Sacrifice

[choppi]

What does this mean to you,
when the translation says "Sacrifice" or "Let a sacrifice be conducted", etc ?
Write to me directly, if you wish:
choppi@comcast.net

[dobro]

It means you give something - maybe effort, maybe time, maybe attention - in order to put yourself into some sort of connection with higher energies/higher consciousness. And you put yourself into connection with upstairs because you need to, because upstairs can do the job much better than downstairs.

Why do you ask?

[lindsay]

Why does he ask? Maybe Choppi believes – as I do – that most occurrences of 亨 heng in the Yi ought to be read as 享 xiăng. I resisted the idea for a long time – I think emending long-established texts is often a very presumptuous exercise. But it’s the only explanation that makes sense in the light of history. There are 40-50 occurrences of “sacrifice” in the Yi, nearly all of them in the Judgment (guaci) texts. So perhaps Choppi’s question is a very astute one.

What would it mean if we read “sacrifice” wherever Wilhelm and others read “success”? Is there anything in modern experience that helps us understand these sacrifices? I assume animals were killed, possibly humans. The priestly barbeques described in Leviticus come to mind - but although the ancient Chinese were enthusiastic carnivores, they were never avid monotheists.

Most of the time the text just says plainly “sacrifice” or “great sacrifice”, period. This isn’t much to extrapolate from. Since it’s usually mentioned in the Judgment – that is, in the broadest response of the oracle to the question at hand – I assume it refers to something that ought to done after or because of the reading. Perhaps this particular reading was thought to be so favorable that we really should dispatch a few plump chickens to our ancestors in thanks. Or maybe a roast pig was considered a fair price for a successful divination. Not a good idea to neglect or cheat the spirit world. If this is true, then it’s pretty clear the old Chinese thought the Yi’s answers came from spirits who enjoyed a good meal. It doesn’t make sense to make a food offering unless there is someone to “eat” it.

Another possibility is that divination ceremonies were concluded with ritual meals or snacks. Communion, if you will. The sacrifice involved having the querent supply food and drink to a select group, picking up the bill as was his due. This was a way of ‘fixing’ the oracle.

In a way, having a party is a kind of modern sacrifice. Somebody supplies all the goodies so others can enjoy themselves and celebrate the occasion. Well, that’s the theory. Gifts are also sacrifices. We give gifts to symbolize our gratitude, our esteem, our love, our regard.

Clearly something more is required when the oracle speaks to you, connects with your life - if only an expression of thanks for the communication. I’ve felt that way. Sometimes it seems we spend too much time thinking about preparing for and executing the act of divination. What happens afterward is also important. The oracle gives you a gift. What is your response?

Perhaps it is 享 xiăng.

Lindsay

[bradford]

What does this mean to you, when the translation says "Sacrifice" or "Let a sacrifice be conducted", etc ?

That's a really big question, especially considering that the Yi uses many different words that get translated as sacrifice or offering. Many kinds, all with different nuances. There are even a couple of cases of human sacrifice in the Yi. There is one place where I believe the Yi advises to sacrifice the very idea of sacrifice. And there is one instance where the Yi says that sacrifice is a way of saying "thank you" instead of "please."
Xiang is used several times, and the similar figure heng is used at least a few times with this meaning. And even when heng is translated as something like "fulfillment," it still hearkens back to the kind of fulfillment that you get from fulfilling your sacrificial duties.
Two things to remember -
Sacrifice is not just the purchase price for some future reward from heaven. It was made to partake in the same process by which heaven operates. The word sacrifice itself has the etymology "to make sacred," not just to give something up.
Second, the Chinese were as well aware as anyone that the food left on the altar never went uneaten.

If you want to really study the idea, I'd suggest using an electronic Yijing text and searching for the words "sacrifice" and "offering." For serious folk, doing this in my Matrix version would highlight all the different Chinese characters with these English words as glosses.

[sparhawk]

Another possibility is that divination ceremonies were concluded with ritual meals or snacks. Communion, if you will. The sacrifice involved having the querent supply food and drink to a select group, picking up the bill as was his due. This was a way of ‘fixing’ the oracle.

In a way, having a party is a kind of modern sacrifice. Somebody supplies all the goodies so others can enjoy themselves and celebrate the occasion. Well, that’s the theory. Gifts are also sacrifices. We give gifts to symbolize our gratitude, our esteem, our love, our regard.

Clearly something more is required when the oracle speaks to you, connects with your life - if only an expression of thanks for the communication. I’ve felt that way. Sometimes it seems we spend too much time thinking about preparing for and executing the act of divination. What happens afterward is also important. The oracle gives you a gift. What is your response?

Perhaps it is 享 xiăng.


Weird... Lindsay, every time I think of you, you appear, after months of not writing... Are you a Genie? :D Have you seen this blog: http://manyulim.wordpress.com/ ??

Interesting take about heng vs xiang. Have you seen the discussion about 38.3 and tian vs yao? Brad, what about you?

Cheers,

[lindsay]

I cannot resist quoting something I read that made me think about the problem of sacrifice in the Yi. This passage comes from Ron Geaves’s book “Key Words in Religious Studies” (Georgetown University Press, 2007):

“Sacrifice: The offering up of something to a deity in the hope that some kind of connection will be established between the sacrificer (and possibly their community) and the sacred. Sacrifice can be done for the following reasons: i) the belief that the gods literally needed sustenance; ii) the belief that it establishes communion between the deity and worshippers; iii) as a gift to supplement prayers of petition; iv) to pacify divine anger; v) to ward off evil spirits; vi) to seal a contract with the deity; vii) to offer homage or praise to the deity; viii) as an act to remove pollution and assist achieving purification.” (pp. 92-93)

A case can be made for applying some or all of these types of sacrifice to the Yi. As Bradford points out, the Yi is shot through with sacrificial language and concepts – and yet how little most of our readings seem to reflect this concern.

It is true we cannot go back and think like Chinese diviners 3000 years ago. But if we are going to use their book, if the Yi is to have any authentic meaning, perhaps we should consider how to understand ancient sacrificial notions in present-day terms. This is a problem that interests me a great deal.

I do not doubt there is something in our thinking and our living that parallels everything expressed in the Yi. You and I could live in the Bronze Age if somehow we found ourselves transported back in time. It might not be easy, but man (and woman) hasn’t changed much in the past few thousand years. Their experience is not fundamentally different from our experience.

For me, the difficulty is finding the key. The key that unlocks the Yi into my own life in the 21st century. Some say we have lost some of our humanity in this age. We no longer understand myth, we are strangers to nature, we are like children in religious matters, we have stunted our powers of non-rational apprehension. We avoid or deny the most basic aspects of our animal natures. Unfortunately the Yi seems to belong to a numinous sphere most of us have left behind. Fortunately, this is not an all-or-nothing situation. Much can still be learned. Sleepers can still awaken.

Lindsay

[bradford]

I do not doubt there is something in our thinking and our living that parallels everything expressed in the Yi. You and I could live in the Bronze Age if somehow we found ourselves transported back in time. It might not be easy, but man (and woman) hasn’t changed much in the past few thousand years. Their experience is not fundamentally different from our experience.

I think this observation of yours warrants highlighting.
For my part, in translating, when I had an interpretation choice between a meaning that was an archetypal human experience and one that was narrowly culture-specific to the Early Zhou, I always looked hardest at the broader human option. The nearly absolute cultural relativism that characterizes modernist Yi scholarship, especially in Rutt and Gottshalk (and the Chinese modernists) shows way too narrow an understanding of what it means to be human. Culture is important to what we've become, but I think human nature is closer to being the underlying theme of the Yijing - and the one that has carried it through 3000 years. So I look for modern analogues of sacrifice not as something culturally separate, but as something with the same motives as long ago.

[dobro]

What would it mean if we read “sacrifice” wherever Wilhelm and others read “success”?

It would mean that the Yi had even more meaning for me than it does now. Doing what's required to get in touch with the divine is humanity's best task. There are so many ways to sacrifice, whether it's for the sake of getting in touch with upstairs, staying in touch with upstairs, or simply a thanksgiving for the connection with upstairs. Cook a turkey and eat it with your loved ones. Or sit down three times a day and meditate your way there with the help of your favorite oracle. Sacrifice.

[dobro]

“Sacrifice: The offering up of something to a deity in the hope that some kind of connection will be established between the sacrificer (and possibly their community) and the sacred. Sacrifice can be done for the following reasons: i) the belief that the gods literally needed sustenance; ii) the belief that it establishes communion between the deity and worshippers; iii) as a gift to supplement prayers of petition; iv) to pacify divine anger; v) to ward off evil spirits; vi) to seal a contract with the deity; vii) to offer homage or praise to the deity; viii) as an act to remove pollution and assist achieving purification.” (pp. 92-93)

All of these motives can drive sacrifice, but the second one's where the money is. Also, the motive driving sacrifice is chosen according to the level of being, level of understanding, of the user. Again, the second one's where the smart money's found.

It is true we cannot go back and think like Chinese diviners 3000 years ago.

We don't have to go back, because we think like them anyway. They're human and we're human - the similarities way overshadow the mere cultural differences. They sacrificed people, I employ a different sort of sacrifice, but the sacrifice is the commonality, and *that* is the human condition.

But if we are going to use their book, if the Yi is to have any authentic meaning, perhaps we should consider how to understand ancient sacrificial notions in present-day terms. This is a problem that interests me a great deal.

The key is to see the common human nature in the designers of the Yi and us. Not only that, the beauty of symbols is that they're trans-cultural, so we can use the Yi as usefully as they did. Maybe even more usefully, because we're not as distracted by culturally personal associations with the things in the Yi - I have no personal associations with a Ting, for instance, so for me it's a symbol pure and simple and can operate in my mind free of literal distractors.

For me, the difficulty is finding the key. The key that unlocks the Yi into my own life in the 21st century.

Read what I wrote just before this.

But I think if you *really* want to understand the Yi, if you REALLY want to make it useful in your life, you have to go some distance toward understanding yourself. Gee, that sounds trite. But can you tell me how you're ever going to achieve any depth with the oracle if you achieve no depth in yourself?

[lindsay]

Bradford and Dobro, I agree with both of you. I am especially supportive of Brad's ideas about what a translation should be. I feel strongly the job of a good translation is to say clearly in one language what has been expressed in another, without embellishment or editorializing.

To do this, the translator has to understand what the original actually means in its own tongue and its own time. This is where amateur "translations" of the Yi often fail, while professional translations sometimes fall short in expressing original ideas coherently in modern language. In the case of the Yi, the best translations reach, as Brad points out, the archetypal, essential level of common meaning accessible to both ancients and moderns.

Luis/Sparhawk - I want to thank you for all the wonderful things you've posted here on Clarity. Your efforts are often greeted with stony silence, but I assure you there is at least one grateful fan out here in cyberspace.

