Is Divination Indecisiveness or Intent ? (was Real Psychic Readings...)

[arabella]

Well, of course, the oracle doesn't exist in a vacuum of us and even if it were a monolith found on the moon, it begins its meaningful existence, in our consciousness, the moment we lay our eyes on it. When I speak of historical resilience I refer to how we have carried its presence for millennia and we find it as actual today as it was 3,000 years ago.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, the second part of your paragraph seems to put the carriage before the horse. I mean, are you treating the oracle as a pre-existing "monolith" we are trying to make sense of (or subjugated and trained by it) or is it a "monolith" of our creation? I believe it is our creation but, as we still scratch our heads regarding how ancient civilizations built pyramids and cut and moved giant chunks of rock to great highs, we seem to have lost the mechanics behind its inception. What we have today are later "rationalizations" of those mechanics that don't seem to go back in time further than the Warring States period, when the oracle already had, at least, a multi-centenarian existence. I, we, are just piling our own thoughts upon that exegesis.

Now, I don't believe, for a moment, that it is a hopeless pursuit. I believe that, the same way it is our own creation, we can fit the tool to the task at hand. I am not negating or taking away any of the uses currently applied to it. Why would I when I am part of the same crowd? If anything, I'm adding, or perhaps making others aware of them, some more uses.

Yes, Luis, what you are suggesting shouldn't be a threat to how anybody wants to use the IChing now. Having said that I believe the implications for how the IChing was intended to be used are huge. And I've been contemplating what you've said here as a comparison about building something like the Stonehenge or the pyramids and what a feat we would find it with only primitive tools. This is an excellent comparison I would say to going back now and considering the origins of the Yi and wondering whether we have the saavy or the mental power to understand or achieve was the Yi most likely was intended to do. Hmmm. Do we?

I'm thinking also now of some of the information I learned from the Hopi people some years back when they spoke of the origin of indigenous peoples who first inhabited the earth in this dispensation we know, from say 25,000 years ago, maybe a bit less. What they explained were legends of their forefathers about how people came to the earth in the first place. Their explanation was that people once had the ability, by dint of their spiritual purity, to come and go from physical form as they WILLED -- and that is the word you used as well, Luis. When they became so attracted to the material aspect of life, however, they lost the power. This was when the All Powerful stepped in and, [as it says in the Bible too], declared that from that time of irreversible corruption people would appear, be born, in a different way, and this would involve pain -- not so effortless as it once was just blinking in and out of physicality. And the ability to come and go from physical form at will was retracted. Then physical births and deaths had to happen. So, on one hand, this is pure legend and just explains the realities of birth and death as we know them. But suppose it were literally true. We can't do it anymore, however, it's interesting to think this ability may have existed. And it's tempting to wonder how it worked and whether it could be revived. Just as it is enticing to try to understand what the Yi meant to people of ancient times who must have had different spiritual abilities and concepts than we do. Can we revive that ability? If divination was contacting the Divine through our own Will and choosing our future, then that is far more efficient than what most of us have been doing, no doubt. So, how does it work in an enquiry? Is there a ready example or a hypothetical one?

 

[Sparhawk]

The monolith is a grand idea to me. Yet it only exists as an idea, for which I have no proof. So much for solid ground, huh? .... It is faith which I credit for believing in an ultimate truth, which would desire to propagate and strengthen in people. I regard Faith and Folly as close cousins, but ones whom I have a personal and loving relationship with.

Mind you, I don't have much to say against the monolith idea, other than, like our common belief in God, it appears to be based on faulty logic. I still believe in, and pray to, a Supreme Being, but, if I reason the base for the belief, I end up grabbing air with cupped hands: the air is still there, of course, but there's no "apparent" interaction between vessel and content.

But am I off the subject now? I was following with interest your points of view. What stood out to me is the idea of divining to effectuate will. Then arose the question: whose will?

Great question. If we compare some of the most popular religions, it appears that Judeo-Christians are pretty much on their own in believing that Man has "Free Will" in their relationship with God and their human affairs. Buddhists appear to have taken the Almighty out of the equation and posted an "example" to follow in the hope of breaking the Death/Rebirth cycle. So, free will seems to rule there also and but are pretty much on our own. Daoists appear to be the first to have brought some "scientific thought" to that relationship, giving their flock some tools to tweak their live's environment but, even so, paradoxically, they have a whole pantheon of deities to worship, if they choose to. Alas, much as in West African traditions, those deities reside in a parallel "out there" with such capricious lives they have nothing to envy the good ol' Greek Pantheon. Curiously, there's a lot of "asking for permission" but, I suppose that if they wait for a nod from the parallel realm, paralysis would ensue. So..., whose "will" is it in the end that carries our lives forward, for better or for worse? (Unless we peg the puppeteer upstairs with a sick sense of humor, that is... )

That's why I think that, given some of what was intuited by the ancients and some of what modern science is uncovering, we can start a more tangible "poking" of our own into that parallel realm. Total heresy, if we stick to religious tradition, but why does it have to be a one-way street where the parallel realm can poke ours but we cannot poke it back? Actually, I think that we are, indadvertedly, poking that unseen place all the time and it is our own ignorance, not knowing how to step on the tiger's tail, that get us in trouble more often than not.

