[This post answers a message from Django in the ?Multiple Moving Lines? string. It is intended to provide an anchor for discussing the Great Treatise.]

Dear Django,

Ahhh, the Great Treatise! Also known as the Dazhuan. No, Django, I don?t have my head around that item, as you say, nor do I expect to anytime soon. But it would be very interesting to talk about it.

This forum has spent a lot of time discussing the Zhouyi, or perhaps the Ur-Yi would be a better term, since experts like LiSe and Hilary often leave history far, far behind in their quest for the original Yi. The Dazhuan, however, can be attributed pretty certainly to the Han period (portions of it appear in the Mawangdui commentaries), and Han thinking is much better understood than putative archaic shamanism. So, to make a long story short, we are actually on safer ground talking about the Dazhuan than the Yi itself.

But can we make anything out of it that means something to us today? Does it help us understand the Yi, or does it just fog up the basic texts? In terms of using the Yi for divination, should we bother reading the Great Treatise at all? Indeed, what?s so great about the Great Treatise?

Lindsay

OK, folks, it?s been 24 hours -- and no one among the thousands of people who visit Clarity every day has been able to come up with a single reason the Great Treatise is ?great?.

Maybe the Dazhuan isn?t so great after all? In fact, maybe it?s completely useless in today?s world, irrelevant to divination, just another musty document for academics to write about? Maybe Amazon (see Clarity Home page) should forget about trying to sell Karcher?s translation at 70% off, and just send all those worthless copies off to the shredder for recycling?

I?m beginning to wonder if I need the ?Great? Treatise in my I Ching at all? My Yi would be much lighter without it. It?s already full of a lot of other stuff I don?t understand. So maybe I should just tear the Dazhuan out and get rid of it?

Here?s what I?m going to do: I?m going to tear out one page of the Dazhuan for every day no one gives me a reason not to. Let?s see, this is Day 1 and here?s the first page.

R-R-R-I-I-I-I-I-I-P!!!

That was Page 280 in my copy of Wilhelm. Crumple, crumple. Can I hit the wastebasket from here? YES! Wow, that really feels good! Can?t wait until tomorrow. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with a reason to keep the Great Treatise. The Yi can fly with eight wings, can?t it?

Lindsay

Ouch!
Things are always so busy here, that 24 hours is not much time. I am trying to write the rest of hex.43 since how long? A half or a whole week, but still no time to actually do it.
So before all your Wings are gone - what about the 'nobel one'? I like him very much, he was the first one who gave me some insight in the meanings of the hexagrams.

But I must admit, there is something great about tearing out the great treatise. Let's hope there is a little more great in it. It often annoyed me, but after all, they were just trying to get some meaning out of the Yi, just like we do too. Only it is not such a good idea maybe to put all these efforts into the Yi all the time. The 'Zhou-Yi's', with only the original Yi, are little slim books, and they work fine.

Namaste
LiSe

Oooh Lindsay, you're being provocative here My own reason for not responding is sheer ignorance of the Great Treatise. Can't say I've ever taken the trouble to read it. Your post however did prompt me to have a look at it last night though. I'm certainly in no position to discuss its greatness or lack of it, having happily ignored it for my whole life.

I'm sure the more learned members of this forum will come forth with an opinion at some point, otherwise you're just going to have to carry out your threat and rip that book up !!

We do need a laughing emoticon on this forum as I am really very amused by your last mock petulant post.

I have to remind you though Lindsay, you refused to discuss Jung on that other thread despite everyone virtually pleading with you to come back and tell us your thoughts. Maybe you could do a deal, you tell them about Jung and they may discuss the Great Treatise with you - (I'm laughing, not serious) Ooh you do make me laugh Lindsay....

Come on learned ones, or Lindsay will destroy that book !!