For you - with your love of the strange - and for cat-lovers everywhere, I offer this interesting article:

http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/44/4401532.pdf

Lindsay

[dobro]

bad link, Lindsay

[lindsay]

Dobro, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean the link is bad technically, I can only tell you it works for me. I just linked to the correct site a minute ago by using it. Perhaps someone else can confirm?

If you mean the link is bad from the point of view of content, well I'm not going to make any great claims for it. I thought one or two people might find it interesting, but it's not going to bring anybody's kettle to a boil.

Lindsay

[martin]

It works for me too (dog divination?! :eek: lol) but it's a pdf-file. Perhaps Dobro doesn't have the right Adobe.

[sparhawk]

Luis/Sparhawk - I want to thank you for all the wonderful things you've posted here on Clarity. Your efforts are often greeted with stony silence, but I assure you there is at least one grateful fan out here in cyberspace.

For you - with your love of the strange - and for cat-lovers everywhere, I offer this interesting article:

http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/44/4401532.pdf

Thanks, Lindsay! Cool article, indeed.

As for "sacrifice" and its possible semantic branches, the concept is not that strange to me. Perhaps because I've grown exposed to some African religions, where offerings and sacrifices are very common, I can relate to much of what the Yi tells us about it.

[dobro]

I've got an older version of Acrobat - that must be the source of the problem I'm having.

I see sacrifice as a pretty generic pattern of behavior: working out in the gym is sacrifice, cuz it's giving something in order to get something; giving your sweetie a Valentine's card is sacrifice, cuz it's giving something out of love and desire; listening to your university professor is sacrifice cuz it takes effort to keep paying attention when you'd rather be in the pub, and if you're a woman, being pregnant is sacrifice cuz you've given your body over to the process of baby-making.

See, I don't think sacrifice has to be burning rams and cattle in front of the temple or ripping the heart out of a war captive on the top of a pyramid.

And the idea that heng involves sacrifice is not a new one, but I've always thought that the emphasis of the meaning was more on attainment or success than on the act of sacrifice. I've always thought that the sacrifice element of heng1 was more or less a metaphor, rather than literal. I might alter that a bit now. Whatcha think?

[lindsay]

Well, Dobro, I’d like to take one more crack at this, because I don’t think I made myself quite clear.

You say sacrifice is familiar to you because it is involved in any situation where you have to give something to get a desired result. You have to exercise hard if you want to keep those six-pack abs you undoubtedly have. It takes a lot of work to be successful in most lines of business. You need to study a lot if you want to become a doctor or lawyer or Indian chief. True, enough. No pain, no gain.

You are right – it makes sense to see this sort of quid pro quo as sacrifice. However, that is not what I am talking about – or, rather, that is not what the Yi is talking about.

When the Yi calls for sacrifice, all those hengs or xiangs are part of the reading itself, part of the oracle’s answer to your question. One part of the answer involves giving a sacrifice. This is not a question of giving up something to get a result (a successful divination) – you already have your result, and now you are being asked to make a sacrifice.

So my question is what is the nature of the sacrifice the Yi is asking for?

You could say the Yi is telling you that a sacrifice will be required in order to make the reading “come true”. That sounds good, but I don’t think it fits with the formulaic nature of heng/xiang. Heng/xiang occurs with very little or no reference to any specific or particular oracular pronouncement. In other words, heng/xiang is a formula, a call for sacrifice unrelated to any specific, individual situation. Whenever Qian or Kun or Zhun or Meng or Xu or etc. etc. come up, whatever the situation or circumstance, the Yi is asking us for a sacrifice.

So, here are some questions. Why should I be asked to sacrifice for some hexagrams and not for others? What is the purpose of this sacrifice? What kind of sacrifice is being called for? Who is the recipient of my sacrifice? Sacrifice is not just throwing something away (like a potlatch) so I can undergo loss or effort, it is an offering to some being – real, spiritual, or imaginary – for the purpose of pleasing or satisfying them.

Again, the Yi does not ask me to sacrifice in order to achieve something, the Yi has already given me what I want (a response). Neither the Yi, nor any god or power associated with the Yi, has the power to make things happen, to actualize readings – that is entirely up to me.

So what is my sacrifice for? Who benefits, and why?

[topal]

So what is my sacrifice for? Who benefits, and why?

Well, if there is a soul reality to all this rather than the precious lure of terra firma, then sacrifice begins to take on new dimensions. But the material world is the forge in which can beat that personality into shape I suppose.

My own view is that real sacrifice comes into play when we begin to tap the deeper alchemical layers of the I Ching, which must be after all, the function of this oracle: to offer glimpses, then insights and finally earth shattering patterns of understanding into the human condition. We can then start to apply the knowledge that's brought forth.

Needless to say, I don't think I've even begun to come within a million miles of that application yet.:bag:

But the world is awash with information that remains dead. So, in applying what we learn, based on discerning and really SEEING all this BS in ourselves it logically leads to a choice whether to slowly begin the sacrifice of the "old self" for the new self that is incrementally - and hopefully - making it's way towards the soul. Alchemy demands a sacrifice of the inauthentic; the fake. All that self-importance that takes a life time to dissolve. If at all.

Isn't the Yi like a manual for cultivating and growing a soul? Therefore there must be a conscious sacrifice of things which take us away from that cultivation, that "refinement." If we can't establish and apply simple understandings in at this level of being we won't be able to progress towards more difficult undertakings.

Sacrifice is part and parcel of that: choosing which Self you will nourish: the one that favours the entropic line or the one that gives birth to a more creative path. I think Faith and Will have to be partners of this idea of sacrifice - not yielding to the "lower" aspects of ourselves and reaching towards a re-connection with principles that may at least set us on the path of access to that Universal Way.

But like so much of this mass-mediocrity that swamps contemporary life it remains a theory because we are forced to be disconnected from anything that has a whiff of the sacred attached to it.

Sacrificing the artifice for something REAL?

Topal

[martin]

I don't know enough about Chinese history to be sure, but the impression that I get is:
- That sacrifices were often conducted in a spirit of celebration. As a 'thank you'.
- That one of their purposes was to help those present to turn inward or purify oneself.
- Another purpose was to invite the ancestors, or evoke their presence.

So mostly it was not "if I do this I will get something" or "if i don't do this the gods will be angry" or something like that.
But I might be way off here .. :)

[dobro]

Hi Lindsay

Your post contains so much stuff that I'll take it on a bit at a time, I think.

When the Yi calls for sacrifice, all those hengs or xiangs are part of the reading itself, part of the oracle’s answer to your question.

Yup.

One part of the answer involves giving a sacrifice.

Yup.

This is not a question of giving up something to get a result (a successful divination) – you already have your result, and now you are being asked to make a sacrifice.

I see it differently than you at this point. I think that when you consult the Yi on a subject, the Yi gives you a picture of the situation at an archetypal level, the deep structure of the situation, if you like. But the Yi gives more than snapshot of the situation, it also gives you useful ideas for how to handle the situation in very general terms. And sometimes the suggestion it makes is to sacrifice. So, very often it says something like: "The contour of the situation is like this, and in this kind of situation, you would do well to sacrifice." It's describing the most effective role for you in the situation. It's not exactly a matter of giving something to get something, but sacrifice is required of you if you are going to put yourself into right relationship with the situation to get out of it what you can. It's not like a business transaction, it's more like a marriage ('what you get out of it is equal to what you put into it; and in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make' - that sort of thing).

So my question is what is the nature of the sacrifice the Yi is asking for?

I think it's as I've been describing in this thread. It's the price of admission in order to access the heart of the situation, in order to activate it properly, so that it doesn't just all pass you by. The universe doesn't work for people who don't do the work.

[sparhawk]

Going back to some of the African religions based on Yoruba traditions, just as a reference, the belief is, as I understand it, that there must be reciprocity between the querent and the different Orishas. We come to them for help and advise and we must give something in return, not as "payment" per se but as way to keep some sort of cosmological "balance." In Santería, for example, which is an Afro-Cuban religion with Yoruba roots, the Babalao (Priest), even if he's your blood brother, if he is divining for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If%C3%A1), you must give him something in return, even if it just one dollar. Not to mention that results of the divination may call for offerings to different Orishas. Those can be in the form of animal sacrifices (usually pigeons, chickens or goats), fruit offerings or special prayers. All of that is supposed to keep universal balance.

The message within the popular adage, "there are no free lunches," is very much a living tradition in many cultures. I believe this is also the case of ancient Chinese traditions.

[topal]

Going back to some of the African religions based on Yoruba traditions, just as a reference, the belief is, as I understand it, that there must be reciprocity between the querent and the different Orishas. We come to them for help and advise and we must give something in return, not as "payment" per se but as way to keep some sort of cosmological "balance." In Santería, for example, which is an Afro-Cuban religion with Yoruba roots, the Babalao (Priest), even if he's your blood brother, if he is divining for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If%C3%A1), you must give him something in return, even if it just one dollar. Not to mention that results of the divination may call for offerings to different Orishas. Those can be in the form of animal sacrifices (usually pigeons, chickens or goats), fruit offerings or special prayers. All of that is supposed to keep universal balance.

The message within the popular adage, "there are no free lunches," is very much a living tradition in many cultures. I believe this is also the case of ancient Chinese traditions.

I think so too. interesting.

From what I've gathered so far, the I Ching can be quite Confucian when it deems it necessary. I've quite a few raps on the psychic knuckles before. Such folly...

Isn't it true with all genuine spiritual traditions that the responses are only as good as the work you've done on yourself and the effort you put in? In Gurdjieffian terms, you have to "pay in advance" before any kind of real Work can be attained:

“Sincerity is the key which will open the door through which you will see your separate parts, and you will see something quite new. You must go on trying to be sincere. Each day you put on a mask, and you must take it off little by little.”

“Man such as we know him is a machine. Without self knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he will always remain a slave.”

That must be what the Siberian shamans were always going on about with the bloody process of initiation to become a seer. In another realm not so distant from the corporeal one, they'd be boiled alive and stripped of flesh in a metal cauldron whereupon they would return to claim their birthrights, I suppose having gone literally through hell and back. This was then transposed into their lives on Earth until they'd earned the right to lead the tribe or community. I think the sacrifice of animals and humans was a huge distortion of an earlier truth which demanded a sacrifice of the personality needs and desires. Sacrifice and suffering: a willing process taken on in order to break the bonds of material life, or something along those lines.

Does the I Ching have those same alchemical principles of sacrifice? I guess it does depending on how far you wish to take it...

So, I guess it's pretty hopeless. :D

Topal

[dobro]

I think the sacrifice of animals and humans was a huge distortion of an earlier truth which demanded a sacrifice of the personality needs and desires.

Actually, I don't think it's a distortion. It's just that at the early stages of anything, including human culture of course, things are terribly *physical*. Think of the development of a human - what develops first? The body in the womb, right? And even with the development of the mind through the years as the child grows, what sort of thoughts and emotions develop first? Body-based thoughts and feelings, right? And which comes to maturity first, the body or the mind? The body, right? So, it seems that we develop stuff, including sacrifice, on a physical level before we move on to the mental level. After that comes the spiritual...

