Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Think of it as our copy of the 'How to Be a Human' book.
The I Ching does not say that we must follow our Fate, but rather that Fate is a changing line that can be shaped by our minds. This means we can have mastery over our fates, if we but only knew how to do so. I think this is not outside of our grasp.
Does anyone have any thoughts about this?
We can see this in physics, where matter is either a wave or a particle, depending on whether we focus our eyes on it or not. This means that it does not exist in this world unless WE allow it to exist
I have always lived with the idea that it is ALWAYS good to tempt fate . . .
Nearly everyone knows how to be human well enough; it's the being part that is rare. The guide to be a human, being.
I believe through resistance and adversity, and learning that though many things in life you have no control over, the one you can learn control of is this moody, spoiled, controlling thing called self. It's every day or moment anew, not once and for all.
Also, words need not have been pre-scripted and/or published to carry truth. The wind carries it and penetrates without having read it somewhere first. Water flows with no knowledge at all, nor a form; and it is a great deal more Daoist than anything Wilhelm ever wrote. He could only write about it, and through tinted glasses at that.
oh dear, thank you but I'm going thru a very busy period in my life and that's why you don't see me that often here . . Perhaps I'll take 'homework' suggestions another time . .
I was just reading somewhere that throughout our lives we try to master our character, or we try to reach enlightenment and master understanding (the list goes on), knowing quite well that as humans we will never reach that completely. But we still must try our best as if we can master it.
My internet surfing is very rapid, wish I should find the site..
I am sure it is different for everyone, how we envision life working and the patterns and reasons to what we see. And as time goes by we applying (or subtract!) the way we see life as working, changing it to what is needed at that time. I am reading Bradford's 'Dimensions' more thoroughly right now and it is bringing up that there are so many ways to look at the Yi - different sequences and patterns - different depths - and that the Yi is all of those patterns - plus more! Life is like that too! Very multi-dimensional and unable to be pinned down.
My thoughts are that there are a lot of things that hatch our awareness and our realities. Our human brains are one of them. I am beginning to see our attitudes shape a lot when projected outward. But nature is much bigger than myself and bigger than just humans. There is the multiverse and beyond (and a lot of in betweens).
I have heard this too, and I find it interesting. Now here is something to think about.. whatever the particle is... it seems to already exist, just in the form of nothingness, waiting for something to look at it. As if we activate it with our consciousness... like yin does with yang... just a thought, nothing set in stone here!
Taobabe-
命 mìng, the word often translated fate in the Yijing, has several possible translations, and personal meanings that depend on one's character (character is destiny).
Sometimes it is the decree of heaven (tian ming). Dis-aster is a western idea and word derived from "against the stars." The word con-sider meant to consult the stars.
Sometimes it's the command or decree of the king and one's body-head connection is to be preserved.
Elsewhere, though, the fatedness of things depends on whether you have the character to make enlightened choices. In these cases I've used the translation "higher purpose" to allow for the destiny realized by stronger characters. It's still serving something greater than oneself and at least somewhat beyond our control.
When you are following the Dao, you might bear in mind that this means path, something you are in the middle of, and something which has an implied direction and destination. One following a path is not being a pioneer. One is being a tourist. When it comes to obeying natural law, that is probably a good thing. Not all ways are open or possible.
Fate is what you cannot escape, and you cannot escape it because you are unaware of it. There is no mastery over fate, only an accommodation to it. Please read Oedipus Rex. If you think you can tempt fate and escape, you live in a different world from me. That the mind is able to transcend fate is a modern illusion. We aren't so prescient. You are an individual because of your body, not because of your transcient mind.
Hi Meng,
Thanks for responding to my thoughts. Please allow me to respond to your ideas, point for point.
hu·man
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty.
2. consisting of people: the human race.
human being
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.
The difference between the words 'human' and 'human being' is that one is used as an adjective and the other is used as a noun, respectively. Everyone who has a human genome will become a human being. Not everyone who is a human being knows the ways of being human. Hence, my statement stands as written.
I see no relevance [of Oedipus Rex] to . . . this discussion.
[Oedipus] did not have the I Ching in his hands, and he did not use divination to maneuver through the tricky parts.
Thanks for the remedial grammar lesson, but my comment was intended to accentuate the word being, as in being more fully conscious and present, awakened. That, in response, not in contradiction to your comments about the Yi teaching us how to be human. A bit of levity is all.
