computer’s memory at the exact moment when the querent activates the shuffling algorithm (that is, when he presses the “choose the cards” button). Thus, the outcome depends on the querent’s action as the first principle demands. On the other hand, the choice of cards in the computerized reading cannot be deliberately controlled. These considerations obviously apply only for the electronic “shuffling” of the cards and not for their interpretation. This still remains a human process, whether it is done directly from the card images, or by figuring out the meaning of the written texts that the software brings up on the screen.