Does the I Ching have those same alchemical principles of sacrifice?

By all means. And this is where the Yi gets really exciting, because of two things. First, it works as an oracle nowadays, thousands of years after it was devised, because it operates via a rich collection of archetypes expressed SYMBOLICALLY. That richness of symbology is what makes is so useful to us, and so usable by us. And secondly (and this really astounds me) I'm absolutely convinced, as you seem to be, that the Yi is a sort of secret manual of spiritual transformation - you call it 'alchemical'. I call it secret, not because the knowledge is hidden somewhere, but because it just isn't available to you until you know yourself well enough to start to recognize what the Yi's talking about in terms of working on your own transformation. A couple of days ago, I drew 59.4 - I mean, if ever there was an image of leaving the physical stuff and the mental preoccupations behind and going upstairs to the level of the spiritual, that's it. And the more I work with the Yi, and the more I familiarize myself with myself, the more I see this dimension to the Yi in every hexagram and in every line.

So, I guess it's pretty hopeless. :D

Quite the opposite. :D

[dobro]

Going back to some of the African religions based on Yoruba traditions, just as a reference, the belief is, as I understand it, that there must be reciprocity between the querent and the different Orishas. We come to them for help and advise and we must give something in return, not as "payment" per se but as way to keep some sort of cosmological "balance." In Santería, for example, which is an Afro-Cuban religion with Yoruba roots, the Babalao (Priest), even if he's your blood brother, if he is divining for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If%C3%A1), you must give him something in return, even if it just one dollar. Not to mention that results of the divination may call for offerings to different Orishas. Those can be in the form of animal sacrifices (usually pigeons, chickens or goats), fruit offerings or special prayers. All of that is supposed to keep universal balance.

The message within the popular adage, "there are no free lunches," is very much a living tradition in many cultures. I believe this is also the case of ancient Chinese traditions.

Hey, thanks for posting that. I think you've illustrated the way it works really nicely with that Yoruba example. 'Balance', 'reciprocity', 'participation'. Bingo!

[topal]

Actually, I don't think it's a distortion. It's just that at the early stages of anything, including human culture of course, things are terribly *physical*. Think of the development of a human - what develops first? The body in the womb, right? And even with the development of the mind through the years as the child grows, what sort of thoughts and emotions develop first? Body-based thoughts and feelings, right? And which comes to maturity first, the body or the mind? The body, right? So, it seems that we develop stuff, including sacrifice, on a physical level before we move on to the mental level. After that comes the spiritual...


Ok, I can go with that. However, that's a very macrocosmic super-birds-eye view. Right now, all I see in the long distortion process we call his-story is precisely that - a constant hijacking of our potential by a small pathogenic section of humanity. How many collective sacrifices to we have to experience to get it? i.e countless wars and any number of horrors we can name ad infinitum. Which are still going on with equal ferocity I might add. It does make me wonder when this "after that comes the spiritual" cycle is going to kick in as I don't see much evidence of it. Sacrifice seems like (in this particular context) a niche activity by a very VERY small number of people. Maybe that's enough. Hmm. Sacrifice. What are we willing to sacrifice?


By all means. And this is where the Yi gets really exciting, because of two things. First, it works as an oracle nowadays, thousands of years after it was devised, because it operates via a rich collection of archetypes expressed SYMBOLICALLY. That richness of symbology is what makes is so useful to us, and so usable by us. And secondly (and this really astounds me) I'm absolutely convinced, as you seem to be, that the Yi is a sort of secret manual of spiritual transformation - you call it 'alchemical'. I call it secret, not because the knowledge is hidden somewhere, but because it just isn't available to you until you know yourself well enough to start to recognize what the Yi's talking about in terms of working on your own transformation. A couple of days ago, I drew 59.4 - I mean, if ever there was an image of leaving the physical stuff and the mental preoccupations behind and going upstairs to the level of the spiritual, that's it. And the more I work with the Yi, and the more I familiarize myself with myself, the more I see this dimension to the Yi in every hexagram and in every line.

I completely agree with the above. I feel I know what you mean having got rich glimpses into that dimension but I haven't reached that depth of "grooving" yet. My only reservation is that how far can we "rely" on the I Ching to see us through this process being that this old Ego, predator's Mind; machine; call it what you will - is so damn crafty? I suspect the kind of sacrifice that fits in with REAL spiritual advancement doesn't come in gentle waves of attrition but waves that knock you off your feet again and again until there is a vessel created within that is actually worth anchoring the correct kind of qualitative energy.

Perhaps, incrementally the I Ching guides us through that process of inevitable sacrifice at what ever degree because in the end maybe, in some weird way, the I Ching is us?

Anyway, I'm beginning to ramble...One thing's for sure, this system is far more than just a divination system it is a wonderfully exciting code for the human condition that is truly awe-inspiring. I think that inspiration comes from what Luis mentioned: reciprocity That seems to be key in all of this. I see it as a process of "grooving" yourself into the frequency of the Yi i.e. You get guidance you apply it. Wait - grow - begin to SEE. You get guidance - wait - grow - begin to SEE. What you said in fact. This natural process seems to act like a kind of receptor/ligand combination at the psychic level whereby the very nature of this application - genuine application, mind - affects one's change in "resonance" which then aligns itself to the template that is the Yi - that is in fact a formalised Universe! Maybe that has something to do with it's close association with DNA?

That could all be codswallop of course, but fun to speculate.

Topal

[hollis]

lots of good thought in this thread, about a very interesting subject.

a person 74 year old lady i know: she is also a mentally disabled adult. very capable, quite a character with a very strong mind and body. she has habits like spitting anywhere she chooses, breaking faucets when she turns them off, petting cats too hard, occasionally giving someone a good pounding. mouth like a truck driver, hope u get the picture. over the years, she has mellowed, but once in a while, crosses a line. so when she gets in trouble (when she crosses a line), she gets very upset and develops all kinds of psychosomatic ailments.

"my arm aches" "im dizzy" this can go on for days. she can work herself into such a state that once she was actually checked into a hospital! (all tests showed nothing wrong) so, we who know her, have wised up over the years.

BUT.

i've noticed.

after getting in trouble, turning red in the face and stewing for an hour or so, she will come out with cookies and candies to the grownup who disciplined her. if the grownup takes the candy or cookie, all her symptoms disappear. poof. gone. if the grownup does NOT take the cookie or candy, she gets really sick for days.

sometimes i think sacrifice can sometimes be like this?

[sparhawk]

i've noticed.

after getting in trouble, turning red in the face and stewing for an hour or so, she will come out with cookies and candies to the grownup who has disciplined her. if the grownup takes the candy or cookie, all her symptoms disappear. poof. gone. if the grownup does NOT take the cookie or candy, she gets really sick for days.

sometimes i think sacrifice can sometimes be like this?


What an interesting example, Hollis! From personal experience, it is amazing what small offerings and sacrifices can do for your soul and state of mind. I also have an example from my father, who is a "Born-again-Christian", claiming he was never better, spiritually and economically than when he was tithing, religiously so (pardon the redundancy...), to his church. Once he stopped, his perception is that things went downhill.

In the end, I believe the whole issue of "sacrifice," in every semantic meaning, is something very subjective. However, I do believe in what I exposed above about some sort of "cosmic reciprocity".

[hollis]

In the end, I believe the whole issue of "sacrifice," in every semantic meaning, is something very subjective. However, I do believe in what I exposed above about some sort of "cosmic reciprocity".

Hi , yes! Luis, I do not mean to detract from the serious discussion that Topal brings up... in that regard something else comes to mind, will post a little later as it is a quotation from a book not in my hands at the moment!

[emc2cme]

Hi. I've read this thread with great interest. "Sacrifice" was something that I felt I understood intuitively, but have never really thought about. After reading Hilary's recent newsletter, I clicked on the link to this post, and have been thinking into the night, now, about this.

First, I did a reading, asking "What is the nature of sacrifice", drawing 22.1.2.3.5 (Grace), changing to 59 (Dissolution). Again, just on an intuitive level, that struck a chord somewhere deep inside--that sacrifice has to do with grace, with the dissolution of (in particular) the letting go of the mundane. I read LiSe's lovely translations of both hexegrams, and thought of a beautiful plant (the Grace part) being washed away in a flood (the Dissolution part). An absolute giving away of even the most beautiful things in our lives.

Then I searched for the English etymology for "sacrifice" and "sacred" and found:

sacrifice (n.)
c.1250, from O.Fr. sacrifise (12c.), from L. sacrificium, from sacrificus "performing priestly functions or sacrifices," from sacra "sacred rites" (prop. neut. pl. of sacer "sacred," see sacred) + root of facere "to do, perform" (see factitious). L. sacrificium is glossed in O.E. by ansegdniss. Sense of "something given up for the sake of another" is first recorded 1592. Baseball sense first attested 1880. The verb is first recorded c.1290.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sacrifice

sacred
c.1300, from pp. of obs. verb sacren "to make holy" (c.1225), from O.Fr. sacrer (12c.), from L. sacrare "to make sacred, consecrate," from sacer (gen. sacri) "sacred, dedicated, holy, accursed," from O.L. saceres, which Tucker connects to base *saq- "bind, restrict, enclose, protect," explaining that "words for both 'oath' & 'curse' are regularly words of 'binding.' " But Buck merely groups it with Oscan sakrim, Umbrian sacra and calls it "a distinctive Italic group, without any clear outside connections." Nasalized form is sancire "make sacred, confirm, ratify, ordain." Sacred cow "object of Hindu veneration," is from 1891; fig. sense is first recorded 1910, from Western views of Hinduism.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sacred

Obviously, having to do with making the mundane into the sacred or holy (whole?), "binding", as they say, as do the Wiccans, to affirm a higher, more pure, to set apart? I really dislike the idea, however, of denigrating the mundane, as if this world were somehow less than the lofty spiritual plane...

Just some meandering late at night. But I sure love reading these threads:-)

Nancy

[emc2cme]

BTW, the point of what I was trying to say got away from me.

It seems that, in the English translation at least, the meaning of sacrifice is not to give up anything, but to make something sacred, to set it apart in some way.

And going back to the hexagrams in the reading I did for the nature of sacrifice (22.1.2.3.5 changing to 59), it seemed as if it was saying that even grace, the most beautiful of doctrines here in the west, is swept away in the act of dissolution, leaving what? I'm not entirely sure, but having once been in a devastating flood in which I lost almost everything (Kansas City, 1977), I can tell you that it's a liberating feeling, to lose the things to which I thought I was so attached. Thanks heavens I didn't lose my life, as some did--that'd have been a different story.

Anyway, I always caution my children about talking about anything important after ten o'clock at night, since it turns into blathering. I'm breaking my own rule here, with predictable results. Have a wonderful St. Pat's Day, all. And thanks for providing such stimulating food for thought!

Nancy

[dobro]

Sacrifice as 'making sacred'? Wow.

