Is the I Ching Ever Wrong?

[petrosianii]

I've been thinking about this question lately. Are the answers the I Ching gives ever wrong? If so, how would one know? Any takers?

Btw, my personal belief is that if one uses the I Ching to tap into the intuitive wisdom within, then the "answers" are never wrong - precisely because I don't think one's intuitions are ever wrong. However, I haven't really given the question enough thought to conclude anything.

Thanks,
Eric
Gnosis Arts (http://gnosisarts.com/i-ching-insights.html)

[listener]

I think the I Ching is accurate in direct proportion to my need and trust at the moment.
If I ask a deep-hearted question with a genuine need to know, my trust seems to correspond to that, and at those times, it never occurs to me to doubt my answer's validity even if i dont fully understand it right away. This is true even if I throw the coins quickly without a lot of hoopla.

but if i flippantly throw coins out of impatience or desire for instant gratification, the response may not be "wrong" but it defintely can have the same irreverence...i.e. the I Ching can be flippant, too, or irritated ( seemingly) :eek:

[my_key]

Never - It's only how we interpret it that makes it wrong.

[rosada]

The I Ching lifts us to a consciousness beyond the level of right and wrong.
A higher demension.
The place where all vibrations disolve into randomness and only
Individual awareness determines the value of experience.
A place where..well..Stop me if you've heard this before...

Of course the I Ching can be wrong!
But don't let on you know.
After all, it has feelings too.

[trojan]

:rofl: like it ! Oh and never say "I told you so" if you are right and it is wrong, it can sulk indefinately

[martin]

:rofl:!!

[miakoda]

I just asked the Yi if it is ever wrong, does it ever make mistakes and got....

21 Unchanging. Hmmm....

[bradford]

If you believe that the Yi gives you only one direct answer
each reading, then it might be wrong half of the time, less
any twisting and distorting you can do with your perceptions
of things. But if you believe that it always presents at least
some choice to be made, then no, never wrong.

[petrosianii]

you guys are marevelous! I love the responses! Stuff I'd have never thought of. I mean who would think that my judgments coulde offend the personality of the Ching? That's a cool idea. BUt it is totally possible, given everything i've studied concern the way the shen work through the symbols to provide meaning.

Thanks, and keep it coming!

[molaurie]

Yes, this is a very interesting topic, and I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about this!
I've been wondering the same thing, myself.

Laurie

[dobro]

I just asked the Yi if it is ever wrong, does it ever make mistakes and got....

21 Unchanging. Hmmm....

21 unchanging talks about cutting through the crap to get to the truth.

[miakoda]

Instead of it being either right or wrong, it bites through to the truth of the situation. In that sense, it's like one of those magnifying mirrors that shows you every pore.

[dobro]

Instead of it being either right or wrong, it bites through to the truth of the situation. In that sense, it's like one of those magnifying mirrors that shows you every pore.

Nice; I like it.

So there seem to be two ways of reading 21 in this case:

* The questioner should bite through the obstacle to understanding that the Yi never gets it wrong - it's only in the interpretation of what the Yi gives that mistakes get made.

* The Yi is that which bites through obstacles to get to the truth. In other words, it doesn't make mistakes.

Really interesting.

[my_key]

Nice; I like it.

So there seem to be two ways of reading 21 in this case:

* The questioner should bite through the obstacle to understanding that the Yi never gets it wrong - it's only in the interpretation of what the Yi gives that mistakes get made.

* The Yi is that which bites through obstacles to get to the truth. In other words, it doesn't make mistakes.

Really interesting.

There are some truly great comments and wisdoms here in this thread.

We are the filter that distorts the truth.

Some of the truths given by the IC are so far removed from where we are, and how we understand things, that they do not even make the edges of our radar screen. We perceive them as being gobbledegook, so are unable to act on the truth. Alternatively the advice is understood at some level but it is too big a step for us to take - it's a big scary leap off the edge of the mountain. Perhaps. we take small steps and incorporate little by little the advice into our actions.

But we all know deep down that the truth is out there somewhere. We just have to take the right steps to find it. The IC is a really useful aid as a route planner.