Anything...anything, to stop the wanton heresy of defiling The Great Treatise still, your evil hand m'man, tear not a page!.I thought such a learned sage as yourself would know, that to talk in quick sound bytes is not the way of the YI ... As a matter of fact I spent the last twenty four hours pondering this question so this for starters......{serious now}

I dont remember where I read it but {paraphrasing}
The Book of Changes says "It" is a book of the future this to me is made clear on page 324 [Wilhelm translation]..... The transformation of things and the fitting together of them depend on the changes. Stimulation of them and setting them in motion depend upon continuity. The spirituality and clarity depend upon the right man. Silent fulfillment, confidence that need no words, depends on virtuous conduct.

Here in conclusion, The intermeshing of the Book Of Changes and man is set forth. It is only through a living personality that the words of the book ever come fully to life and then exert their influence upon the world.

This seems to refer to a train of thought the traces of which are scattered through chapter V111
and the present chapter.The problem is whether, in view of the inadequacy of our means of understanding a contact transcending the limits of time is possible ..Whether a later epoch is ever able to understand an earlier one.
. On the basis of the Book Of Changes, the answer is in the affimative, true enough speech and writing are imperfect transmitters of thought, but by the means of images{ Jungian Archetypes???}
we would say Ideas and the stimuli contained in them. A spiritual force is set in motion whose action transcends the limits of time.
.And when it comes upon the right "man", one who has inner relationship with this Tao. it can forthwith be taken up by him and awakened anew to life. This is the concept of the supernatural connection between the elect of all ages.
Django.
{PS I did not change, what would appear in todays
"mores" to be sexist ie "man"Into person or man/woman but have left it as written.

I'm not familiar with the Great Treatise but I sure think Django's post is on the money.

How about this one:

?The Master explained to him: ?In the world we live in,
What is pondering? What is care?
In the world we live in, we all return to the same thing- death.
One result, many cares.
So tell me, in the world we live in,
What is pondering? What is care?
The sun goes and moon comes.
The moon goes and the sun comes.
Sun and moon alternate in the birth of the light.
The cold goes and the heat comes.
The heat goes and the cold comes.
Cold and heat alternate to complete the year.
What is going away becomes smaller.
What is coming toward us expands.
Contracting and expanding act on each other.
This is what produces advantages for us.
The little inchworm curls up when it wants to expand.
Dragons and snakes hibernate
To store up and save their life-energy.
Let the essence of this thought penetrate you!.
It will bring peace to your life?.

(From Chapter II, karcker translation).

Besides?.. Dam, my dog, says it also has beautiful pictures .

Is this enough for saving the book?. or Do you want me to write down the whole book for you?.

Good Morning, Everyone.

Sorry, Louise, no deals. Another day has passed, and I?ve got my copy of Wilhelm open to page 281 (as you know, page 280 is missing). My fingers are grasping the page at the top of the book where the page meets the spine. I am ready.

Let?s see what we have in the way of defenses of the Great Treatise. The first responses came quickly from LiSe and Louise. I am impressed by the speed of their responses, but then these two individuals are Clarity stalwarts and are usually up for whatever foolery is in progress at the moment.

At first LiSe says she likes the Dazhuan very much and has learned (past tense) a lot from it, but then LiSe goes on to say, ?it has often annoyed me? and makes the excuse that the authors were only trying to find something meaningful in the Yi, the same way we do. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. The needle on my ?Greatness-O-Meter? barely flickered.

What can I say about Louise, who flaunts the fact she?s never ?taken the trouble to read it? and has ?happily ignored it for my whole life?? Not much support there, although Louise seems to think certain ?learned ones? (who never made an appearance) could make a case for the Dazhuan. I can feel my fingers tighten on page 281.

Actually, I think LiSe and Louise were more interested in saving the book than justifying its existence. Booklovers. The kind of people who wince when a book falls off the shelf in a bookstore or library. I doubt if they would have been half as alarmed if I?d threatened (like one of those nasty little boys) to tear the wings off, say, a fly! But threaten to rip the wings off the Yi, OMG!