Lindsay, come back and talk with me. lol

[sparhawk]

Sacrifice as 'making sacred'? Wow.


Surprised at your surprise... :D Really.

Now, let's take a look at "sacrilege" (thanks for the link to that etymological site!!!):

sacrilege
c.1303, "crime of stealing what is consecrated to God," from O.Fr. sacrilege (12c.), from L. sacrilegium "temple robbery," from sacrilegus "stealer of sacred things," from phrase sacrum legere "to steal sacred things," from sacrum "sacred object (from neuter sing. of sacer "sacred") + legere "take, pick up" (see lecture). Second element is related to lecture, but is not from religion. Transf. sense of "profanation of anything held sacred" is attested from 1390. Sacrilegious is from 1582. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sacrilege&searchmode=none)

Nice and slightly antonymic perspective on "sacrifice"...

[topal]

Surprised at your surprise... :D Really.

Now, let's take a look at "sacrilege" (thanks for the link to that etymological site!!!):

sacrilege
c.1303, "crime of stealing what is consecrated to God," from O.Fr. sacrilege (12c.), from L. sacrilegium "temple robbery," from sacrilegus "stealer of sacred things," from phrase sacrum legere "to steal sacred things," from sacrum "sacred object (from neuter sing. of sacer "sacred") + legere "take, pick up" (see lecture). Second element is related to lecture, but is not from religion. Transf. sense of "profanation of anything held sacred" is attested from 1390. Sacrilegious is from 1582. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sacrilege&searchmode=none)

Nice and slightly antonymic perspective on "sacrifice"...


Word games...I'll play while I sup my sacred coffee...

Got thinking about sacrifice = sacred = sacrum = ("said to be so called because the bone was the part of animals that was offered in sacrifices) = sacral (as in the chakra / centre) seems to be linked to this idea of both sacrifice the root inner temple or sacrificial altar in which the sexual /energy is directed into creativity or just frittering it away.

According to one author (Ambika Wauters’ book, Chakras and Their Archetypes) there are two archetypes symbolically located in this second centre called the Martyr and the Empress/Emperor. The “...polarity of suffering and sacrifice on the one hand, and pleasure, happiness and contentment on the other.”

She goes on to say that the Martyr can be transformed into the Empress/Emperor:

The Martyr:

* Takes greater responsibility than the Victim, but not enough to be empowered
* Sacrifices and suffers for the sake of others
* Thinks sacrifice is good for the self
* Often experiences anger, resentment and guilt
* Feels it deserves its self-imposed suffering
* Unable to shift negative attitudes and change life patterns
* Gives up claim to happiness to maintain peace, stability and balance for others

Simplistic maybe but interesting...

Then I thought about sacred-sacral -sacrilege = sacred = lineage?

a sacred heritage or "crime of stealing what is consecrated to God," or "The violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object." is really describing what we do to ourselves everyday until we are able to awaken to correct use of sexual energy i.e. creativity via transmuted emotions...Until then we are "stealing", exploiting something sacred that is "of God" Which demands a "sacrifice" at some point...

So, sacrilege = sacred = lineage = ("My liege") = Royal blood - bloodline etc. = Holy Grail within transmutation etc.

liege
–noun
1. a feudal lord entitled to allegiance and service.
2. a feudal vassal or subject.
–adjective
3. owing primary allegiance and service to a feudal lord.
4. pertaining to the relation between a feudal vassal and lord.
5. loyal; faithful: the liege adherents of a cause.

The Master and the vassal = the personality and the soul = higher and lower self...The Sacred relationship.

Then there's sacri-lege - LEGE - law - so breaching the sacred law. Or "Liege" To allege; to assert one's responsibility to become the vassel and serve or to to violate the sacred "Royal King" within.

It's interesting that the idea of sacrilege or it's evolution follows the normal course of the increasing extremism of organized religion which distorted the original meanings and pushed them into a concrete physical interpretation and an inquisitorial one where the sacrilege became the respsonsibility of the Church to exact "just" punishment. Then by the time we came to those blood-thirsty Levitical priests of Deuteronomy they'd managed to turn it into a system of virtual taxation based on how naughty you'd been with your profanity and general sacrilegious behaviour. What a ruse! Of course, they'd pocket those false idols and all that gold and silver and go and invite some friends around for one of their famed Babylonian orgies.

Topal

[emc2cme]

The more you guys share, the more interesting and complex this idea of sacrifice becomes. If the etymology of sacrifice is "to make sacred"--just how do we do that? I think we all know when we're in a sacred place, or a sacred moment, or when we're talking to a holy or sacred person. But just how do the place, the moment and/or the person GET that way? Is it something that we've been conditioned to believe or react to, like seeing stained-glass windows or hearing Gregorian chants or smelling incense? Or is something truly changed when it's "consecrated"?

Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.

Nancy

[topal]

Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.


Hi Nancy,

Geeze I don't know. I don't think anyone really knows for sure. We have all kinds of theories, distorted truths religions and and various beliefs and "-isms" but...

I suppose to become sacred or "make sacred" we have to become a "vessel" that can handle and then disburse that energy - that correct "frequency." Like we are the pot, the potter and the potter's wheel all at the same time. I do think there can be a fundamental, internal change almost like a chemical reaction that is mirroring something taking place at a higher level.

it's a HUGE question you've posed with an infinite variety of answers. (A neverending thread you might say). However, I think there is really only One Way but many paths.

For me, the Alchemists; Cathars; Sufi mystics; Celtic Christians;some aspects of the gnostic tradition and some of the 4th Way schools seem to have a bigger slice of the truth pie than other traditions. (and the I Ching of course!) They have a lot to say about the sacred, what it is and how to embody it in our lives. Easier said than done of course...:brickwall:

I'll try and dig some quotations out at some point.

Topal

[meng]

By all means. And this is where the Yi gets really exciting, because of two things. First, it works as an oracle nowadays, thousands of years after it was devised, because it operates via a rich collection of archetypes expressed SYMBOLICALLY. That richness of symbology is what makes is so useful to us, and so usable by us. And secondly (and this really astounds me) I'm absolutely convinced, as you seem to be, that the Yi is a sort of secret manual of spiritual transformation - you call it 'alchemical'. I call it secret, not because the knowledge is hidden somewhere, but because it just isn't available to you until you know yourself well enough to start to recognize what the Yi's talking about in terms of working on your own transformation.




Good stuff.

[meng]

The more you guys share, the more interesting and complex this idea of sacrifice becomes. If the etymology of sacrifice is "to make sacred"--just how do we do that? I think we all know when we're in a sacred place, or a sacred moment, or when we're talking to a holy or sacred person. But just how do the place, the moment and/or the person GET that way? Is it something that we've been conditioned to believe or react to, like seeing stained-glass windows or hearing Gregorian chants or smelling incense? Or is something truly changed when it's "consecrated"?

Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.

Nancy

Do we make an object sacred or does the object make us scared?

In my life, change comes through lots of conscious effort, which seems to go nowhere. Then, one morning things are unexpectedly different.

But there's one other act which makes the connection between work and miracle. At some point I ask for help. And this happens before the miracle shows itself. Sometimes the prayer must enable the belief in order to progress in the work. Then when the work and change is complete, I call it divine. My effort was half of the miracle, and so it is as divine as is the unseen half. To me that is the meaning of sacred.

[lindsay]

As a practical matter, one way we make occasions, places, and things sacred is through ritual and ceremony. Ritual is a way to summon the holy and make us mindful of our place in the world of spirit. Near my home, for example, a priest blesses the fishing fleet every year at the beginning of the fishing season. Somehow it seems like a good way to deal with a host of important issues - ranging from concerns about personal safety (the sea is a dangerous place) to the hope for good fortune (a good catch) to a realization that some of us live by the bounty of the sea (the death of many good fish). A good ritual seems to put all these concerns straight, and sanctify the business of fishing.

There are hints of this in the Yi. For example, it's OK to use a plain grass offering mat (28.1) or sacrifice a meager offering (45.2, 46.2 - so-called "spring offerings"). Even two simple baskets of rice (41.0) or a roll of unbleached silk (22.5) can be used. The shock of thunder can cause us to drop the ceremonial spoon and libation cup at a sacrifice (51.0). We ought to pass a jug of wine and two earthenware bowls of rice quickly through a window of some sort (29.4), probably a sacrificial offering. Lords can offer sacrifices that poor people cannot afford (14.3). But wealth isn't everything - the eastern neighbor's sacrificial ox is not as good as the western neighbor's modest offering (63.5). The king makes a sacrifice to the god Di (42.2) or Mount Qi (46.4). Etc.

Here we have indications of ritual ceremonies large and small, all designed to make our concerns and wishes sacred, and to pass them on into the other, unseen realm. That's not so hard to understand, is it? Don't we do the same thing now and then?

Lindsay

[fkegan]

When the Yi commentary says sacrifice they are referring to the set of various sacrifices which were standard in traditional ancient China-- such as the reference to one neighbor slaughtering an ox to less effect than another's small sacrifice in hex 63 line 5. These were major social or family events often opportunities to show off your wealth and piety to improve status and family glory.

The conflict between the outer public show and the inner sacred attitude would be a major theme in the Confucian system of morality especially as translated by a 19th century German Protestant like Wilhelm.

Hexagram 41 called Decrease in Wilhelm refers to making a rice sacrifice with less than the full compliment of rice bowls. The ideogram for the name in Chinese contains a drawing of the tortoise shell oracle that preceded the development of the King Wen Sequence (when the Chinese still used computer binary math for their Hexagrams).

Why Wilhelm called it Decrease rather than Sacrifice seems rooted in his religious background--I believe he was the son of a Christian missionary without great tolerance for traditional Chinese religion as an expression of relationship with God.

In ancient religion there was an understanding that one owed payment for Divine assistance, therefore prayer alone was considered like not tipping your waitperson.

In that context, sacrifice refers to the simple contract of making your prayer ascend to Heaven and the Divine along with the smoke of your burnt offering with the value of the sacrificial rice or ox or whatever being like original tips--to insure prompt service. The commentary is always included that it is just a gratuity not a bribe or purchase to remind folks of the importance of true sentiment and not just a flashy bankroll.

The ancient Chinese were basically straightforward, but translation is always a problem across millennia and culture. The Greeks called translators "traitors" since they betrayed the original meaning to insert their own perspective.

The problems with translations is why I prefer to extract the meaning of the hexagrams directly from the line structure and the King Wen Sequence and only then look to the translations or correspondence with other systems (like the Sabian Symbols in astrology to the 360 lines of hexagrams 3-62) after knowing the original context and meaning.
Frank

[emc2cme]

Just when I think there's no more to be said on a topic, one of you comes along and says it, in such an interesting and fresh way. Thank you.

Nancy

[dobro]

In ancient religion there was an understanding that one owed payment for Divine assistance, therefore prayer alone was considered like not tipping your waitperson.