If you endeavour to hear and trust it's advice on the easy journeys then with time you will trust it to take you across the Grand Canyon.

Love and Hugs

mike

[dobro]

We are the filter that distorts the truth.

Always, and every time, yes. But I'd enquire into what you mean by 'we'. To be more accurate, I'd say something like 'ego level consciousness is the filter that distorts truth'. See, higher level consciousness distorts truth much less, and at our highest level, we *are* truth. It all depends which level or dimension of our being you're looking at. But the ordinary, everyday consciousness is a distorting filter, yes.

[QUOTE=my_key;61738]But we all know deep down that the truth is out there somewhere. /QUOTE]

Not out there, exactly. More like *in* here. Or up in here. Or down in here. But definitely 'in'. 'Out' is the realm of the senses. 'In' is the doorway to the source.

[martin]

I don't know, is there any 'outside'? There is a world outside this body, yes, but it still seems inside somehow.
Don't know how to explain it, but it's all in the same space, there is no barrier or gap between here and there.
I vaguely remember that there was a gap long ago, but it has disappeared and I don't know how to recreate it. Not that I would want to, it's fine as it is. :)

Makes me wonder, is this idea of 'in' and 'out' as opposite directions, or of inside and outside as two more or less seperate realms (with a gap or a barrier inbetween) also a distortion of the truth?

[rosada]

Hexagram 2 says, "The superior man who has breadth of character carries the outer world." I see this as saying that our inner vibration manefests the world we live in so that if we are honest with ourselves we are able to recognize where all this outer world stuff is coming from and take responcibility for it. Like when you are stuck in traffic and much as you hate being stuck, you realize you didn't want to go where you were headed in the first place.

I asked the I Ching if It were wrong what would that look like? I received 11.3 > 19 which I think goes along with the ideas Mike has about sometimes the message the I Ching has for us can't even get on our radar screen. But 19 encourages me that I Ching wont give up on us!

I like the idea of I Ching being like a mirror. I was thinking maybe a photograph. Anyway, point is, I Ching doessn't predict what will happen so much as it shows you exactly how things are now.

[dobro]

I don't know, is there any 'outside'?

Don't know how to explain it, but it's all in the same space, there is no barrier or gap between here and there.

Makes me wonder, is this idea of 'in' and 'out' as opposite directions, or of inside and outside as two more or less seperate realms (with a gap or a barrier inbetween) also a distortion of the truth?

Ultimately, there is no 'outside' or 'inside', cuz it's all one. But subjectively, down here at the level of the ego, there is most definitely a perception of 'in here, what's me' and 'out there, what's not me', and it's those ego perceptions you *have* to work with if you're going to succeed in getting free of them. That's my take anyway, although I know there will be people who will say you can achieve enlightenment by concentrating on the oneness of existence in a one-pointed concentration that ultimately unites you with the Source of your own being.

The reason I used 'in here' with mykey at all was cuz he said we all know the truth is 'out there somewhere', as if truth were something other than what I am. But it ain't that black and white. And every major spiritual technique I've encountered, whether it's the mindfulness practise of Buddhist Vipassana, the self-remembering of Fourth Way, the 'Kingdom of God is within you' of the St Luke gospel, the withdrawal of attention from the environment described in Hex 52, the self-enquiry of Ramana Maharsi, or the finding and transcending of the 'I am' spoken of by Nisargadatta - has this idea of withdrawing attention from the sense data of the environment and turning it around and pointing it 'inward'. Maybe ultimately there is no real 'inward', but you know what? Thinking of things in terms of there being an 'inward' as opposed to outward direction for attention actually works. And if it works, I'm satisfied with that.

[martin]

Well, I don't doubt the value of pointing inward, I was just wondering about outside and how outside it really is.
It seems that different people experience it differently. Perhaps it also relates to type. For a feeling type inside and outside are generally more connected, less 'gap'?
I think so, I mean I feel so. :)

[my_key]

The reason I used 'in here' with mykey at all was cuz he said we all know the truth is 'out there somewhere', as if truth were something other than what I am.