Let your statement stand, of course, it is your statement. My statement stands as well.
My first Wilhelm was purchased around '67. The thought never occurred to me that he authored the IC. He, nor Bradford, LiSe, Hilary, or their other predecessors and contemporaries either. Unraveling objectively has got to be a Herculean task
I think trying to keep a conversation open and clear is particularly difficult when there aren't carefully specified topics. To me, Tao and Yijing are not synonymous, nor is fate. There are really three subjects here. Add a world like 'Spiritual' in there, and by now our petri dishes have spilled and intermingled, soiling the prince's pleasure in the process.
I am in complete agreement with your view of simplicity, especially related to the Tao. However, I've noticed that the way has bumped me off the way, to make sure that I don't fall asleep at the wheel, and luckily I haven't yet run up a tree. But, 4-wheelin' in places where you're on your own, that's just part of living, and living takes precedent in nature, and nature is the best illustration of Tao I know; which of course I don't really know anything. I'm just surfing the Tao.
Taobabe-
You seem to be confusing and conflating Yixue with Daojia and this is harming your understanding of both.
This discussion brings to mind a somewhat esoteric (at least for me) saying the Analects: Analects 15.29: "People are able to broaden dao, it is not dao that broadens people." (15.29 子曰:“人能弘道,非道弘人。”)
I agree with Bradford that there seems to be a conflation here of the Yi and Daoism. The Zhou Yi's roots trace back to a time before the 'Axial Time' of Kongzi, Laozi and the rest, but the Yi Jing, the book as it has come down to us today, is a distinctly Confucian work. The commentaries, particularly the Da Zhuan, contain elements of Confucianism and some elements of the Yin-Yang school, but very little that can be construed as Daoist. The first major work that really makes 'major waves' in Yixue from a Daoist perspective was from Wang Bi, the wunderkind of the Jin Dynasty, several hundred years after the Yi Jing's text was set and at least a thousand years after the Zhou Yi texts were probably penned.
I realize that the historical particulars and attributions of the various layers of the Yi's text are not significant to a lot of people. For most, the Yi is a source of guidance in life. And for that it serves splendidly, no matter what your philosophical orientation. But I like to get the attributions right, and to observe the niceties of ritual, which comes from the specifics of my own philosophical school, that of Yi Dao, a form of Confucian realism.
To summarize what I think of the key points:
Tempt fate? Nope. Unfilial. We live in a web of relations and if we are foolish we hurt other people.
Seek perfection through self cultivation? Absolutely. Xunzi maintained that everyone is a potential Yao or Shun. I'm just a potential Schmo, because self-cultivation is very hard work.
Attain perfection? Not in this reality as far as I can tell. Even the most perfect crystal has microspopic imperfections. If not for that, the world would freeze up. There must always be a dynamic, a temporary predominance of the Yin or the Yang, in order for the universe to maintain its inertia.
Oedipus Rex is a play about the hubris of believing that one can transcend fate.
He had Delphi and Tiresias but believed he was superior to them.
Bradford,
Please explain more fully, your thoughts about my confusion. I don't have enough feedback from you to understand your statement, nor discuss my alleged 'lack of understanding' and the harm I am causing to myself. I look forward to your thoughts.
The idea of the Dao has been evolving for 30 centuries. The Zhouyi was a very early use of the term. Laozi and Kongzi developed it quite a bit further. The Dao in your understanding seems to be the most current, most evolved form. Unfortunately this represents an evolution into useless new age drivel. You have them all jumbled together. Your understanding is further hampered by retroactive insertion of Yinyang philosophy into the earliest layers of the Zhouyi text, where none of this existed in the culture that wrote it, compounded with beliefs in old myths like Fuxi's involvement. Neither is there any evidence in the Daodejing or elsewhere that Laozi was familiar with the Yi.
If you are going to pose as a teacher it would be better if you either got your material straight or found a more ignorant forum to preach to.
Pot shots are what I would expect from lesser forums, not from one that is exploring the ideas of Taoism and the I Ching. If you find any of my posts offensive, you do not need to respond, much less revert to insults that little children use when they cannot think of anything better to say. I was so looking forward to an interesting discussion with you, in hopes to explore ideas and new understandings, but it seems as if I will have to ignore any of your childish posts from now on. Please refrain from responding to any of my posts in the future and, likewise, I will steer clear of yours.
You are a fool.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).