In that context, sacrifice refers to the simple contract of making your prayer ascend to Heaven and the Divine along with the smoke of your burnt offering with the value of the sacrificial rice or ox or whatever being like original tips--to insure prompt service. The commentary is always included that it is just a gratuity not a bribe or purchase to remind folks of the importance of true sentiment and not just a flashy bankroll.

Near the head of this thread, Lindsay was speculating about the nature of sacrifice, and thought perhaps it occurred 'after the fact':

"Since it’s usually mentioned in the Judgment – that is, in the broadest response of the oracle to the question at hand – I assume it refers to something that ought to done after or because of the reading."

If you understand sacrifice in the meaning you've given here, then Lindsay's question is answered - it's something you do because it's part of the connection with the Spirits, pure and simple.

I once asked my mother why she had got married. She looked at me blankly for a minute, and then said: "That's what you DID in those days." She never questioned it, never considered options; it was just what a person did. Same thing with sacrifice in those days? (Maybe, but that seems to make it kind of superficial, a mere observance of form. I think it goes deeper than that...)

But what do you mean by 'the commentary is always included that it is just a gratuity not a bribe or purchase'? And did the sacrifice not take place BEFORE a divination or supplication as well?

[fkegan]

In ancient cultures, Chinese or Greek or Roman, there were a lot of sacrifices in daily life. There were routine daily sacrifices, sacrifices to mark the seasons, family sacrifices, sacrifices to go with an oracle and all other things.

So there weren't just one sacrifice to be discussed, there were many for all sorts of reasons, because that was the way folks dealt with the uncertainties in daily life.

The attitude is well captured in this quote from Meng's post: "Do we make an object sacred or does the object make us scared?" Being scared is one of the fundamental issues of the ancient world and rituals and sacrifices were parts of their logical reaction to their general fearfulness.

In the modern world we retreat into a belief our specialists (religious, academic and math/science) have the answers for us, so we don't have to notice how scary things can be in everyday life.

Making things sacred is a separate set of things. The functional mark of being made sacred or sacrificed is that the object is not no longer available for regular use. Therefore the importance of the sacrifice is the value of what it cost and how dearly you are still attached to the object or its cost.

So, any sage commentary would be filled with notes that things are supposed to be symbolic and spiritual not crass, material concerns about your status or what else you could have done with that object or the coins used to buy it.

Frank

[lindsay]

No need to make dubious analogies to Greece and Rome for daily sacrifices. What do you think the Mass (or Communion) is about in the Christian Church? Eat the body of Christ, drink his blood. Sounds like a sacrifice to me. How fortuitous today is Easter. Isn't that about sacrifice too?

"Dr" Frank is missing the point here. I am not concerned with pro forma sacrifices that may have preceded or followed the act of divination. He may be right about this angle, although he presents no evidence from Chinese history, religion, or history to support his assertions. Lectures without evidence, talk without relevant content.

I am interested in what the word heng/xiang means in the divination texts. Why does the Yi insist, in certain circumstances only, that a sacrifice is required as part of the reading? Again, this is usually found in the guaci rather than the yaoci. There are also many guaci that do not mention this requirement at all.

So that brings me back to the question, what is intended here? Not a routine acknowledgement to the gods. Not a mandatory act of thanksgiving. Not a reward for receiving a lucky reading. None of these really work in this situation. What is it the Yi want from us in these circumstances? In human terms?

Lindsay

[maremaria]

Interesting thread, with a lot of diverse opinions. Thank you.

I thought that I knew what those words really mean and the concept behind them but now I feel that I don’t know nothing…Not actually a bad thing though

I don’t want to disturb the flow of this conversation, but there is a word stuck in my mind regarding sacrifice. The word “surrender», as to relinquish possession or control of to another, biger than us ?

Do you see any association between sacrifice and surrender ?
Is what Yi advice us ?

Maria

[meng]

The attitude is well captured in this quote from Meng's post: "Do we make an object sacred or does the object make us scared?" Being scared is one of the fundamental issues of the ancient world and rituals and sacrifices were parts of their logical reaction to their general fearfulness.



Thanks for the credit, Frank, but I can only take credit for a typo. It should read "or does the object make us sacred." But it's true that scared and sacred do share ground in most religious sacrifices. Perhaps a refinement of that fear might be awe - a 59 experience.

[meng]

"I am undone." That undone-ness is, I believe, the essence of sacrifice.

[sparhawk]

Hi Lindsay,

I am interested in what the word heng/xiang means in the divination texts. Why does the Yi insist, in certain circumstances only, that a sacrifice is required as part of the reading? Again, this is usually found in the guaci rather than the yaoci. There are also many guaci that do not mention this requirement at all.


Earlier, you also said:

Why does he ask? Maybe Choppi believes – as I do – that most occurrences of 亨 heng in the Yi ought to be read as 享 xiăng. I resisted the idea for a long time – I think emending long-established texts is often a very presumptuous exercise. But it’s the only explanation that makes sense in the light of history. There are 40-50 occurrences of “sacrifice” in the Yi, nearly all of them in the Judgment (guaci) texts. So perhaps Choppi’s question is a very astute oneAlthough I still think along the lines of the example I gave about Yoruba traditions and how I associate them with the occurrences of xiang3 in the Yi, I've been thinking quite a bit about what you said.


To be exact, in the received text, there are 47 occurrences of 亨 (heng1) and only 3 of 享 (xiang3), so, if there is a transcription error, I would err on the side of it being xiang3. I mean, it would be basic probabilities. However, what are the odds of an error like that happening with such a key word? I mean, it is an attractive idea that provides some simplification to certain parts of the text but I'm not convinced it is correct. I believe xiang3 is the correct character where it appears in the text.

Interesting to note a couple of facts about xiang3. The modern use of the character is "to enjoy" (as in 利享, "to enjoy the profits from the labors of others"; or 享用, "to enjoy the use of") It is in the ancient etymology of the character that is meant to note "sacrifice." Now, something curious about seeing "sacrifice" as "giving" and recently proven scientifically: read here. (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5itqrYnBRd3HQ9lZjRFSuEDoIl2dg) So, the idea of "giving/offering" as a means to receive "enjoyment" appears to have been proven a "couple" of years before that study... :D

Another interesting thing I found reading Karlgren, as I was preparing to write this note, is that in "Karlgren 464,r" 火享, the combination of the character for "fire," paired with the character for "sacrifice/enjoy" means a "torch for burning oracle bones"

The same way I believe xiang3 is the correct character where it appears, I also believe heng1 is correctly placed within the context of the received text.

It is a fascinating brainstorming, indeed, and I'm glad you sent me running for the books. :)

[dobro]

I don’t want to disturb the flow of this conversation, but there is a word stuck in my mind regarding sacrifice. The word “surrender», as to relinquish possession or control of to another, biger than us ?

Do you see any association between sacrifice and surrender ?
Is what Yi advice us ?

The Yi advises surrender and not-doing a lot. And is there a connection between surrender and sacrifice? I'd say that surrender gets you closer to God actually. Surrender is a letting-be that arises out of the knowledge that you've done what you can do and you can't do any more; now it's up to God. So you let go of trying to control it, and you let God take care of it. When you do that, and when you sustain that for some time, God steps in. When you clear the space in your being of the ego's agenda, the universe's agenda has a chance to manifest. Simple.

Sacrifice, as I see it, is part of the preparation for surrender. Sacrifice is part of the person's personal agenda ('I'm gonna sacrifice this bull and it's the right thing to DO to get me into right relationship with the big guy upstairs.')

So - compare them. Sacrifice optimises the chances of connection with God; surrender allows God to actually step in. Which one's a more 'sacred' situation? The latter, of course.

I've used the term 'God' here cuz everybody thinks they know what I'm talking about lol. I know the Yi doesn't work in terms of the 'God' idea; you don't have to remind me.

[dobro]

I am interested in what the word heng/xiang means in the divination texts. Why does the Yi insist, in certain circumstances only, that a sacrifice is required as part of the reading?

Lindsay, you keep asking this question, but you also keep ignoring the ideas that have been offered as possible answers. Okay, I'll take you up on it. Back near the beginning of the thread, Brad offered this idea:

" Sacrifice is not just the purchase price for some future reward from heaven. It was made to partake in the same process by which heaven operates. The word sacrifice itself has the etymology "to make sacred," not just to give something up."

Okay, so what do you think of it? Why doesn't it answer your question? And keep in mind that there are two parts to Brad's answer when he says 'sacrifice is not just the purchase price for some future reward from heaven' - that means that it includes the function of 'purchase price', but that it also includes the idea of 'making sacred'.

Do you object to either of those ideas? If so, why?

[fkegan]

Lindsay-- I associated you to the fellow of the same name in Luis' quote: ["The Yi asks us to reason by analogy, not by deduction.Lindsay"] but apparently that sentiment does not ring true to you from others.

There is an absolute difference on many, many levels between the ancient world and our post modern situation. Our access to understanding any text requires being aware of those distinction.

My Professor of ancient Indian Buddhism noted in exact philological detail (with recitations and citations in five languages covering numerous centuries) the errors made by those moderns who thought they knew the meaning of the terms in their ancient texts from their meaning in modern usage. I try to avoid such overkill since it is the import and meaning that matters not the bibliography of one's library.

Your complaint about connections between ancient Greece and Rome to ancient China misses the connection I speak about on my website (www.stars-n-dice.com) about the unified global awareness in the ancient world based upon their observation that the interaction of celestial mechanics, (including differences in solar flux with the seasons) with the topography of Planet Earth controlled the water cycle and the timing of everything else whose CHANGES they needed to map and track in texts such as the I Ching.

In terms of referenced sources, The general reality of the ancient world is best captured in the famous 1864 classic <i> The Ancient City</i> by Fustel De Coulanges who wrote to remind his peers that they were not truly recreating ancient Rome and Athens in Napoleon III's imperial France.

In terms of the details of Chinese text interpretation, I rely upon my experience working with Gia-Fu Feng translating the I Ching which first and foremost impressed upon me that dealing with ancient Chinese texts required more than just the characters on the page, especially as his early training in traditional China brought with it an entire universe of context and alternative Taoist perspective that wasn't available to those who did not have roots in the culture going back at least a millennium (Gia-Fu referred to his family as immigrants to Shanghai, since they moved there when Ghenis Khan came through and mentioned he remembered uncles of his still angry over the outrage of the rape of the family's women folks then).

Your reference to Christian communion and Easter, though apropos of the day today, misses the point like most of your other remarks. That Christian ritual is a mix of remnants of what historically Jesus' followers did--find a portal to the Divine in sharing a meal with wine outside the established expectations (cf. The Historical Jesus by Crossan) and the later reconstruction of the religion in the Middle Ages (cf.Aquinas) to fit into their newly developing "modern" worldview (cf my website pages on the Scholastics and such).

You are quite correct I did not relate to your specific interest. I sought to point out how you were missing the vital, relevant and essential by looking with such tunnel vision at your characters and not knowing anything about the context which determined everything including the meaning and importance of those characters.