Then there?s Django. Obviously he?s highly stimulated by the Great Treatise ? his post contains half a dozen interesting ideas that could keep us gabbing for a month. But Django doesn?t count. He?s the one who started this whole thing.

Candid must be very busy these days. But not too busy to give Django a little encouragement. He?s done that for all of us, again and again. So Candid doesn?t count either. Besides, he says he?s ?not familiar? with the Great Treatise.

Say goodbye to page 281!

But then Angel came along, and actually quoted poor Karcher?s deeply discounted translation. And a very nice little poem, indeed! Possibly even ?great?. Besides Angel is obviously a very sensible person. Anyone who names her dog ?Dam? understands that dog-owners spend half their time yelling at the d?n dog, and has found a way to save precious time. I?m very impressed.

So Angel saved the Dazhuan. No more page-ripping. Nevertheless, I think all this says a good deal about how important most of us regard the Great Treatise. No wonder Amazon practically has to give away Karcher?s beautiful book! Maybe things would have been different if Karcher had selected a snappier title. You know, ?Let the Great Treatise Put Gold in Your Pockets!? or ?Sexual Secrets of the Dazhuan? or ?Wing Your Way to Heaven!?

Lindsay
(I?ll be back for Django?s post a little later)

Hi Lindsay, all I can say is if you do go on with this wanton destruction, your book will look really messy and may fall apart. Then you would have to go and buy another one. I have tried to read the Great Treatise - I have to say it does look pretty tedious to me. I also have to say I still have faith some greater minds will come to its aid. Idea - why not consult Yi about the worthiness of the Great Treatise ?

I did not say I liked the Dazhuan, I said I liked the noble one. It is a part of the Dazhuan of course, but I will not miss the rest very much. Actually I cut it out myself. Not ripping it up, but cutting the book in two parts. I did not need the Dazhuan, and I had to carry a bag full of books with me, so I removed everything superfluous. Kunst in two parts, Wieger too, Leyi, no Leyi is the opposite, he fell apart by frequent use, and I pasted it together again. What more do I have? Oh yeah, Rutt. I did not cut him up, but copied what I needed, and that went into my bag, the rest stays home. With Rutt it was the other way round, I left the translation of the Yi itself at home, and took the comments with me.

What happened, someone trod on your tail?

I am always mixed up with sexes. Wasn?t Angel a he?

LiSe

Dear LiSe,

Sorry if I misinterpreted your remarks. I still have no idea what you mean by ?the noble one.? Is that part of the Dazhuan? I thought for some reason you were referring to the whole thing, with da = ?noble?.

That?s an interesting bag you?re putting together. There is certainly no need to take along Rutt?s translation if you have Kunst?s, since Rutt basically copied or paraphrased most of Kunst. In my opinion, the Zhouyi has not progressed very far since Kunst published his dissertation. This is probably because many of the older Chinese modernist scholars of historical linguistics and the archaic language have died, and there are few young replacements. So Kunst had all the basic research to work with. One good thing Rutt did, however, was to restore the rhymes.

Wieger seems a strange choice ? isn?t that more or less obsolete these days? I?m not familiar with Leyi. Who or what is that?

Now the bag is packed, where are we going?

Funny you should bring up Hex 10 right now ? that?s playing a rather prominent part in my life at the moment. But I wonder what you mean? I hope you understand that all this stuff about Dazhuan is pretty much a lot of joking around. Humor doesn?t translate very well, and I suppose I should resist it. But I ?was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad. And that was all my patrimony.?

When I studied Chinese Philosophy at university many years ago, my professor was a strict old-style Confucian scholar, who had very little use for the Yi. In fact, the only part of the Yi he wanted students to read was the Dazhuan. The rest, he said, was a lot of barbaric yawp from a time before men learned to think correctly (i.e. before Confucius). The Dazhuan was very highly regarded in Chinese philosophical circles. At the time I myself was much taken (like many young men) with Laozi. My professor once told me, ?Study the Confucius by day, study Laozi by night. A wise man works hard all day, and then remains active at night.? I had no idea he was quoting the I Ching until twenty years later.