 

[Sparhawk]

Their explanation was that people once had the ability, by dint of their spiritual purity, to come and go from physical form as they WILLED -- and that is the word you used as well, Luis.
.
.
.
Just as it is enticing to try to understand what the Yi meant to people of ancient times who must have had different spiritual abilities and concepts than we do. Can we revive that ability? If divination was contacting the Divine through our own Will and choosing our future, then that is far more efficient than what most of us have been doing, no doubt. So, how does it work in an enquiry? Is there a ready example or a hypothetical one?

Quite a mundane affair in their consultation but I think I found a great example of what I'm trying to share that comes from the Jin Yu chapter of the Guo Yu, something that, BTW, shows that different divination manuals (texts), including the Zhouyi, were used in antiquity. Italics in the original; bold face highlights are my own:

The divination was performed by Chong'er prior to his becoming sire (gong) of Jin.

The son of the sire personally divined it, saying: "Would that I possess the state of Jin". He obtained the primary hexagram (zhen) Zhun and the secondary hexagram (hui) Yu, both of which were "eights". The milfoil diviners and scribes prognosticated it, all saying: "It is not auspicious: it is closed and not penetrating, and the lines do not act". Sikong Jizi said: "It is auspicious. In the Zhou Yi both of these are 'Beneficial to establish a lord.' If one were not to possess the state of Jin to support the royal house, then how could one 'establish a lord.' We commanded the milfoil saying: "Would that I possess the state of Jin," and the milfoil has announced to us, saying 'Beneficial to establish a lord' -- gaining the power of the state. What could be more auspicious than this!"​

Perhaps I'm pulling the whole issue by the hair but I'm not making the whole thing up...

 

[sooo]

So then, heretic pokers who asked a lot of questions probably wrote the texts to the Yi?

There is that sense of entity, or perhaps entities, at work when interacting with the IC, which is equally true with other medium forms as well. But the soul, if you will, of the IC has a distinguishing thoroughness, a start to finish-ness, which I've not found elsewhere. All the more reason to question and wonder at it's true origin, and question if it wasn't by reason of reasoning alone.

 

[Sparhawk]

So then, heretic pokers who asked a lot of questions probably wrote the texts to the Yi?

For all I know, yes, indeed...

There is that sense of entity, or perhaps entities, at work when interacting with the IC, which is equally true with other medium forms as well. But the soul, if you will, of the IC has a distinguishing thoroughness, a start to finish-ness, which I've not found elsewhere. All the more reason to question and wonder at it's true origin, and question if it wasn't by reason of reasoning alone.

Ah yes, entity. No disagreement there at all. But for me is more holistic, sort of a Gaia inclusive of our own will. OTOH, sometimes I just think though that perhaps we are dealing with a djinni...

 

[pocossin]

A Proposed Definition of a Real Psychic

A real psychic perceives the psyche of the querent and on that basis responds to the query.

 

[Sparhawk]

Why not?

Alas, the thread degenerated (an appropriate word... ) in something completely different from what was presented in that link...

 

[arabella]

Quite a mundane affair in their consultation but I think I found a great example of what I'm trying to share that comes from the Jin Yu chapter of the Guo Yu, something that, BTW, shows that different divination manuals (texts), including the Zhouyi, were used in antiquity. Italics in the original; bold face highlights are my own:

The divination was performed by Chong'er prior to his becoming sire (gong) of Jin.

The son of the sire personally divined it, saying: "Would that I possess the state of Jin". He obtained the primary hexagram (zhen) Zhun and the secondary hexagram (hui) Yu, both of which were "eights". The milfoil diviners and scribes prognosticated it, all saying: "It is not auspicious: it is closed and not penetrating, and the lines do not act". Sikong Jizi said: "It is auspicious. In the Zhou Yi both of these are 'Beneficial to establish a lord.' If one were not to possess the state of Jin to support the royal house, then how could one 'establish a lord.' We commanded the milfoil saying: "Would that I possess the state of Jin," and the milfoil has announced to us, saying 'Beneficial to establish a lord' -- gaining the power of the state. What could be more auspicious than this!"​

Perhaps I'm pulling the whole issue by the hair but I'm not making the whole thing up...

So, the question that the son of the sire asked was basically a foregone conclusion: he would possess the state of Jin; however, something about having the diviners agree with him was essential to that coming to pass. In which case, the casting was a matter of will and a demand, not an enquiry. Was it that simple?