Thus, when you ask "What is it the Yi want from us in these circumstances? In human terms?" I return to my original comments, The Yi commentary is forever reminding us it is the feeling in the heart not the details of the outer show that is important. So, from Dr. frank--Q.E.D.

Meng-- I first assumed it was a typo in your post, but as I thought about it I realized it may not have been intentional but it was a brilliant addition to the thread and so I credited you as the one bringing it up. It was also an exquisite reminder that true meaning is not carried in the exact strokes of the characters written. The connection of "scared" with "sacred" reproduces in English some of the complexities of the history of the semantics, semiotics, and such in the development of Chinese ideograms. It is only the 'c' and the 'a' which were transposed, however that change highlights the connection and relationship of awe for the sacred, human actions of sacrifice and their implicit obsessive-compulsive psychological roots.

Dobro-- The original tips, or literally T.I.P.S. (to insure prompt service) is said to have been a custom of pub staff to put out a cup by the door where their patrons walked in with that lettering to indicate that they were listening for the clink of the coin in the cup to decide if the patron was worth the trouble of coming forward to serve. Personally, I would consider this a rather sophisticated modern acronym-based anecdote, but it expresses the concept.
In the ancient world folks tended to react to everything not under their clear control with fear and awe so there would be a ritual (perhaps including a sacrifice) for general politeness and showing of piety, a ritual with sacrifice in the t.i.p.s. style to precede a specific oracle and very likely another afterwards to show proper respect for the answer and to make sure to maximize the goodwill of the spirits (and the human diviner as well). That would be the point with the sacred/scared connection. Not to do just one sacrifice but to be obsessive about carrying out compulsive sacrifices to ward off whatever was scary.
The detailed point in the exact texts would refer to ongoing attempts of those in spiritual leadership to encourage folks to rise to a higher level in their spirituality and not just be hung up in the details (cf. hex 41). Which is another reason obsessively hassling the details in spiritual commentary dedicated to transcending that sort of things feels weird.
My mother also made remarks about her having gotten married and had children since it was what one did at the time. She put her remarks in the context that now there was the option for women to dedicate themselves to their careers solely instead.

Reviewing the history and culture of the preceding millennium, certainly up until those last decades of the 20th century, not only was it expected that a woman would marry and prove her utility by having children, it was enforced by just about anyone and everyone.

There is an example of a modern Chinese couple strolling down the street holding hands who had a chamber pot emptied upon their heads by a resident in the apartment above them since their conduct was not considered appropriate. Explains some more of hex 37 as the regulation of attraction between the sexes in the establishment of married families kept strictly indoors.


Frank

[dobro]

In the ancient world folks tended to react to everything not under their clear control with fear and awe so there would be a ritual (perhaps including a sacrifice) for general politeness and showing of piety, a ritual with sacrifice in the t.i.p.s. style to precede a specific oracle and very likely another afterwards to show proper respect for the answer and to make sure to maximize the goodwill of the spirits (and the human diviner as well). That would be the point with the sacred/scared connection. Not to do just one sacrifice but to be obsessive about carrying out compulsive sacrifices to ward off whatever was scary.

This seems likely to me. In the Yi, I find three instances of xiang3 - 41, 42.2, 47.2. Any idea why they would crop up in those three particular gua? It seems significant to me that out of only three instances, two of them are found in a pair.

[fkegan]

Hi Dobro,
In my Flux Tome version, hex 41 and 42 are called Sacrifice and Blessing. In terms of the tetraktys, hex 41 is the monad of this entire set of 10, therefore sacrifice belongs absolutely in the first or monad hexagram. Its appearance in the second or negative polar opposite of the set can be related, as in the Wilhelm to the notion of the lower line of the trigram of Heaven has been sent down to support the lowest line of trigram Earth.

The suggestion of a sacrifice in the second line of hex 47, where the line commentary cites a situation of having plenty of food but not feeling content it would be standard advice of any spiritual guide, including Protestants like Wilhelm, that that person's problems need some prayer or sacrifice to get reconnected to the Divine.

A more structural answer involving hex 47 being the 7th of the set of Sacrifice and thus the negative pole of the x-axis double dichotomy from the seasonal loss of water from a small lake to hex 48 the central village mainstay of the well which must always yield water or the village would have to dissolve and move to better water source will have to wait until my brain recharges. Perhaps my personal hex 47.2 situation.
Frank

[maremaria]

So - compare them. Sacrifice optimises the chances of connection with God; surrender allows God to actually step in. Which one's a more 'sacred' situation? The latter, of course.

.

Thanks Dobro

Maria

[lindsay]

OK, what is this whole sacrifice issue all about (for me)?

First of all, the heng/xiang issue. In the Mawangdui MS, almost every occurrence of heng is replaced by xiang (see Shaugnessy’s transcription). In his authoritative dissertation on the Zhouyi – “The Original ‘Yijing’: A Text, Phonetic Transcription, Translation, and Indexes, with Sample Glosses”, Richard Kunst argues at length that in almost every instance it is probably more accurate to read heng as xiang according to ancient sources (see pp. 181-190). Kerson and Rosemary Huang believe heng is actually an archaic form of xiang (p. 50), and Richard Rutt also accepts the heng = xiang equation. If this is true, then everywhere heng occurs, we should read xiang “sacrifice” or “offering”. This appears to be the consensus opinion of academic scholars familiar with Old Chinese.

If heng = xiang, then there are many more references to sacrifice in the Yi than Luis says. Instead of 3, there are 50. So heng/xiang is a big deal in translating the text, especially the guaci portion. What is especially puzzling is that heng/xiang usually appears as a single, stand-alone character – or in 2-character combinations. There is no context to help us guess what is meant. I think heng/xiang alone probably means “Let there be a sacrifice” – and yuan heng/xiang means “Let there be a major sacrifice.”

Now here is my point of perplexity. Isn’t it odd that a sacrifice is called for AFTER the reading has been cast? This would seem to suggest that the sacrifice is either a form of thanksgiving or – and this idea intrigues me – the Yi is asking that we offer a sacrifice as part of fixing the omen, of actualizing the reading, of making what the Yi offers as a possibility into a reality.

I am fascinated by what a number of people in this string have suggested about using sacrifice as a way to hallow ourselves, to make ourselves worthy, to symbolize giving up the extraneous parts of ourselves so we can stand naked and pure before the God or the gods. In this way, by purifying our intentions and motives, by heating ourselves in the alchemical crucible to our white-hot essence, we can follow the Dao. All that is left is our original nature.

I don’t know if any of this is in the Yi – but if it is, then the Yi may have a spiritual dimension rarely discussed.

Lindsay

[fkegan]

Maria--
Surrender as an invitation for God to step into one's life tends to be more of a Christian notion than anything compatible with ancient sacrifice where what was made sacred by the sacrifice (sacri-fice Latin for sacred and made) was whatever it was that got thrown on the fire and destroyed on Earth but carried to Heaven in the smoke.

However, for us modern folks, learning to accept a spirit or Oracle is a surrender of objective training and expectation and a truly insightful oracle may give a sense being hallowed by the connection to the mystical Divine.

In Wilhelm, hex 16, image with commentary by Confucius speaks of the spiritual power of music and of the 'great sacrifice' which was the ultimate expression of Chinese culture which seems totally different from any of the things discussed in this thread.

Lindsay,
Taoist perspectives about returning the the state of the uncarved block or infant too young to smile tend to be connected with Buddhist notions of attaining liberation by transcending individual expectations. There is Taoist alchemy involving fire and crucibles, though for aligning a person to the Dao, the metaphor of flowing water seems more to the point. Burning off impurities in a white hot crucible is a lot more energy used in a more Christian way. Taoist tradition is rather the more relaxed image of water flowing exactly along the exact contours of the topography than burning off impurities to get your soul to higher carats to impress God with your golden purity.

Frank

[sparhawk]

Hi Lindsay,

First of all, the heng/xiang issue. In the Mawangdui MS, almost every occurrence of heng is replaced by xiang (see Shaugnessy’s transcription). In his authoritative dissertation on the Zhouyi – “The Original ‘Yijing’: A Text, Phonetic Transcription, Translation, and Indexes, with Sample Glosses”, Richard Kunst argues at length that in almost every instance it is probably more accurate to read heng as xiang according to ancient sources (see pp. 181-190). Kerson and Rosemary Huang believe heng is actually an archaic form of xiang (p. 50), and Richard Rutt also accepts the heng = xiang equation. If this is true, then everywhere heng occurs, we should read xiang “sacrifice” or “offering”. This appears to be the consensus opinion of academic scholars familiar with Old Chinese.

I'll get back to you on this with some thoughts that don't look pulled out of thin air... :D My logical reasoning on what I said before was that a scribe is more likely to make three mistakes in transcription than forty seven... Specially given the difference in meaning between the two characters, even though they look so similar.


Now here is my point of perplexity. Isn’t it odd that a sacrifice is called for AFTER the reading has been cast? This would seem to suggest that the sacrifice is either a form of thanksgiving or – and this idea intrigues me – the Yi is asking that we offer a sacrifice as part of fixing the omen, of actualizing the reading, of making what the Yi offers as a possibility into a reality.
With this I agree and I believe fits with what I said before about "sacrifice" being, in certain contexts, a form of reciprocity.

[maremaria]

Hi Frank,

With the word “surrender», as I said back, I meant to relinquish some of our possession or control of to another, bigger than us without meaning something specific. The other can be out there or inwards us.
As for the sacrifice, ancient sacrifices are more familiar to me than the Christian notion.If I’m not wrong Hesiodus in his work Theogony mentions as the origin of sacrifice being a trick by Prometheus that make Zeus ( the father of the Greek gods) accepting the bones and fat of sacrifice instead of the meat. This incident’s significance has to do with a change in the relationship between men and gods but I can’t recall exactly why.
I only recall that Prometheus wanted to give the meat to men because they need it to survive and the men reached the gods through the smoke of the burned bones accenting in the sky.
Maybe you know something more about that, since you seem familiar with ancient history

(for the gentlemen in this forum the story goes like that : Zeus got mad and took the fire from men, Prometheus took it back, Zeus got angry again and to punish men created woman…..)

[meng]

Now here is my point of perplexity. Isn’t it odd that a sacrifice is called for AFTER the reading has been cast? This would seem to suggest that the sacrifice is either a form of thanksgiving or – and this idea intrigues me – the Yi is asking that we offer a sacrifice as part of fixing the omen, of actualizing the reading, of making what the Yi offers as a possibility into a reality.


First, I think most users offer a sacrifice before asking, just by being willing to drop their own defense enough to receive input from this source. Maybe that's one small bowl for the sacrifice? Maybe the second small bowl is required after receiving the answer, through working on it internally: chewing, ingesting, contemplating, processing, letting the food's chemistry get into us on a cellular level.

Isn't that like Holy Communion? There is the sacrifice/offering/belief/ceremony, before the bread and wine is consecrated. Then you eat the body and drink the blood, and it is then that you become renewed and empowered - changed.