Is Angel a man? Is Lindsay a woman? We?ll find out, won?t we?

How is Hex 43 coming along? I am very much looking forward to reading about it.

Lindsay

Dear Angel,

Oops, you are a man! I'm very sorry. There was another person who used to post here who had the same name but was a woman. I thought you were her. Like my name, Angel can go either way in English. Thank you for your post. If you want to type up the rest of Karcher for us, then we won't have to buy even the ridiculously cheap copies Amazon is hawking. (Just kidding, everyone!) I still like the name of your dog.

Lindsay

Hi Lindsay!

You say, 10's a rather prominent part of your life now? I never would gave guessed! *laughing emoticon, if there was one*

The noble one. The great man. We've tackled this one at least once before, I'm certain. Still a good topic though. Almost as mysterious as 'not grasping the woman' in 44.

Some things just can't be grasped as one would have something physical in ones hand after lifting it from a table. Poetry is like that too. One either gets it or they don't. Trying to explain the meaning contained therein is like enjoying sex through understanding. 'Course I don't know of such things, but I do enjoy experiences that need not be analyzed and described. In fact, describing them is like dissecting a frog. There's no life left in it after its cut apart and analyzed.

You're spot on about me being very busy lately. Its been a very productive time and I'm taking advantage of the propitiousness of the time. You're also right about my encouragement of members to openly share their ideas - just as you're sharing yours. Oops.. there I go again.

The Great Treatise. I have read some of it long ago but there's nothing specific that I can remember. However, I do think that Django's and Angel's quotes were remarkable. Its not much different than the core of most beliefs systems though. There is here and there is somewhere or something else. The something else has a value which isn't tangible to us in the same way here is. I believe alchemy attempted to combine the seen and unseen qualities of human experience too. So did Jesus. So have all those we've bestowed the venerable title of "Master" to.

What's so great about the Great Treatise? Maybe its just greatness itself? I suppose the real question might be, is there really greatness?

Namaste, my friend.
Candid

Hi everyone!

I think I've been talking too much lately, but I'm bored and needy. I'll give everybody a rest, but first I want to respond to Django and Candid.

Django asks a fascinating question, can a later epoch ever really understand an earlier one? He (Django, you're a male, aren't you?) goes on to talk about a spiritual force that transcends time, and that there is a supernatural connection between the elect of all ages. These ideas could use a little more explaining, but I think I understand the general drift.

My view is a little different. I do not believe any later epoch can ever understand an earlier one. I think we invent history to serve our own purposes. I am willing to bet the farm that people in one hundred years will have a completely different understanding of the Yi from ours. I would go further, and say I do not believe that people from different cultures can ever understand each other. In fact, I am pretty sure that no two people in the world can really understand each other, even two lovers, husbands and wives, parents and children, identical twins. There is a sense -- a spiritual sense -- in which each one of us is always alone and always will be alone, never understood by anyone.

I also wanted to say something about Candid's question about whether there is any such thing as greatness. Maybe not. I used to think that the best thing in the world to have would be great wisdom. But lately I'm beginning to wonder if wisdom isn't banal, completely ordinary, known to all of us. For example, here are a few statements of great wisdom:

Get enough sleep.
Care about others.
Work hard.
Chew your food.
Be kind to animals.
Stay sober.
Don't drive too fast.
Be positive.
Keep your word.
Wash yourself regularly.
Enjoy life.
Greet your neighbor.
Don't worry too much.
Be careful.
Trust others.
Etc., etc., etc.

You all know a dozen, perhaps a dozen dozen more wise ideas like these. Is there really anything more to wisdom than this? I wonder. And this wisdom isn't so very great, is it? Yet somehow none of us can do these simple things all the time. If we could, would we be wise?

Lindsay

HUmmm?you said elsewhere you studied Chinese philosophy?.