And I'm thinking, if it was, this sounds great and I'm running out to buy some yarrow stalks, find a few diviners to agree with me and get busy. And then I think: what if i COULD demand whatever I want to BE as I insist? Do I have that kind of Hex 8 wisdom, constancy, sublimity, insight to know what should and shouldn't come to pass? More butterly wings here and I could with my WILL be turning innumerable lives to dust with my desires. It's a double-edged sword if you have any ethics at all and knew how the Yi functions in such a dimension. What if my will obliterates yours and yours was more worthwhile/valid? I'm quickly to a place where FAITH is more secure than WILL, aren't I?

And that's assuming, of course, that I could make it work. I've never had the experience, that I know of, of casting a reading which created a particular outcome simply because I was convinced it SHOULD happen. And it's not like I recognise castings when I get them as "oh yes, that's just what I had in mind." So I'm not creating the castings of my dreams or something. And I can get pretty pig-headed about wanting what I want too. So there is more to it than just wanting what you want. There's some intermediate step or intermediary -- like the milfoil readers? And, what was their role, what were they doing to be so influential in other lives? What is missing in my version of casting -- focused will? the knowledge that I can will something to be?

 

[sooo]

So, the question that the son of the sire asked was basically a foregone conclusion: he would possess the state of Jin; however, something about having the diviners agree with him was essential to that coming to pass. In which case, the casting was a matter of will and a demand, not an enquiry. Was it that simple?

And I'm thinking, if it was, this sounds great and I'm running out to buy some yarrow stalks, find a few diviners to agree with me and get busy. And then I think: what if i COULD demand whatever I want to BE as I insist? Do I have that kind of Hex 8 wisdom, constancy, sublimity, insight to know what should and shouldn't come to pass? More butterly wings here and I could with my WILL be turning innumerable lives to dust with my desires. It's a double-edged sword if you have any ethics at all and knew how the Yi functions in such a dimension. What if my will obliterates yours and yours was more worthwhile/valid? I'm quickly to a place where FAITH is more secure than WILL, aren't I?

And that's assuming, of course, that I could make it work. I've never had the experience, that I know of, of casting a reading which created a particular outcome simply because I was convinced it SHOULD happen. And it's not like I recognise castings when I get them as "oh yes, that's just what I had in mind." So I'm not creating the castings of my dreams or something. And I can get pretty pig-headed about wanting what I want too. So there is more to it than just wanting what you want. There's some intermediate step or intermediary -- like the milfoil readers? And, what was their role, what were they doing to be so influential in other lives? What is missing in my version of casting -- focused will? the knowledge that I can will something to be?

These are the same questions, or walls I come up against when divining to accomplish my will. Not that it doesn't sometimes work that way, thankfully, but more often than not, I'm nudged off of the rails I've been running on, and redirected along a different train of thinking and being. Sometimes the adjustments are only small, and sometimes it's a complete 180.

That's why I ask whose will? I realize it's a rhetorical question, which may never be satisfied. There's the whole higher self, observer, collective unconscious, etc that can get thrown into this pile, and they'd all point to something other than my (singular identity) will, unless my singular will just happened to be in sync with the rest of, or at least seeing a bigger view of the picture.

Comes back to the questions of ethics and intent, and what roles they play.

It's the same in human life; there's in man likewise a fate that lends power to his life. And if he succeeds in assigning the right place to life and to fate, thus bringing the two into harmony, he puts his fate on a firm footing. Wilhelm 50

 

[arabella]

These are the same questions, or walls I come up against when divining to accomplish my will. Not that it doesn't sometimes work that way, thankfully, but more often than not, I'm nudged off of the rails I've been running on, and redirected along a different train of thinking and being. Sometimes the adjustments are only small, and sometimes it's a complete 180.

That's why I ask whose will? I realize it's a rhetorical question, which may never be satisfied. There's the whole higher self, observer, collective unconscious, etc that can get thrown into this pile, and they'd all point to something other than my (singular identity) will, unless my singular will just happened to be in sync with the rest of, or at least seeing a bigger view of the picture.

Right. I'm with you here. And in the majority of cases then, aren't we combining our will and our faith, but saying, "I REALLY want to see it this way" [and believe me I'm not dispassionate most of the time -- I'm hoping like mad for the answer I want.] But then there's the codicile/subtext tacked on in an appeal to the higher powers that Be -- "and I'd like it the way I want it, unless there's a danger to that I don't see, in which case, protect me please by doing something else that's better than what I see."

I have the feeling with the Son of the Sire, he had no codicile, no subtext, no concerns for who else might be affected. He said, "I'm having it." and that was that. No doubts, no questions, supreme ruler style. This guy is just one huge butterfly, no second thoughts in his head. Maybe that's missing from what most of us cast.

 

[pocossin]

Alas, the thread degenerated (an appropriate word... ) in something completely different from what was presented in that link...