The reason I used 'out there somewhere' is because I spent years watching the X files. Obviously this is a mis-direction from Fox and the crew. Or perhaps it's the marketing guys who didn't like the slogan - The secret's in here somewhere. I wonder why?;)

My thinking though is if you keep on looking "out there" don't you eventually end up "in here". "Out there" and "in here" never really end and they surely must join up somewhere. Surely we have just a simple case of semantics.:)

Love and Hugs

Mike

[dobro]

My thinking though is if you keep on looking "out there" don't you eventually end up "in here".

Nope, you end up dead, without ever having discovered 'in here'.

"Out there" and "in here" never really end and they surely must join up somewhere.

They don't join up because the distinction doesn't in fact exist - everything's one. But they exist as concepts in our egoic mind. Perhaps the primary function of the ego is to distinguish between 'me' and 'not me'. So for the ego, 'out there' and 'in here' are real. And as long as the ego keeps looking for answers to inner needs 'out there', the ego will be involved what the Buddha called samsara and what we call the rat race. But when either the ego or an incipient higher mind starts to get dissatsified because it learns that nothing 'out there' lasts, nothing 'out there' actuallys satisfies, then it starts looking around for something better. If it gets lucky and encounters good written material and a good teacher, it will start to direct its attention 'within'. At that point, transformation has a chance of happening. Before that, no. Not lasting transformation.

Surely we have just a simple case of semantics.:)

If you want to believe that, go ahead. It's very clear to me though that there is a huge different between:

* attention directed outwardly (towards objects of the senses beyond the skin of the physical body)

* attention directed 'inwardly' (towards mental objects, mental events like thoughts and emotions)

* attention directed inwardly on itself (meditation)

This is not a case of semantics. It's a matter of radically different experience, here and now, which will lead (depending on which road you choose to tread) to radically different outcomes.

[my_key]

Hi Dobro
Very good points.

Mike

[dobro]

The beauty you craved in things
Was always my glimmer seen through a veil.
TURN AROUND
And see where beauty comes from!

- Rumi

[listener]

I sense a difference in you, Dobro. cant explain it, just sense a wider perspective coming from you ......and you see, this ( for me) kinda proves or suggests that looking outward may just meet up with looking inward. as MyKey says.

why? because my sensing an expanded awareness in your points of view of late may very well have NOTHING to do with you- there has to be something in me that is sensing a different awareness. The way I perceive you -or anybody - really has to do with what's going on inside of me. when my inner awareness expands, I perceive it in any number of ways "out there." I could be encountering the very same outer phenomenon at different times and experience it very differently, because ultimately the outer world reflects back to me what is happening within. That is a great discovery, and it seems like it is inevitable. The gap is only an insistence that what is OUT THERE is separate from me.

So, I would say that the truth is OUT THERE, and it is also IN HERE, and depending on one's choice of path....

if you go deep enough in to the out there, you dont necessarly end up dead, you could end up discovering quantum physics or heaven in a blade of grass. I saw Life in a seagull one day and absolutely everything changed from that day forward. I could never again go back to believing that the world of shadows was the real world, it is all a projection of the Great Reality.

and by the way, ending up "dead" is a function of the ego ultimately. just a change of perspective in the overall picture. shhhh, dont tell the ego.

[martin]

They [in here and out there] don't join up because the distinction doesn't in fact exist - everything's one. But they exist as concepts in our egoic mind. Perhaps the primary function of the ego is to distinguish between 'me' and 'not me'. So for the ego, 'out there' and 'in here' are real.


Perhaps that's what you mean and it's just a matter of words, but if you experience everything as 'one' it's not like everything becomes equal to everything else (unless you are in a samadhi state or in deep sleep. I suppose that's not what you are talking about?)
It's rather the opposite, if there is more oneness in your experience there is also more manyness. Oneness is rich, full of contrasts. That's part of the beauty of it.