I can see you are applying here the Sun tzu strategy: Bother the enemy so they will reveal their positions. So this about war not advices o good intentions. It is a danger situation so better ask the sage. What are the energies around Lindsay question?
the answer: the strong woman? unchanging.
Anyone understand that hexagram in this situation?. Why can be Lindsay be referred as strong woman?. What can we say about her motives?. Is she real or a cyberspace entity?

Too bad, You didn?t say anything about the pictures my dog mentioned and now he is depressed . Dam stands for dike. Like Amster-dam. He is an astonishing , 75 Kg Great Dan.
You also missed the hidden meaning of this quote:
?Even dragons and snakes hibernate!. ?Great Treatise referring to Magic rain ( Hex. 1).Lindsay back to college!..
More things, as Brian said I am spiritual soul living a male experience. (male are my two cents, don?t blame Brian. ) ; .))

Lindsay,

I too wonder the same about wisdom and greatness. For one to be great another would have to be less great. Superior and inferior likewise are becoming seen as one body. I can prioritize body parts to some degree. IE: I'd rather lose a finger than an eye. I'd rather have a strong mind than a sharp tongue, etc. So, to that degree, I can see superior and inferior, but they're all still part of the same body.

I can therefore make the same assertion of other things. But this too is relative to my own preferences. I think the I Ching is superior to a Donald Duck cartoon, for example. Many, of course, would certainly disagree. They're not inferior. They just see importance in a different medium than I do. Is art superior to labor? Is a grand idea philosophically based or is it a design for a better bird house? And I think this leads to the point.

Greatness is life. Whoever lives life in a manner which contributes to life becomes a greater part of life. Since it is unknown whether there really is more to life than living, this becomes the scale which measures our own greatness. Life is a creative force contained within a limited field known as individualism. From this vantage point, everything has designated definitions and values. But, when seen from the whole, its one big (or small) body. Here, its organization. There, its organism.

It comes back to an individual's own Tao or truth. Each plays a part in the big picture. Its a part of us which is in synch with the Universe and acts from that vantage point, if and when its allowed to.

Lindsay - your sayings were good, but not great. *said subjectively, of course*

Candid

For hex.10 (and Wieger) go to
www.anton-heyboer.org/i_ching/index.html
to hex.10, and at the 6th line you will find a link to a picture. Wieger is ooold, and I found many newer books about old characters. The first one after Wieger was Li Leyi, a collection of little articles in a newspaper. Of 500 characters he gives the old graphs up to the modern one. I used it so often that all the pages are loose.
Since then I got Keightley and Schuessler and Karlgren and the Mojikyo font with innumerable old OB-characters. And the Grand Ricci. I would never be able to carry that one with me.
But Wieger?s ?old graphies?-part stays very interesting. The picture at 10.6 comes from that part of his book, and it gave me a lot insight into the meaning of hex.10. I also often consulted his phonetic lists, they explain a character very well, giving a kind of overall feeling for what it represents.

I did not really think you were angry or something, I never write back to angry mails because I think it is a waste of time. But indeed in another language than your own it is sometimes difficult to see what exactly is serious and what is joke. That is what I miss most in (my) English, I cannot use expressions, alliterations, ambiguities, and that is what I would love to.

The big bag dates from the pre-computer time. I walk the dogs in the backyard, they run around or gnaw on a bone, and I sit reading, writing and so on. But in the winter 1998/99 I got a computer and now most is in there, and I carry a laptop with me with the things I need at the moment.

What I call the ?noble one? is the part of the Wings called Xiang Zhuan (hope I am right, I never looked very closely to what is exactly what).
?Above is Heaven, below is the Swamp: treading
The noble one distinguishes above and below
He gives the ambitions of the people the suitable position?
I also got 10 two times the past month, for questions about the direction to take at this moment in my life. Ancestors returning into your life, eternal values demanding their rightful place, or sleeping talents which should not be neglected. Things like that.
Hex.9 is still difficult to understand for me. Small cattle, and also a small farm not getting the rain it needs, and how to survive times like that. I have the idea that when I can grasp 9, I also know 10.