That's OK. I'm slow, but once I touch the monolith I'll evolve rapidly

 

[Sparhawk]

So, the question that the son of the sire asked was basically a foregone conclusion: he would possess the state of Jin; however, something about having the diviners agree with him was essential to that coming to pass. In which case, the casting was a matter of will and a demand, not an enquiry. Was it that simple?

Hmm, as I've mentioned, the question was quite mundane albeit full of grand stately concerns. I interpret "Would that I" as telling the oracle/millfoil to find a way to make it work. It seemed more like casting a spell than a "question." With confirmation from the oracle, they indeed proceeded to campaign and conquest the state of Jin. I don't think there's anything simple in launching a war. Notice also that the disagreement between the diviners pertains to interpretations of texts from different divination manuals. They must have had a deep respect for the Zhou Yi.

It's a double-edged sword if you have any ethics at all and knew how the Yi functions in such a dimension. What if my will obliterates yours and yours was more worthwhile/valid? I'm quickly to a place where FAITH is more secure than WILL, aren't I?

Exactly!!

And that's assuming, of course, that I could make it work. I've never had the experience, that I know of, of casting a reading which created a particular outcome simply because I was convinced it SHOULD happen.

I wonder if anybody has such an ability nowadays, at least not consciously or in a directed way. My point in bringing this up is that, for all we know, we may be, unconsciously, effecting changes on the subject with each consultation. Of course, we do effect change in ourselves, to begin with, but we may be also affecting the subject at a distance in ways that not always are favorable to us, or to the subject for that matter. I think the mere possibility of this deserves some thought.

What is missing in my version of casting -- focused will? the knowledge that I can will something to be?

A willingness to play with fire?

 

[Sparhawk]

I have the feeling with the Son of the Sire, he had no codicile, no subtext, no concerns for who else might be affected. He said, "I'm having it." and that was that. No doubts, no questions, supreme ruler style. This guy is just one huge butterfly, no second thoughts in his head. Maybe that's missing from what most of us cast.

None whatsoever. The consultation was just one of the means to an end in his mind's projection.

 

[Sparhawk]

That's why I ask whose will? I realize it's a rhetorical question, which may never be satisfied. There's the whole higher self, observer, collective unconscious, etc that can get thrown into this pile, and they'd all point to something other than my (singular identity) will, unless my singular will just happened to be in sync with the rest of, or at least seeing a bigger view of the picture.

Comes back to the questions of ethics and intent, and what roles they play.

Let's use you "flea" example. Just perhaps, granting there's a Grand Universal Scheme, with a Great Overseer, we are the insidious fleas on that body that, with our casual biting and feeding, are producing minute shiftings in it.

 

[sooo]

That's OK. I'm slow, but once I touch the monolith I'll evolve rapidly

Another 2001 ASO fan?

 

[sooo]

Let's use you "flea" example. Just perhaps, granting there's a Grand Universal Scheme, with a Great Overseer, we are the insidious fleas on that body that, with our casual biting and feeding, are producing minute shiftings in it.

Yeah, I think so. One of the things Campbell points to often, in discussing ancient religious practice, is the day to day understanding, acceptance and reverence for the fact that life survives upon other life. Even plants requires organic debris to grow. It does have an insidious side or nature to it (ancient art really plays on this theme a lot), to the human psyche, especially a modernized and sterilized human psyche, who, without thinking, thinks tuna comes from a can. The cow upon the earth doesn't seem insidious to us. Yet, a spider running up on a trapped butterfly seems insidious. But it's all the same rock and roll. It's just happens that this frontal lobe has created a myriad of associations, that seems to exist on its own plane, taking on a life of its own, and also where we become far-removed from natural realty.

 

[pocossin]

Another 2001 ASO fan?

I was impressed by its mythic influence. My cousins talked about it for months, took courses in astronomy, and bought telescopes.

 

[sooo]

I was impressed by its mythic influence. My cousins talked about it for months, took courses in astromony, and bought telescopes.

The greatest symbolic value to me was the connection between the ape/man connection with the monolith, and the tree of knowledge in the Garden - the dawn of (self) awareness.

It was a real thought provoker for many for a long time. I still enjoy watching it from time to time.

 

[arabella]

I wonder if anybody has such an ability nowadays, at least not consciously or in a directed way. My point in bringing this up is that, for all we know, we may be, unconsciously, effecting changes on the subject with each consultation. Of course, we do effect change in ourselves, to begin with, but we may be also affecting the subject at a distance in ways that not always are favorable to us, or to the subject for that matter. I think the mere possibility of this deserves some thought.

A willingness to play with fire?

