Hello everyone. I was debating on posting this in the "Shared Readings" subforum as the content can apply to either or both, but I figured I need to pick one so here it is. I apologize but this will likely be a lengthy post.

A bit of personal background on my usage of the I Ching (feel free to skip this paragraph if you wish): I've been consulting it regularly (often daily) for the past 4 months or so, which means I'm still very much a novice. I like to use the method outlined by Stephen Karcher's Total I Ching where in between the primary hexagram and the resulting hexagram intermediary hexagrams are drawn for each changing line which he labels "Steps of Change." Depending on the case I also include Karcher's "Operators" (inner and outer) into my reading. In my limited experience this method seems to give the clearest picture of all the intricacies and interconnections involved regarding the question at hand. Aside from Total I Ching I also use Balkin's The Laws of Change and Wilhelm's translation for the fullest range of possible interpretation.

I'm often surprised at how the answers I draw directly appear to address my concerns. Satisfied as I am with the standard way of consulting the oracle it's often bothered me that I couldn't get a direct "yes" or "no" response. In a sense I can with the usual methods but I'm left trying to decipher a hexagram and glean from it whether it's a yes/no. And there's always the issue of uncertainty and that I may be deluding myself. Interpreting hexagrams sometimes leaves the possibility of self-deception or misunderstanding what the oracle was actually trying to say regarding the question, but a yes/no can eliminate these and clarify ambiguities. Ambiguities can be good in getting the mind rolling through possibilities, but it's not good if there's ambiguity regarding pressing concerns.

To address this I've come across two methods for obtaining a "yes/no": one from An Anthology of I Ching by Sherrill and Chu, the other from Carol Anthony's I Ching, The Oracle of the Cosmic Way.

I've decided to use Carol Anthony's "Retrospective Three-Coin Method" (rtcm) to clarify and better understand some previous answers. For reference the rtcm method is basically a 9 = strong yes, 6 = strong no, the other two is either a tentative yes or no.

Before subjecting the oracle to this method I figured it'd only be fair and honest to confirm its approval, or not. I proposed to it my intention to use it to clarify ambiguities as well as to use it to eliminate possible misinterpretations, then asked whether I had its approval and consent. The answer: tentative no.

I really wasn't expecting that given how a yes/no can bring much benefit and clarity. Wanting to discover where the problem was I tried to narrow it down. I asked, "Is there an issue you have with the rtcm method?" The answer: strong yes.

I then asked, "Do you prefer the yes/no method described in An Anthology of I Ching?" The answer: strong no.

"Do you object to questions in which a yes/no answer is expected?" The answer: tentative no.

"The reason(s) behind your objection of the method has something to do with the authors who endorse them?" The answer: tentative yes.

"Is it the possibility that I may abuse and unwisely use this method your main concern?" The answer: strong yes.

Alright so I probably got to the bottom of it, but I wasn't satisfied to just leave it at that. It felt too final and disheartening. I asked, "I just want to know if you may be open to the possibility of me using this method with your approval in the near future?" The answer: tentative no.

"Are you completely set that I never use a yes/no method?" The answer: tentative no.

"The key to gaining your consent on using a yes/no method would be that I've adequately grown wiser? Do I understand correctly?" The answer: tentative yes.

"In the meantime is it fine that I continue to consult the I Ching in the usual fashion?" The answer: tentative yes.

I really should have stopped with the questioning here but I asked about five other questions, and the answers I've received for those made me somewhat doubtful of its authenticity. One question was whether it'll be harmful for me to read Carol Anthony's I Ching Oracle of the Cosmic Way given how it had previously objected to the authors who endorsed "yes/no." The answer: strong yes. Then I asked whether the ideas in that book was fundamentally wrong, to which it answered a tentative yes. I asked if the Wilhelm translation was acceptable, to which it answered a tentative yes. A tentative no for the acceptability of both Karcher's Total I Ching and Balkin's The Laws of Change. I like both Karcher's and Balkin's work quite a bit so I don't know what to think.

I definitely didn't get the answers I was expecting. It's happened before but I think I was particularly invested in this. I also don't know what to make of some of its judgements; I happen to find Karcher's work useful when used alongside Wilhelm's and Balkin's. As for Carol Anthony's version of the I Ching, I could maybe see why it may object as that work does differ quite a bit in some places from the more traditional variants. (Interestingly I've read that the authors of that book arrived at their version of the I Ching through consulting with their own "Sage.")

To those with extensive experience with the I Ching, and especially if you got something to share in regards to getting a yes or no answer please let me know what you make of this. I can understand the potential for abuse in getting a yes/no reply, but at the same time its benefit and range of application is almost -- if not -- unlimited. It seems taboo to try and get a yes or no response but a yes/no can clarify an ambiguous reading as well eliminate self-deception (i.e. reading into the hexagrams how you want them to mean), just to mention a few.