[charly]

... (for the gentlemen in this forum the story goes like that : Zeus got mad and took the fire from men, Prometheus took it back, Zeus got angry again and to punish men created woman…..)
María:

Nice punishment!

But I don't trust in Zeus motives, seeing how he behaved, I believe that he created the woman for his own profit.

Yours,

Charly

[meng]

Zeus got angry again and to punish men created woman…..)

And a damn fine job he did of it too! :rant:

;)

[maremaria]

.....just by being willing to drop their own defense enough to receive input from this source. ------.

this is exactly what I meant by using the word "surrender"

[maremaria]

María:

Nice punishment!

But I don't trust in Zeus motives, seeing how he behaved, I believe that he created the woman for his own profit.

Yours,

Charly

:eek: no !! what makes you say that :confused: :rofl:

[maremaria]

And a damn fine job he did of it too! :rant:

;)

So next time you gentlemen complain about a woman making your life difficult, go back and see what you did wrong ... Its not our fault :rolleyes: we have to follow Zeus's orders :D

[fkegan]

The Chinese of the Yi are ancient too, in fact millennia earlier than the Greeks who mark their myth history with Homer and Dionysus (who brought wine to Greek religion--and gave early Christian missionaries fits as the Gentile Pagans listened to their gospel and said--"oh, yeah, that is a Dionysus cult when are your orgies?")

Surrender as openness to outside influence? In ancient terms (and even some of us modern Yi oracle folks) the power of the Divine to insist that we mere mortals listen up when ordered and/or knocked about by the Cosmic seems self-evident. But I have noticed some of the feminine persuasion around here insist they have to surrender first before anything from outside can be accepted.

I would suggest that females evolved before Zeus or even bipedal primates came on the scene to share their imaginative narratives. The Greek myths of the Olympian gods refer overall to the conquest of Europe by the Indo-European invaders, who installed their gods on the highest peak around, Mt. Olympus and forced the prior native gods literally underground as the Titans.

Myths about creation tend more to be teaching stories developed by elders which they know will be effective with small children--the narrative keeping them in rapt attention rather than asking, "Why" and "What's that?, huh? and all the other things little one's say when parents try to get them to understand what their culture expects from them.

In terms of woman as punishment for Prometheus stealing fire---

Prometheus was a Titan--his name means Forethought [Ancient Greek: Προμηθεύς, "forethought" from Wikipedia]. He did a number of tricky things to the Olympian gods to benefit his people, an rebel from the old time religion called upon to be a guerrilla warrior insurgent to fight for better living conditions for the people and to resist the foreign occupation.

The Greeks considered fire to be of heaven only known to in heaven and to the Heavenly gods. This fits
with modern notions that human use of fire developed from being able to work with fires started by lightning first, learning to carry it home long before knowing how to start fires by human action. So that is what Prometheus did, used an ancient carrier for fire (such as the fire from the polis hearth that would be taken to light the central ritual hearth in a new colony) to take celestial fire to human hearths.

Prometheus is the creator of technology, made humans out of clay as demonstration of his pottery crafting skills. Being a plaything, he only made a male version at first, and his humans were pathetic, cold, hungry, and humiliated in their subject oppression especially in comparison to their occupiers and their enforcers, the Olympian gods.

Being his creation, Prometheus was proud of humans and sought to be their benefactor, stealing fire from the celestial lights to give humans civilized life. He tricked Zeus into allowing humans to offer up only bones and fat in their sacrifices, keeping the meat for their own sustenance. This trick was another dig at the new technology obsessed occupiers (gentile family organized cavalry whose descendants became wealthy landholding aristocrats, wagons, etc). The challenge was put to Zeus, what did he prefer--meat put into a bag of animal stomach so it looked yucky or bones wrapped in fat that would burn on the grill to make delicious smoke. Zeus chose the smoke and the humans got to laugh at him for his superficiality.

Technology was starting to impinge upon the wonders of the immortals, so Zeus wanted to punish Prometheus and all his humans. Some myths have woman a creation of the Smithy of the Gods, an animated bronze sculpture as it were.To punish this insurgent from the occupied territory, Zeus had a beautiful female made, gave her all the gifts from all the gods to make her so very beautiful and attractive (so she was called Pandora or all-donations) and put all the miseries to punish mankind and its pesky guerrilla champion--into a box as a wedding gift--an IED from Zeus. Forethought (Prometheus) knew better than to fall into the trap, but his brother Afterthought married her.

Zeus still wanted him punished, so had him chained to a rock where an eagle or vulture tore out and ate his liver every day (it magically being restored every night).

Not really a male-female rivalry issue--rather woman being created as the first Trojan Horse and tricked into carrying the explosive--first unknowing suicide bomber. In Genesis, there are two stories of the creation of male and female. The second creation story for woman in Genesis isn't really about woman not being equal, actually quite the opposite, it justifies young couples marrying and living together on their own.

Each story in Genesis has a punchline at the end...the one where Eve is created from Adam's rib is "And that is why your older teenage siblings leave home (when you aren't allowed out of mamma's sight) and settle down in their own homes with their spouses who aren't even related to you --since they are the same flesh--the wives being made from the husband's rib like Eve from Adam."

Male/female issues easily tend to get difficult from the female side in discussions based upon ancient Chinese philosophy where the female (Yin) is expected to be part of the background and any noticeable female is considered a dangerous intrusion against the natural order. A woman who stands out is to be treated as though she were Mrs. H.R. Clinton.

Frank

[heylise]

Could it be like this:
Xiang when you give to the gods – and receive from them - because you need their support. When you are in trouble it is good to give (yourself or from yourself) to the gods and trust in them.

Heng when you give from your riches, grateful, or for the simple fact that you are alive. Seeing the gods as part, cause or background of that life. It is good to share with the gods. Heng happens all through life, even little children can participate in heng and feel it, but xiang is for special moments.

For heng you put on your best clothes and take the whole family to the service. For xiang you are alone.

From Wenlin:
Heng: succesful, go smoothly. An older form possessed vertical symmetry:
"Composed of two gao1 (picture of a kind of tower, “above average”) abbreviated, one being straight, the other inverted; one offering, the other receiving. Hence two meanings: to treat with favour (now hēng) or to enjoy the favour received (now xiǎng)" --Wieger.
Xiang: "Give a feast, a sacrifice, to offer; accept offerings, enjoy -- etymologically the same word as xiang3 (provide with food); analysis of character uncertain... possibly a variation of fu2 (kind of vessel, ‘riches’)?" --Karlgren.

LiSe

[sparhawk]

Could it be like this:
Xiang when you give to the gods – and receive from them - because you need their support. When you are in trouble it is good to give (yourself or from yourself) to the gods and trust in them.

Heng when you give from your riches, grateful, or for the simple fact that you are alive. Seeing the gods as part, cause or background of that life. It is good to share with the gods. Heng happens all through life, even little children can participate in heng and feel it, but xiang is for special moments.

For heng you put on your best clothes and take the whole family to the service. For xiang you are alone.


Great metaphors! I like them a lot. :bows:

I've been re-reading Kunst's explanation for these two characters and perhaps I stand corrected in my appreciation of their instances in the text, as pointed by Lindsay, as far as their apparent interchangeability. However, I haven't totally dropped my opinion that the characters are properly placed in the text, in their current form. One reason I think LiSe's metaphors are very appropriate.

I will try to substantiate my opinion (or drop it altogether) when I finish gathering information... :)

[lindsay]

Lise, it so nice to hear your voice again! I think you may have put your finger on an important distinction between xiang and heng. In a way, xiang seems more like a religious - almost mystical - response to divination, and heng strikes me as a more secular, public, perhaps philosophical one. With xiang, the Yi may be asking us to respond in a way similar to what Luis wrote below: the divination has offered us a significant omen or oracle, it has been "a success" for us, and perhaps we are in its debt or in debt to the powers behind it.

What does this mean? What does the Yi, or the powers behind it, want from us? What is our debt? For one thing, it wants us to pay attention. Especially to this oracle, because this one is a special one. It goes to the heart of the problem. In the case of "yuan xiang/heng", the oracle is fundamental, addressing the origin and roots of the situation. This is speculation, of course. I wonder if "yuan heng/xiang" hexagrams have some special signficance, some deeper applicability than the rest? Anyway, it seems that we are being asked to honor the Yi or the divination-event in these cases. We are also being alerted to sober up, get serious, and take the oracle in high regard.

I have been thinking that xiang might be the older meaning, left over from the days when divination was essentially a religious act. Later, when use of the Yi became more widespread and the old religious context faded, xiang became heng. Whatever else xiang might have meant, people remembered it meant "success" in the sense of getting a good reading. Something like this might happen if Christianity died out and people forgot what was meant by the term "grace". They might simply interpret "grace" as meaning "good luck" in secular terms.

Going back to some of the African religions based on Yoruba traditions, just as a reference, the belief is, as I understand it, that there must be reciprocity between the querent and the different Orishas. We come to them for help and advise and we must give something in return, not as "payment" per se but as way to keep some sort of cosmological "balance."

The message within the popular adage, "there are no free lunches," is very much a living tradition in many cultures. I believe this is also the case of ancient Chinese traditions.

Luis, I'm sorry you got the impression I was ignoring or disagreeing with you. In fact, we are headed in the same direction - only you got there first. Last month I took two books on Santeria out of our public library. I was trying to imagine what it would be like to be a polytheist, a believer in many gods, all involved in daily life. The only living examples I could think of were African religions. I really think they are closer to the old world of the Yi than any of us died-in-the-wool monotheists can imagine. In my opinion, you are absolutely right to think of them, and I hope someday someone will explore the connection more closely.

Lindsay

[sparhawk]

Luis, I'm sorry you got the impression I was ignoring or disagreeing with you. In fact, we are headed in the same direction - only you got there first. Last month I took two books on Santeria out of our public library. I was trying to imagine what it would be like to be a polytheist, a believer in many gods, all involved in daily life. The only living examples I could think of were African religions. I really think they are closer to the old world of the Yi than any of us died-in-the-wool monotheists can imagine. In my opinion, you are absolutely right to think of them, and I hope someday someone will explore the connection more closely.

Lindsay

Talk about synchronicity then. :) "A funny thing happened on the way to to forum," as some would say, regarding Orishas/Yoruba religion. It is perhaps one of the oldest "monotheist" religions in the world. The roots of it going back a few thousand years before Christ. They do believe in a supreme being that controls and/or has final say in what the other Orishas do. The name is Olodumare (Olorun) Perhaps not in the sense we Westerners now conceptualize monotheism but, in its beliefs system, bears similarities with both, the Chinese concept of Shangdi and the Greek Deist Pantheon under the eye of Zeus (talk about a dysfunctional family there... :D)

Olodumare, much in the same way Yehova appears to have gone silent after Moses, stays pretty much above what happens below and "delegates" a lot of work to the other Orishas. They can be thought of as angelic forms. The belief is that each person has their own assigned Orisha and him/her can control your destiny and fate. This is the reason the dialogue between man and Orishas is always open and ongoing. Indeed, it is one of the most involved religions I know of. Fascinating subject, I must add.