You know, in our condition these days we are so protected in so many ways. In our own thinking perhaps we "go for broke," but a lot of life is virtual, padded, unreal, by design. And I wonder if our teeth lose their sharpness and our thinking becomes half-way decisions and always couching our terms, hedging our bets. We watch "reality" TV and some have witnessed others committing suicide on a webcam. Youtube has carried all kinds of suicide bomber messages and images that are unbelievable. But who REALLY plays with fire? Who actually makes a true sacrifice or goes all of it to the wall? We call people "primitive" who made irreversible judgments like the son of the sire did; who call a countryside to war for a purpose he alone chooses. I have to hope he did it for some common good, not just another enormous pasture he wanted for his horse. And maybe that's another difference in what the YiChing is intended for: solutions to a more vast issue than I normally come across and wish to hear about. If I were making sure my countrymen could eat, maybe the YiChing would listen more to my intentions and desires. A great take on the Yi Luis, thanks.

 

[Sparhawk]

And maybe that's another difference in what the YiChing is intended for: solutions to a more vast issue than I normally come across and wish to hear about. If I were making sure my countrymen could eat, maybe the YiChing would listen more to my intentions and desires. A great take on the Yi Luis, thanks.

I suppose a great debate would be to figure out the course of events in the development of divination systems. IMO, regarding ancient China, they started at the shamanic level but at some point they were either "appropriated" by the elite or the shamans themselves became kings. In Shang times, only kings and/or those appointed by him as court diviners, could divine and interpret omens. Anyone outside of that circle was punished by death. Oracles of the Zhouyi "kind" and scapulimancy were statecraft tools, exclusively, even if some of the questions recorded in OBI sound downright stupid to us.

With time, it came back down to the pedestrian level, sans the training...

 

[arabella]

Luis, have you ever come across information in your wandering through the Yi and it's beginnings any information on the ancient Chinese use of huge orchestras to control the vibration in the air? I have read that there was a pitch prescribed by the court musicians/seers and orchestras consisting of more than 500 musicians were instructed to play at that pitch. Anybody adopting a different pitch was considered in a state of revolution [Hex 49?] and their leader at the least put to death. This is controlling the butterfly wings, no?

That would also attest to the matter of "will" being so important and outright requiring that all things flow in a single direction, and to a preordained musical score as well.

 

[sooo]

I suppose a great debate would be to figure out the course of events in the development of divination systems.

...they started at the shamanic level but at some point they were either "appropriated" by the elite or the shamans themselves became kings.

It always starts at the shamanic level. It starts from a natural occurrence, interpreted as a sign. Logic peels it apart to make sure it's real, and there's often nothing of matter holding it together, and so it disappears.

This morning's walk introduced us to a mule deer buck and a doe. Were we on their path, or were they on ours? The dirt road's sign clearly said Smokey Tree Road, and I had predetermined that we would take that way. They were feeding on the middle way path in front of the Quan Yin tree. The buck turned, and seeing us, made off through the dense thistles with astounding ease, the buck making the way, the doe following close behind; their heads bobbing as they leaped gracefully together, to take nourishment higher in the hills.

Logic be damned , that was one beautiful omen, my friend.

 

[Sparhawk]

Luis, have you ever come across information in your wandering through the Yi and it's beginnings any information on the ancient Chinese use of huge orchestras to control the vibration in the air? I have read that there was a pitch prescribed by the court musicians/seers and orchestras consisting of more than 500 musicians were instructed to play at that pitch. Anybody adopting a different pitch was considered in a state of revolution [Hex 49?] and their leader at the least put to death. This is controlling the butterfly wings, no?

That would also attest to the matter of "will" being so important and outright requiring that all things flow in a single direction, and to a preordained musical score as well.

Yes, indeed! Oh my..., there's a whole lot of material regarding music and early Chinese cultures. Music had such an importance that they had "specialists" in casting precise pitch bronze bells, cutting jade chimes, etc., that if they were off, in any way, they could be executed. Because they had a sacrificial nature, bad musical performances would result in really bad omens or downright disasters for the kingdoms.

In any case, I have a number of articles regarding musical history in China. There's one article, not historically focused, that perhaps you'd like to read. Is by Michael Winn: "Magic Numbers, Planetary Tones and the Body: The Evolution of Daoist Inner Alchemy into Modern Sacred Science"

 

[Sparhawk]

This morning's walk introduced us to a mule deer buck and a doe. Were we on their path, or were they on ours? The dirt road's sign clearly said Smokey Tree Road, and I had predetermined that we would take that way. They were feeding on the middle way path in front of the Quan Yin tree. The buck turned, and seeing us, made off through the dense thistles with astounding ease, the buck making the way, the doe following close behind; their heads bobbing as they leaped gracefully together, to take nourishment higher in the hills.

Beautiful image!

BTW, I see that Mojo has taken over the discourse. I'm sure he can beat anyone's logic here. :bows:

 

[sooo]

BTW, I see that Mojo has taken over the discourse. I'm sure he can beat anyone's logic here. :bows:

Yeah, I sit in for the curmudgeon once in awhile, give y'all a break from his yadda yadda.