Just a personal thought - There is not really any one line in the yijing that says "yes" or "no". So to ask a question that you cannot receive a proper answer seems misdirected. I have done it though, and then intuitively tweeked the answer to fit what I thought best. It is sort of like lying to yourself and twisting the truth. Even Gua 12, which LiSe translates as "to say no", it is not cut and dry and there is a hidden meaning that it is more than just saying no, and more about things not interacting. So, it's a good topic to wonder about - how to ask questions. Would you shoot an arrow at a stuffed bird to get dinner?

I understand there's no single line that gives a straight "yes" or "no." And for the majority of the cases there's always a way to rethink and rephrase a question such that it avoids asking for a yes/no response, and for these I do so accordingly. But there are questions or concerns which ultimately the answer will have to be a "yes" or "no" which no amount of rephrasing or rethinking or twisting things around will change. And just because an answer to an issue will boil down to a yes/no doesn't necessarily make them trivial (not claiming you stated or implied this in any way); some of the most pressing or important concerns boil down to a yes/no (e.g. "Is it terminal illness?" or "Is X really the culprit?", etc.).

Yes I agree, from my very meager experience I've also found that when I've tried to get a yes/no using standard procedures it's been unhelpful and ambiguous -- which is why I've stopped from it very quickly.

However it seems the I Ching doesn't necessarily have to be narrowed down and restricted to just, and only just, using it according to the standard procedures. Only abiding by standard methods of getting an answer seems great at giving accurate responses addressing the inquiry at hand, but the biggest drawback is that it's cut off from the possibility of providing a "yes" or "no." And as I mentioned in the original post, there is always a possibility of self-deception in regards to how we interpret the resulting hexagrams, not to mention the instances where the reading is vague and it's uncertain just how it addresses the initial inquiry. These instances could best be resolved through directly asking the oracle/sage if you're interpretation is in line with what it was trying to communicate.

And it appears the I Ching can be consulted to provide a "yes" or "no" answer, and that the oracle doesn't necessarily regard this as forbidden. Although in my case it seems reluctant to do for possibly concerns of misuse, from what I could gather from it.

But yes, there you have it. I'd love for some stories or just any thoughts regarding this issue, and even better if anyone has some extensive experience with this.

I guess I just see life as more complex than yes and no. Sometimes it is not just about walking or not walking, but which direction, which shoes and at what pace. I see the Yi's answers as more than simple yes or no, more detailed and more helpful, and I don't think that is a drawback.

Hi isley,
Having just read Carol Anthony's Psyche Revealed Through the I Ching I am also experimenting with this. Based on this book, what jumped out at me was a begging or seeking for approval. You may want to work on remaining neutral and think of the Sage as a close friend, not a superior or higher power. Just a thought... I do feel there is value here in yes/no as single lines are the foundation of the I Ching.

Life is indeed complex, there's influences behind motives and events we can't know of in their entirety; interconnection upon interconnection. But when we formulate a question (a good, honest, clear one hopefully so as to reduce 'noise' in the answers we receive) out of this massive potential of reality we've narrowed down the possibilities to receive just the data most pertinent to our question. Or perhaps another way to put it, out of the whole of reality (64 hexagrams) only data most relevant to the enquirer (whatever hexagram(s) we receive out of the 64), given shape and boundaries through the question, is revealed back to us -- which isn't to say that the results isn't necessarily intricate, just that it's now been narrowed down from the potential of all that is.

More to the topic at hand, even getting a yes or no doesn't automatically mean that the issue is no longer complex. There are four different possible answers from a yes/no reading: a strong yes, a strong no, a tentative yes, and a tentative no. It depends on the situation and the nature of the question, like all things. If for some reason you want issues to feel complex, that there's still layers to be uncovered, then you probably can do more probing if the answers you get are a tentative yes or tentative no.

By using the I Ching in the standard way on top of incorporating a yes/no reading, when appropriate, you're only maximizing your learning and benefit. It's using the system one step closer to its potential and in no way is it a drawback, rather it's a drawback to limit oneself by only following the standardized guidelines handed down. It's about growth and expansion; adhering only to tradition and standardized rules is to be imprisoned by them.

Sorry but sometimes it comes down to just walking or not walking, fretting about the type of footwear or the direction can cost you the moment, then it no longer matters whether you walk or not. As complex as reality is in its manifestation and the factors which give birth to those manifestation, I feel paradoxically at its core reality is simple.