Namaste
LiSe

I went through your wisdom-list, but I could not find any wisdom. They all suppose the one it is directed to has enough wisdom to know what to do with it. But in the sayings themselves there was none.
?Be sober? ? always, in every possible situation? Sometimes it is very useful not to be sober. Someone can be stuck in a train of thoughts, and making fun together, or drinking too much, making a party, eating a gallon-pack of ice together can work miracles in breaking through it. And there are churches which tell the members all the time to be sober. The result is never very convincing. Many members become pale stiff people, others get sneaky. And when America forced its citizens to be sober, it got the prohibition, which was a great stimulus for the mafia.
?Don?t drive too fast?, sounds sensible ? provided the driver knows when he is too fast and when not. Never give a child an advice like this, with ?too? in it. How much is too? It can be a torturing puzzle for years.
?Nice to neighbors?, a friend was nice to her neighbor, and now she lost a piece of her own terrain because he draws upon ?unwritten law?, and he is not at all nice to her. One has to know when to be nice ? and when to guard ones own rights. (typing this in the backyard, mixed up trust others and greet neighbour. But ?trusted? her neighbour comes close too)

At first sight they all look like good advice, but they are not. They are commands and have nothing to do with wisdom, and some not even with good advice. Wisdom has to do with insight, experience, balance, intuition, things like that. Not with giving or obeying rules.

I asked the Yi ?what is wisdom? It said 41.2, changing to 27
41.2 : Harvest: determination. To set things right: pitfall. Not diminishing or increasing it.
Get rid of preconceptions, of all 'knowing how things are'. If one expects a miracle, the miracle might actually happen. Even better than expecting it is innocently making it happen oneself, free of any doubt. Believing it is summoning it.
27.2 : Wholly intent jaws. Rejecting the regular path to the hill. For jaws to set things right: pitfall.
Do not try to restrain what is by nature excessive. Changing a Tao causes accidents. In the world all is about the normal, but the world lives by what is abnormal. So give the excessive enough room to exist.
(The character ?to set things right? is a foot going towards a point or little circle. It can mean a goal, or a city which has to be chastised)

The ?regular path? is the jing, the canon or the weft. Same character as in Yi Jing, the classic of changes. It figures only in 27/2 and 5. The Yi was promoted to be one of the Jings ages after this was written, but it was a ?classic? for the diviners long before official recognition. So even the Yi says: doing what the Yi says, is not wisdom.

So wisdom is being free of all ?knowing how things are?, but giving everything the opportunity to live the way which fits best. A rule cannot be wisdom.

LiSe

LiSe,

I'm not sure if the link you've referred to in 10 is that of 'monk-tiger'? If so, its interesting that you have mentioned it here. Only yesterday I received 10 concerning a work situation. While there at your site, I downloaded that image to my desktop. I love the power of the monk and respect the power of the tiger. A very dramatic image!

Also interesting is your last statement: "A rule can not be wisdom." I like that. The rule is subjectively designated to accomplish a particular end result. It may be wise to apply a certain rule to accomplish something specific, but in and of itself, its just a set of limitations. We each determine for ourselves what rules have value and which are useless.

A gallon of ice cream?? Oh my! Wonder how that fits with 27? *chuckles*

Namaste,
Candid

In Britain there has been an absurd, kind of TV debate going on about "Who is the greatest Briton'. Absurd because one is supposed to compare people (men) such as Winston Churchill and John Lennon - Oliver Cromwell and Shakespeare and then vote for who is the 'greatest'. A truly truly absurd notion. Why do we have the need to make hierarchies - there seems to be a craze for this in Britain now. This may be a cliche, but theres enough room for everyone to be 'great' at the same time. I agree with Lise when she says wisdom is ...
...giving everything the opportunity to live the way which fits best

I believe the I ching to be superior to Donald Duck now, but when I was three I would have found Donald Duck infinately superior - i certainly would not have been very pleased to get Wilhelm in my Christmas stocking

I have no idea how much a gallon is, but I think the message came through.
The link on hex.10 is not the one to the tiger. It is the one in the little square with line 6. I will also put it on the 'origins' page, there it will be easier to find. I had to search myself, I did not remember where it was.
LiSe

Thanks LiSe - Interesting stuff on the link. Definately expands the meaning of the line.