[dobro]

I don't think there's all that much difference between monotheism and polytheism, except perhaps to over-intellectual pedants. Polytheism sees divinity first here in this, then there in that - it sees divinity as multiple. I suppose polytheism sees angels, rather than seeing God. Monotheism sees divinity in God, as the single principle informing everything. Monotheism's a perception of the big/bigger/biggest picture, and a simplification. Polytheism offers perceptions of archetypes, and offers finer tuning - in practical terms, it's in no way inferior to monotheism. Both offer access to the divine, the next realm, and either is preferable to neither.

[sparhawk]

Well, I have to agree with you and I've never had any philosophical problems with my beliefs, but, the reality is that the majority of those, raised in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim tradition, are usually quite narrow-minded and sneeze at any mention of more than one God, or, more precisely, to the possibility of the existence of multiple entities with God-like powers. Mention should be given about some facts and similarities, even though the comparisons end in short order, to stave off some of the upcoming dogmatic criticism. You know how that goes... :D

I believe you and Lindsay have a clear notion of that and are respectful, open minded and curious about other religions. Not so sure about others unless they express themselves.

[heylise]

Going back to an old post:

Yoruba tradition is not that far away. A very good friend was healed by a doctor who had made a study of the pancreas. She had more and more trouble digesting food, and finally there was hardly anything she could eat anymore. Lost her energy which was always very big.

It was a personal enthusiasm of that doctor, it did not just come from his study, he found new insights, and not everyone agreed with him.
She paid him, but felt that that was not enough. She had to give something from her own personal life, otherwise she would not be free anymore. So it was out of appreciation, but a big part was saving her own sense of being free.

So ‘knowing’ how it works with sacrifices is part of the mind, and not only of a specific tradition.

LiSe

[trojan]

I was trying to imagine what it would be like to be a polytheist, a believer in many gods, all involved in daily life. The only living examples I could think of were African religions. I really think they are closer to the old world of the Yi than any of us died-in-the-wool monotheists can imagine. Lindsay

Hindus believe in a multitude of gods don't they

[sparhawk]

So ‘knowing’ how it works with sacrifices is part of the mind, and not only of a specific tradition.

LiSe

Certainly not. I agree with you. As I said when I first mentioned it, I brought up the Yoruba traditions as a comparison of what it may have meant to make "offerings and sacrifices" within a religious system and said traditions are as alive today as they were 3000 years ago. It is what I'm most familiar with. Bringing it back to the Chinese sphere, you could find examples just by walking into any Daoist temple, either in China or Chinatown. And we haven't even mentioned the Hindus...

[sparhawk]

So much for the Hindus... :D I was typing my above message when Trojan posted hers... :rofl:

[lindsay]

Taking issue with Dobro on this one, I think there is a difference in mindset between monotheists and polytheists. I'm a doubter by creed, but a monotheist by default, having grown up in a thoroughly monotheist culture. I know there are pagans about, but the old pagan traditions of Europe and the Mediterranean litoral seem pretty dead to me. Nothing that would suggest a living culture of polytheism.

Hinduism - I wonder. Is it really polytheist? Everything comes out of Brahma. Well, I don't know any religious Hindus to ask.

What got me going on this line of thinking was a novel by William Gibson, in which one of main characters grew up in the Santeria tradition in Cuba. For this character, the gods were part of daily life. A slight breeze indicated the presence of one god, a chill down the neck the arrival of another. When the character ran, a god ran with him and gave him speed. When the character met other other people, he looked for the god in their eyes. People sometimes spoke with the voice of a god, unaware of what they were saying. Sometimes, as he walked down the streets, he could actually see a god following him on the fringes of his field of vision. Gods guided him in dreams, both in sleep and awake. They gave him insights and information. Visions. Etc.

This is fiction, and I don't know how true it is to life. But having a vivid and concrete experience of the sacred and being in the presence of individual gods in daily life is something foreign to my experience. These gods are wilfull and work according to their own personalities and agendas. You hope one or more will help you, and you fear that one or more will block or work against you. You can't take anything for granted. It's like trying to deal with a powerful committee. Like facing a group job interview. You are trying to keep everybody happy, but under certain circumstances, you need the help of a specific god. You may not even know which one.

Some people say the saints serve a similar function in the Catholic tradition.

Anyway, I believe the ancient Chinese came out of a polytheist frame of reference. There isn't much of this still left in the Yi, but divination itself is more at home in this kind of spiritual world than in the Axial Age monotheisms. Yahweh was not available for personal consultations.

Lindsay

[lindsay]

Lise, I love your sense of personal freedom. I see it in much you have written, both here and on your website. Now, here it is again in your story about "giving back" to be free. I once read a book on "gifts", a big theory book, and it talked about how gifts create this sense of obligation between the receiver and the giver. The odd thing about gifts is that it is considered bad form to refuse them or question them in any way. So if you want to enslave someone, give them a gift - even though gifts are supposed to be "free".

Lindsay

[sparhawk]

What got me going on this line of thinking was a novel by William Gibson, in which one of main characters grew up in the Santeria tradition in Cuba. For this character, the gods were part of daily life. A slight breeze indicated the presence of one god, a chill down the neck the arrival of another. When the character ran, a god ran with him and gave him speed. When the character met other other people, he looked for the god in their eyes. People sometimes spoke with the voice of a god, unaware of what they were saying. Sometimes, as he walked down the streets, he could actually see a god following him on the fringes of his field of vision. Gods guided him in dreams, both in sleep and awake. They gave him insights and information. Visions. Etc.
Lindsay


OMG! I didn't know you liked William Gibson... Yes, his last novel, Spook Country (http://www.amazon.com/Spook-Country-William-Gibson/dp/0425221415/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206734571&sr=8-1), deals with an emigrated Cuban/Chinese character that believes in Santeria. I had several chuckles while reading it and was continuously elbowing my wife about it (she's much more involved than I am). I must say that Gibson did a superb homework, both in the religious background and in grasping what and how it can be for somebody really involved in any of the Yoruba traditions. It is a continuous dialogue with the Orishas.

[lindsay]

Yes, "Spook Country" is indeed the book I read. It sent me scurrying to learn more about Santeria. Fascinating.

[Has anyone marveled lately at your amazing range of knowledge, Luis? You are an international force to be reckoned with. You amaze me constantly.]

Lindsay

[fkegan]

Hi Lindsay,

BTW, did you find anything interesting in my sequence interpretation of your friend's oracle. Seemed to indicate a lot of change was needed, but not bad change, just letting go of rigidity.

I wonder why you feel it is difficult for monotheists in your phrase to have a direct sense of the Divine all the time. All sorts of folks feel that way. Jesus, Mary and as you put it "Yahweh was not available for personal consultations" though of course he is as is every other representation of the Divine.

There was an argument in 5th century Athens that the gods were actually just personifications of natural events. I know many religious types who feel God in the wind and sky and every action that they take. I was part of the Survival Walk which led up to the first Earth Day, sleeping under the various phases of the Moon.It took as less than 2 days walking old hwy 99 through the Central Valley, to shed all that modern technology, monotheism distance and experience the magic of finding whatever one thought one needed out on the side of the road for us, and finding all that intimate involvement with the the Divine.

Most indigenous religions have a Supreme Deity as well as numerous minor deities, and spirits, ancestors watching over, etc. That isn't the big difference with Judeo-Christian religions--the big difference is that most ancient religions, having many local gods are tolerant of other peoples' gods while our monotheism is based on the notion that the one god is the only god--Constantine was only partially literate and read Deus Solus--only God by its other meaning in Latin, Sun God and so set Dec 25th, the victory of light and thus birthday of the Sun god, as Christ's birthday.

I took a course in economic anthropology back in the day, and we covered a range of gift based economies. The economic gift establishes relationship. The reciprocal gift is an exchange where any sense of one gift not being equal to the other is dealt with in the next gift exchange.

The gift that makes one free is a different thing since it is between puny mortal and the Divine. In the natural world it is obvious that everything is a bountiful gift from Father Sun above and Mother Earth sustaining us. We have nothing that big to give in exchange (except for centuries of greenhouse gases that are being rejected as sacrilege). However, like hex 41, humans may use what gifts they have to offer (if it is done with the right state of heart) and thus become free of the sense of debt and ingratitude. All is happening in your own heart...you feel free in relation to your sense of awe at the Divine, be that minor spirit, major god or monotheist Deity.

Perhaps a better way to phrase your issue, is not between mono and polytheist or even non-believer and Divine aware-- but just those who experience the Divine magic and those who only experience the written record of that. Back in the day I was interested in doing a D.Phil at Oxford on that, but it turned out the senior faculty setting up the program was only interested in statistical studies of written reports of religious experience.

However, getting there is a matter of putting one foot in front of another and not stopping, whatever goal you seek.

Frank

[sparhawk]

[Has anyone marveled lately at your amazing range of knowledge, Luis? You are an international force to be reckoned with. You amaze me constantly.]

Lindsay

:blush::blush::blush:

Thank you, Lindsay.

[heylise]

"Has anyone marveled lately at your amazing range of knowledge, Luis? "
I did!

The character Yi, name of our unending source of discussions, insights, disagreements and whatever, is the name of an ancient sacrifice, to implore the gods to change the weather. Usually the reason I consult it is indeed searching for ways to change the weather. Or to find out what kind of weather I have to deal with.

It seems many hexagrams also are names of sacrifices, but I could not find out for what.

LiSe

[fkegan]

"Has anyone marveled lately at your amazing range of knowledge, Luis? "
I did!

The character Yi, name of our unending source of discussions, insights, disagreements and whatever, is the name of an ancient sacrifice, to implore the gods to change the weather. Usually the reason I consult it is indeed searching for ways to change the weather. Or to find out what kind of weather I have to deal with.

It seems many hexagrams also are names of sacrifices, but I could not find out for what.

LiSe

Me, too. And he tends his dragon well (Though he has yet to add a BBQ sacrifice offering to his dragon fire).


Also, "weather" in Spanish is el tiempo--same as time, (and major newspapers are called Los Tiempos) so in Spanish it is easy to think of these things united into a single concept-- which is a great help to me, as I spent a winter in Argentina one high school summer vacation (and came back with my mental registers readjusted to in a number of dimensions. That readjustment eventually led my empirical science explorations to the Yi oracle).

so--LiSe- your casting the Oracle to keep up with the "weather" and "the news" is more generally keeping up with the total reality of the time, or as it is said in the less intuitive English--"timing" (which is determined by the entire swirling of the Planet Earth-Solar System from the Big Bang through astrology to the Yi).

Unfortunately, astrophysics is still a few centuries behind on that, but they still haven't caught on the even Sir Issac Newton knew his Law of Gravity was just a stop gap, its implications being pure magical thinking. But that is their problem. And they have no idea about timing or the Yi.

By the Bye...what happened to your Sabian Symbols page? It is still on your site map but not online?

The Yi is always known as Chang