 

[bamboo]

It always starts at the shamanic level. It starts from a natural occurrence, interpreted as a sign. Logic peels it apart to make sure it's real, and there's often nothing of matter holding it together, and so it disappears.

This morning's walk introduced us to a mule deer buck and a doe. Were we on their path, or were they on ours? The dirt road's sign clearly said Smokey Tree Road, and I had predetermined that we would take that way. They were feeding on the middle way path in front of the Quan Yin tree. The buck turned, and seeing us, made off through the dense thistles with astounding ease, the buck making the way, the doe following close behind; their heads bobbing as they leaped gracefully together, to take nourishment higher in the hills.

Logic be damned , that was one beautiful omen, my friend.

Have to admit that this thread lost me somewhere a long the way. so maybe what I say has no significance to it. but bruce's post above was similar to the discussion we had with Ravi at the Festival of Change. It was about 'tracking' and Ravi mostly focuses on animal encounters. But using the yi is a form of tracking too, a way that we touch into Intention mirrored by an oracle. Ravi said that nothing happens to you, it happens for you. It is the mirror of intentions set forth, even though we meet it in mysterious ways, and in pondering the meaning of the mystery, we come to more clarity. and there is no separation of wills, said Deepak Chopra, we are both the intender, the receiver and we are also the medium through which intention takes form, though we don't recognize that. we ask heartfelt questions about heartfelt answers and the response comes, revealing perhaps Larger Intention, but it is nevertheless our intention. the omens point to our local(individual) position/focus in a non-local intention.

so i guess, in my very feeble way, that Luis advises caution with using Yi because, in the act, we are localising an intention( in form of question) , and that very decidedly changes things. energy moves and creates as a result of our making a focus.

 

[peter2610]

so i guess, in my very feeble way, that Luis advises caution with using Yi because, in the act, we are localising an intention( in form of question) , and that very decidedly changes things. energy moves and creates as a result of our making a focus.

Surely, the purpose of the I Ching is to guide our thoughts and intentions. Isn't that what it's all about? Yes, our focused thoughts carry energy, and if they are sustained they gather increasing force to the point where they become established and fixed in our mind-set and/or lead to external expression/action that then triggers a causal sequence. Taking a reading "collapses" a potential thought-action sequence into an objective representation, thus giving us the opportunity to capture an intention at its point of "incipience" and thereby consider the consequences of our direction.

At the initial stage our focussed thoughts are waves of potential. They carry no causal consequences in themselves, initially, provided they are not transformed into direct action or repeatedly sustained. They are not empowered, amplified or transformed by the I Ching, per se, into an irreversible karmic process. It is our interpretation of a reading that carries causal consequences, and in that sense I agree entirely with the view that The I Ching is not something to be played around with. The greater our preparedness to base our life-direction on our interpretations, the more serious the process becomes, and if one is prepared to base one's decisions regarding health, career, finances etc. on one's I Ching readings, then one has to take the greatest possible care with one's interpretations.

 

[Sparhawk]

so i guess, in my very feeble way, that Luis advises caution with using Yi because, in the act, we are localising an intention( in form of question) , and that very decidedly changes things. energy moves and creates as a result of our making a focus.

You weren't that lost then, just quiet...

Surely, the purpose of the I Ching is to guide our thoughts and intentions. Isn't that what it's all about? Yes, our focused thoughts carry energy, and if they are sustained they gather increasing force to the point where they become established and fixed in our mind-set and/or lead to external expression/action that then triggers a causal sequence.

IMO, it is a guide, yes, but also more than that. I'll borrow some of Bruce's words here: "Then arose the question: whose will?" Those that contemplate the Yijing in the third person may be making a mistake...

They carry no causal consequences in themselves, initially, provided they are not transformed into direct action or repeatedly sustained.

Hardest thing to prove, I suppose, but I DO believe that there are no inconsequential thoughts. Overt manifestation isn't the one and only proof that a thought has had a consequence. Using an extreme example, the NRA in the U.S. has this thought process to rally behind the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."; thus placing the responsibility for misbehavior with guns squarely where it belongs: THOSE PEOPLE USING THEM. Well, of course, but one never knows when a monkey might grab an unattended gun and start playing with it... That a gun is a standby "tool" (a remote thought in one's head closet) doesn't make it less lethal at the time of using it.

They are not empowered, amplified or transformed by the I Ching, per se, into an irreversible karmic process.

In all honesty, I have no proof that the Yijing may "empower, amplify or transform." I only have a bunch of mismatched theories, from different fields, to conceptualize it. But I'm far from being alone and it isn't a new concept, albeit little openly discussed as still belongs in the "cuckoo's nest." Alas, is there proof to the contrary?

The use of "karmic process" is interesting as I think it shows a linear course of straight cause/consequence. I, however, don't believe we can think and/or use the Yijing in a purely linear way.