A gallon = akeckofallotta ice cream! Enjoy!

The Great Treatise and Commentary in Nauxian, Wilhelm, and Baynes.

Dear Lindsay: I urge you to consider these tthoughts from the GT:
How does the Yi answer our questions?
The superior person when consulting the oracle formulates his question precisely in words, and regardless of whether it concerns something distant or near, secret or profound, she receives - as though it were an echo - the appropriate oracle which enables her to know the future. Book II, The Material

Aids the gods in governing the world:

"...[the Changes] reveals the meaning of events in the universe and thereby imparts a divine mystery to the nature and action of the person who puts his trust in it, so that he or she is enabled to meet every event in the right way and even to aid the gods in governing the world."
",,,with the help

To help the individual achieve Tao:
of the Book of Changes it is possible to arrive at a complete realizationof [a human's] innate capacities [since she is a microcosm of heaven and earth] and these laws are reproduced in the Book of Changes, man is provided with the
means of shaping his own nature."


"In order that his psychic nature be transfigured and attain influence on earth, it must cling to the forces of spiritual life."- Book III, The Commentaries, by Nauxian/Wilhelm/Baynes.

The more spiritual and true the object, the more radiant is Li. Clinging to what is right, Li transforms the world and perfects it.


"The Eye is holy to Li" Book III, the Commentaries
A subtle but extremly significant sentence. It hints at taoist methods of clairvoyance, seeing the pattern of creation and so forth.

Mary Halpin-Midaughter

Dear Mary,

Thank you so much for calling my attention to these wonderful passages. You?ve been a little laconic about your own intentions, but it can?t be coincidence that these words seem to speak directly to an inner turmoil I?m feeling right now. Synchronicity? Serendipity? I?m not supposed to believe in the existence of any of that, but right now I wonder if the cosmos believes in the existence of ?me.?

Lately I?ve felt a little bit like a fly who has just flown into a spider?s web. I never intended to get myself involved in spiritual issues, I just wanted to buzz along as usual here and there, sniffing the garbage, showing off my wings. Suddenly, I?m caught in a trap of the slenderest strands, so subtle and fine yet so strong. The more I struggle, the more entangled I become.

The web, of course, is of my own making. The big, black spider inside me has been spinning away while I?ve been busy looking at the world through compound eyes. So now, all tangled up, I?m waiting.

Well, all that is pretty oblique, isn?t it? Something straightforward can be said. One of these statements (with a little editing) summarizes the whole reason I got involved with the Yi in the first place: ?With the help of the Book of Changes it is possible to arrive at a complete realization of [a human's] innate capacities [since each human is a microcosm of heaven and earth] and these laws are reproduced in the Book of Changes, we are provided with the means of shaping our own nature."

To me this is an assertion of our position in the matrix (sorry, Keanu, I?m not talking about you). It isn?t so much that we are all one in this world. Rather I think we are all different parts of one thing. The differences are important, they are functional, but at the same time they are components of a larger, self-regarding entity. Just as individuals stand physically in relation to society, so we stand spiritually in relation to a larger spiritual entity with its own life and purpose. We read newspapers and magazines and watch TV to find out what is going on and where we stand in relation to our society and other societies in the world. We read the Yi (and other vehicles) to find out what is going on and where we stand as spiritual beings ? beings having a spirit - in relation to the matrix (matrix comes etymologically from the Latin word for ?mother,? mater).

I am going on too much. Please, no offence to anyone intended. It?s just that these passages from the Great Treatise have pierced me like arrows in the heart, and I can?t believe it, I don?t understand why.

Thank you, Mary.

Double happiness!
Lindsay