In here is not out there, and me and is not you, these differences are real and have nothing to do with what you call 'ego'. Animals also have a sense of self and not-self and know the difference between the two. Without it they couldn't do what they do. Young animals sometimes chase their tail because they think it's somebody else, but they learn. :)
The ability to make certain distinctions is essential for human and animal life.
The problem is, though, that we humans tend to create divisions where there are only contrasts, differences. In our awareness the connections tend to get lost somehow. The result is not one, not many, but chaos, fragmentation.

[kharuar]

I think, and according my humble opinion, I Ching responses are never wrong. They are always right.

Sometimes the answers are what we dont want to know or to be aware of. But when somebody thinks that the answer is wrong, must meditate and go deeply inside of herself o himself searching the truth. Mind is the most powerful tool that we have and therefor sometimes is gambling with our conscious mind.

Anytime that we ask, mind must be like a blank page. Then the question will obtain the right response.

Be well

Leah

[martin]

I don't know, are there 'right' or 'wrong' answers? I don't think that oracles play this right-wrong game.
.........
And now I'm stuck :brickwall:, because I don't know how to explain what I mean. But I'm right of course and I hope somebody out there or in here understands what I mean. :D

[dobro]

You're a clear million miles ahead if you stop asking if the oracle's right or wrong, and start asking yourself how right or wrong your question is, and how right or wrong your interpretation is.

[sergio]

No system is perfect and the Yi is no exception.As much as we want it to be right all the time and as much as the Yi proved us wrong many times it still does not mean it is perfect and never wrong.And besides why even ask the question in the first place?Read
"Youthfull Folly" for the answer.
Sergio

[petrosianii]

Well, I am starting to agree with dobro.. I don't the categories of "right" and "wrong" are what the I Ching is trying to help us transcend. Answers, I'm finding, are less about right and wrong and more about cause-effect, i.e. karma. That is: if I want this outcome, then I'll follow this course; if I''ll want that outcome, then follow that course. When I'm in this frame of mind, right and wrong seem unimportant.
----------------------------
I think, and according my humble opinion, I Ching responses are never wrong. They are always right.

Sometimes the answers are what we dont want to know or to be aware of. But when somebody thinks that the answer is wrong, must meditate and go deeply inside of herself o himself searching the truth. Mind is the most powerful tool that we have and therefor sometimes is gambling with our conscious mind.

Anytime that we ask, mind must be like a blank page. Then the question will obtain the right response.

Be well

Leah

[petrosianii]

Well, I am starting to agree with dobro.. I think the categories of "right" and "wrong" are what the I Ching is trying to help us transcend all along. Answers, I'm finding, are less about right and wrong and more about cause-effect, i.e. karma. That is: if I want this outcome, then I'll follow this course; if I''ll want that outcome, then follow that course. When I'm in this frame of mind, right and wrong seem irrelevant.
----------------------------
I think, and according my humble opinion, I Ching responses are never wrong. They are always right.

Sometimes the answers are what we dont want to know or to be aware of. But when somebody thinks that the answer is wrong, must meditate and go deeply inside of herself o himself searching the truth. Mind is the most powerful tool that we have and therefor sometimes is gambling with our conscious mind.

Anytime that we ask, mind must be like a blank page. Then the question will obtain the right response.

Be well

Leah

[sergio]

Hi Petrosianii,
Dobro is indeed right this time.We view all events in our life as good/bad,
right/wrong and that make us see life through the window of our desires and emotions,thus distorting our view of reality.
But I don't think karma plays a part into this.As Bradford would say,that is a concept foreign to the authors of the Yi and a later addition to the book.If I am not wrong Karma
refers to the sum of your actions in life that have an effect on the lives of others and also in reencarnation but when consulting the YI we usually deal with specific,isolated events in your life,not on such grand scale.
Sergio

[petrosianii]

Sergio, I'm not so sure I agree with the statement that the concept of karma was not known to the authors of the Yi. I'm using the term Karma in its orginal Sanskrit sense, derived from Hindu philosophy; 'karma" comes from the root kr, which means to do, or to act. Karma, therefore, includes the idea of action, and the consequences of action. That is the orginal sense of the word, and that is a very Eastern concept. It is a concept you see all through the I Ching, and it is quite likely that the philosophers of the yi were well aware of the principle of karma, even if the term was not used explicitly.