 

[peter2610]

I believe our thoughts are the most potent force that we possess; if repeatedly sustained they eventually become embedded in our habitual nature and play a large part in determining our external circumstances.

If we approach the I Ching with 'sincerity' it means, I would suggest, that we approach with openness and receptivity - without a locked position, our thoughts are still in a state of incipient potential, without pre-determination. This balanced approach enables us to accept and assimilate the guidance we receive. Without that openness of attitude and willingness, if necessary, to submit one's self-will to a higher process, then one isn't really consulting the I Ching, one is just looking for an affirmation of what has already been decided.

Hardest thing to prove, I suppose, but I DO believe that there are no inconsequential thoughts. Overt manifestation isn't the one and only proof that a thought has had a consequence. Using an extreme example, the NRA in the U.S. has this thought process to rally behind the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."; thus placing the responsibility for misbehavior with guns squarely where it belongs: THOSE PEOPLE USING THEM. Well, of course, but one never knows when a monkey might grab an unattended gun and start playing with it... That a gun is a standby "tool" (a remote thought in one's head closet) doesn't make it less lethal at the time of using it.

I think it's important to distinguish between thoughts that are additions to, or resulting from, established patterns of thinking, established attitudes etc. and those thoughts which are still conceptual. When I talk about thoughts having no causal consequences, I'm talking about the latter - thoughts which are still ideational, with little or no psychic/emotional momentum. Once a thinking process becomes firmly established, as in the example of the NRA, it becomes a fixed attitude that then carries the same causal momentum as a five ton tractor heading for your front door.

In all honesty, I have no proof that the Yijing may "empower, amplify or transform." I only have a bunch of mismatched theories, from different fields, to conceptualize it. But I'm far from being alone and it isn't a new concept, albeit little openly discussed as still belongs in the "cuckoo's nest." Alas, is there proof to the contrary?

I can't see an open question or idea, posed to the I Ching, taking on any causal momentum just by virtue of the questioning process itself. If, say, I'm contemplating a direction which I abandon following a reading, I don't see that direction taking on a causal identity simply because it was a temporary point of focus as a potential action. Where I would agree, to some extent, is that the readings, coming from a nominally external source, can add considerable impetus to our subsequent actions which we then regard as being validated by a third party, but any causality originates in our interpretation, not in the questioning process per se.

The reciprocal process represented by synchronicity doesn't occur between our thought processes and the I Ching, it occurs between our thought processes and their physical/unconscious manifestation. The I Ching is simply a highly evolved interpreter of that physical manifestation. If we sustain a thought/emotional process long enough, it will eventually manifest itself externally as a reciprocal causal sequence; if we intercept that causal process whilst it is still indeterminate, in a state of randomness, we "collapse" or "crystalize" the potential thought process into an objective representation. The reciprocal relationship is between mind and matter, not mind and the I Ching.

The use of "karmic process" is interesting as I think it shows a linear course of straight cause/consequence. I, however, don't believe we can think and/or use the Yijing in a purely linear way.

Absolutely agree. The I Ching is not a structure of linear-based relationships, but rather an interrelated matrix of meanings that indicate potential harmony/disharmony. I certainly don't see my questioning the I Ching as creating any autonomous linear causality, but the actions I take based on my interpretative reasoning have the potential to do so.

 

[Sparhawk]

Peter, I admit it: it is very hard to argue with your logic, in a logical way. I will however highlight a few of your words to clarify my point.

If we approach the I Ching with 'sincerity' it means, I would suggest, that we approach with openness and receptivity - without a locked position, our thoughts are still in a state of incipient potential, without pre-determination. This balanced approach enables us to accept and assimilate the guidance we receive. Without that openness of attitude and willingness, if necessary, to submit one's self-will to a higher process, then one isn't really consulting the I Ching, one is just looking for an affirmation of what has already been decided.

Whereas, in your position, I see an emphasis placed on an external entity, that is, you think of the Yijing in the third person (it/he/she), I think of it in the first and the second: a part and extension of my self and of yours.

I think it's important to distinguish between thoughts that are additions to, or resulting from, established patterns of thinking, established attitudes etc. and those thoughts which are still conceptual. When I talk about thoughts having no causal consequences, I'm talking about the latter - thoughts which are still ideational, with little or no psychic/emotional momentum. Once a thinking process becomes firmly established, as in the example of the NRA, it becomes a fixed attitude that then carries the same causal momentum as a five ton tractor heading for your front door.

Let's focus for a moment on the forest and not the trees (from my example, only the "tree" of the NRA was rescued and not the "forest" of the guns which is where I was trying to direct the light...). A wise man in the Song Dynasty said: "Knowing the seeds is to be able to take contraction as expansion." In my example, the guns are the seeds and the NRA are one of branching "expansions." Without a consciousness to observe events nothing is "done" and still nothing is left "undone." Everything in the universe is the latent form of something else. We are a coalesced lump of simple elements and still we can consciously create other things (actually, we consciously assemble together other lumps of matter): out of sheer thought processes...

IMO, everything we make is also a tool of some sort. It follows that the Yijing (unless it is a proverbial monolith on the moon) is not only a creation of our own but also a conduit of our latent intentions, a tool, an extension of ourselves with a specific purpose. Material and immaterial coexist in everyday life. We are constantly materializing things and actions that started as a spark of thought.

The iffy concept for you, if I understand you correctly, is the acausal, the unmeasurable chasm between a simple casual consultation of the Yijing (or the Tarot, or the Runes, or you name it, because I don't circumscribe "observation>effect>change" to the Yijing alone; we just happen to be talking about it) and its possible effect on the subject at a distance, be that "distance" a measure of length and/or time. That there cannot possibly be a tangible connection between the simple act of observation and the subject. If so, I beg to differ. It is a scientific fact at the quantum level and, as more and more experiments show similar effects at the macro level, I believe the whole idea will develop further into our collective consciousness in the coming decades and centuries.

I can't see an open question or idea, posed to the I Ching, taking on any causal momentum just by virtue of the questioning process itself. If, say, I'm contemplating a direction which I abandon following a reading, I don't see that direction taking on a causal identity simply because it was a temporary point of focus as a potential action. Where I would agree, to some extent, is that the readings, coming from a nominally external source, can add considerable impetus to our subsequent actions which we then regard as being validated by a third party, but any causality originates in our interpretation, not in the questioning process per se.

Again, IMO, the third person singular isn't an entirely appropriate way to see it. It isn't "you" and the "I Ching," it is just "you." The abandoned direction is just a branch in a decision tree (for all we know, all possible paths are taken, always, and they are followed to their farthest consequences; but that is another subject altogether... ). You, what makes you Peter Butterworth, OTOH, are the one walking the path and the one immediately affected by the observation and everything in your future, from your projection of it to the actual events and their actors, will be a product of the observation. Trying to isolate the "questioning process" will not help you. There isn't a "questioning process" without a querent. Is like trying to isolate the number 2 out of the infinity of numbers. The digit will still be a part of the whole. But I understand that behind the idea of such an isolation resides the logical conclusion that the isolated part, by itself, cannot do anything on its own. Well no, of course not, but we should try to avoid reductionist analysis and reach for a holistic view. It is the querent plus the querent's tool that, in the "observation process" (a better description for me), might unwittingly be affecting both the querent and the subject. The tool is the focal point of the querent's intent at the moment of the observation and, for me, there exist a nonlocal two-way communication between the two. Now, one could argue that if it indeed were it so, then the tool would be some sort of Aladdin's lamp that appears to grant the querent wishes. Well, no, not in that sense. There are subjects that are much bigger than ourselves, say, asking about the outcome of a sport's game or the fate and direction of a country, where the observation process is disproportionally small in comparison with the mass and momentum of the subject. For those, we are mere spectators. But those subjects that directly relate to us at the individual level, those are another matter. There's a whole folklore and countless cautionary tales about "wish asking," as you know, and the formulation of "wishes" is an art very, very difficult to master or we may not get what we thought we had in mind...

The reciprocal process represented by synchronicity doesn't occur between our thought processes and the I Ching, it occurs between our thought processes and their physical/unconscious manifestation. The I Ching is simply a highly evolved interpreter of that physical manifestation. If we sustain a thought/emotional process long enough, it will eventually manifest itself externally as a reciprocal causal sequence; if we intercept that causal process whilst it is still indeterminate, in a state of randomness, we "collapse" or "crystalize" the potential thought process into an objective representation. The reciprocal relationship is between mind and matter, not mind and the I Ching.

I don't disagree with the above but I'd like to clarify what I have in mind for your last sentence. I shy away from seeing the Yijing as a separate entity with whom I may have a "reciprocal process." I see it as an observation tool, akin to my own eyes, AND a conduit of my intent, akin to my own words and what I can do with my hands. For all intents and purposes, it is one of my senses and one of my limbs.

(Chuckles! Funny to express it that way because most would expect those with such a view to be constantly consulting the Yijing and that isn't my case at all. A living paradox for most. Alas, the thing is, if I grow a third eye today, I wouldn't have a clue how to use it either. Now, that's a metaphor to contemplate everyone, seriously... )

Absolutely agree. The I Ching is not a structure of linear-based relationships, but rather an interrelated matrix of meanings that indicate potential harmony/disharmony. I certainly don't see my questioning the I Ching as creating any autonomous linear causality, but the actions I take based on my interpretative reasoning have the potential to do so.

IMHO, being unaware of such unwitting causality in the carrying of you intent through the observation process doesn't negate the possibility of it happening. But this isn't an entirely theoretical premise, it is also empirical. We only have to pay more attention to it than we usually do.

(I started typing this last night, wrote most of it, but we had a power outage. Finished this morning.)