thanks for the thoughts,
Eric
Hi Petrosianii,
Dobro is indeed right this time.We view all events in our life as good/bad,
right/wrong and that make us see life through the window of our desires and emotions,thus distorting our view of reality.
But I don't think karma plays a part into this.As Bradford would say,that is a concept foreign to the authors of the Yi and a later addition to the book.If I am not wrong Karma
refers to the sum of your actions in life that have an effect on the lives of others and also in reencarnation but when consulting the YI we usually deal with specific,isolated events in your life,not on such grand scale.
Sergio

[dobro]

Dobro is indeed right this time.

This time?

This time?

I'm so confused...

[sergio]

Hi Petrosianni;
I don't want to stray away from the central issue of this thread but the karma reference somehow brought us to this etymology of the word and its insertion in the Yi.First I would like to point that Buddhism is generally accepted to had been brought into China from India shortly after the opening of the Silk Road trading route somewhere between 5- b.c.e and 50 c.e.There are written records about Buddhist monasteries from as early as 93 c.e.but the Yi as a classic in China dates back to 2300b.c.e in conservative estimates.Karma been a concept so attached to Buddhism could not posibly be incorporated into the Yi.The two other main pillars of Chinese culture namely the Daoists and Confucians have very different points of view regarding the same issues.But,once again,the three philosophies have influenced the Chinese culture so much that is very hard to separate one from the other and maybe we shouldn't be so technical about it after all.Thanks for your comments and,coming back to your question,the Yi seems to be never wrong but it can not be always right.Confucius said that the Yi was right 80% of the times so how am I to disagree with him?
Merry Christmas to you,Petrosianii!
Sergio

[sergio]

OOPS..It should be 50 b.c.e not 5 bce.Sorry.
Sergio

[rosada]

To ask, "Is the I Ching ever wrong?" implies the questioner is wondering if he can put aside his own doubts and assumptions and follow the I Ching's guidance with impunity. The answer is no. "The tao that can be named is not the true tao." No guidance that comes from without is as close to Truth as the guidance that comes from within. By the time we've formed a question. tossed the coins and read the answer circumstances have changed so completely that it is only because we have a mind that we can make any connection between our original question and the responce at all, and the mind is notorious for distorting. So this is not to say the I Ching is wrong, but just that we will always be to some degree out of sync with it's responce. But not to worry. If the I Ching revealed the real truth - that is, if the words of the I Ching were the perfect answer, the perfect responce, the perfect fit to our inquiry, well, then time would stand still and the world would disappear and who would want that anyway?

[sergio]

Hello Rosada:
I disagree with most of your remarks.First I don't think 'impunity' is the right word to use as an implication in the question because of the negative meaning of the word,namely to do something one knows is wrong and get away with it.That's hardly what anybody(I hope)have in mind when asking "is the Yi ever wrong"?.It's more a reassurence to follow the Yi's advise even against our own views what is questioned here.Second,if no guidance from outside is as close to the Truth as the one coming from within then why bother consulting the Yi at all?It may be at least an impartial guidance and it may be in accordance with our views but whenever is in discordance then it is that we pose the question-is the Yi ever wrong?Third;if the process of change would be as instantaneous as you assert then why consult the Yi at all?One of the implied postulates of the Yi is that change is neverending but also when it happens is a process that endures for a while thus allowing us to adjust to the circumstances and get around it or through it in a better way,avoiding unnecessary suffering.SO what you are saying is not that the Yi is wrong but useless instead.The Yi certainly reveal the true nature of events to us and how we fit into that-if that is the Truth(as you put it)I don't know and neither does anybody but it certainly gets closer to it by means of impartiality and wisdom.The world will not stand still at this revelation,my reality will not dissappear and why would it anyway?The Yi has been delivering the Truth for the past years to me and to Humanity for the past thousands of years and here we are,still asking-Is the I Ching ever wrong?
Sergio

[martin]

You don't understand Sergio. You cannot understand as long as you are listening with your mind.
The Way that is minded is not the ... :)