I've already stated the reasons why incorporating a yes/no reading can be of immense benefit (and why for some situations there's no avoiding it). It only adds to the potential value of using the I Ching, not detract from it. I have a feeling that one of the main reasons long standing I Ching users would steer clear of or even react negatively toward its usage is the fear factor. What I mean by this is that it can be a frightening experience if A) you take the I Ching readings seriously (i.e. you believe there's a real intelligence speaking through the images of the text) and B) you inquire about a subject that you have an emotional investment in; you may be dreading a yes or a no and if it's not the answer you want, a yes/no can seem too final for your attachments to accept. Now you may be tempted to cast again... and that's probably a dangerous temptation. (To reiterate, a yes/no can also be a tentative yes/no so it's not final, and even a strong yes/no may not be a permanent deal. You can always get a standard reading asking the oracle to clarify the details or narrow down the possibilities through further yes/no readings as I did.)

1eleven said:

Hi isley,
Having just read Carol Anthony's Psyche Revealed Through the I Ching I am also experimenting with this. Based on this book, what jumped out at me was a begging or seeking for approval. You may want to work on remaining neutral and think of the Sage as a close friend, not a superior or higher power. Just a thought... I do feel there is value here in yes/no as single lines are the foundation of the I Ching.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone can say with certainty who the "Sage" is, but veteran users may have some clearer ideas. And to clarify, I don't regard it as a higher power in some religious sense, like how extremist Catholics may worship the Virgin Mary or some such. Whatever intelligence is speaking through the I Ching, I do regard it as "higher" however. What I mean by "higher" is that, even with mere four months of use, I know by now that whatever it is that's giving me the answers it's not originating from me. (You might according to some personal definition stretch the range of meaning for just what "me" is to encompass areas much larger than what you know from your everyday self, and I suppose in that case it could apply.)

I'm almost certain that whatever this intelligence is though, it is not "me" as in the everyday normal self which we all operate from. With that in mind, I do approach it with a sense of reverence, more than I would say my best friend who've I've known for the past ten years. Which isn't to say that feelings of companionship is absent, but it encompasses more than that, and any feeling of comradery is more distanced in the background rather than forefront. The reason for the reverence has to do with that fact that this intelligence is able to provide insights into issues which I (in the sense of everyday "me") could have no knowledge of, hence it is "higher" in that it seems to have access to data which the everyday me does not. I haven't been using the I Ching very long but I've had events come to pass which it previously foretold, and that's convincing enough that this intelligence has access to information I do not (i.e. "higher).

As for Carol Anthony's works, I've heard many good reviews for them but I haven't read through any of them to say to give personal input. However it seems the "sage" is strongly against me using one of her works at least, I Ching, The Oracle of the Cosmic Way -- I've already detailed this in my initial post. It's uncertain as to why, but I do have the book and skimming through it it's clear her version of the I Ching differs radically from the Wilhelm and Wilhelm based versions. Many of the descriptions for the hexagrams has been re-edited to almost give the impression of a constant struggle behind the ego and the individual's true self, the images have also been done away with from what I gather, also she advises not to construct a second hexagram from any of the changing lines. I do believe her method of obtaining yes/no reading can be invaluable however (and she's not the first author to publish a "yes/no"), but also can be easily misused and probably not suitable for most people. I'm guessing one may have to almost become enlightened before a yes/no reading may be acceptable for the "Sage" behind the I Ching to approve usage of -- but by then such a person probably won't need it.

I was hoping for feedback on peoples' experience with yes/no readings, or even just what I've posted thus far. It may be that most users have been not explored other avenues of using the I Ching aside from its standard use, I don't know. I still welcome any feedback and help in clarifying matters.

I haven't read much of this thread and wasn't clear how you got yes and no to questions asked but for me it's quite simple. Many answers do boil down to yes or no especially to the smaller practical questions but also to the bigger ones sometimes. However while the broad message may be yes or no there's alot more you get besides that....so if it was only yes or no you wanted I can't see why you wouldn't just toss a coin ?

Some examples of my own that I have taken as failry clear yes or no....;

um...wondering if I should seek help with something, answer 16.1. I took that as a broad no .

considering if I was well enough to go out 47.6 thats a yes

Thinking about going out or not 60.1 thats a no.

Excited to take a first step in something immediately got 43.1 hmm thats a no then


But if you look you can see I got the yes or no but I got alot else besides. 16.1 shows calling out and fussing too much...in line with the enthusiasm of the overall hexagram. Too much calling out enthusiastically...ultimately means 'no don't go asking for help with this fusspot"

The 47.6 says yes go out ,as all these anxieties are insubstantial and also gives an overall picture of the frame of mind in asking.

The 43.1 as i was about to send an email....strong no...but I have more than a no there don't I, much more. The answer describes what this is all about.

So yes of course one can get yes and no answers from Yi, it happens all the time to me, but I get alot more besides. Often an answer is far more equivocal also if whether I take an action or not doesn't matter much, if its out of my hands.....or it really is as yet unknown or reliant on other multiple factors in the situation.


I have to say its quite likley alot of our questions about what to do may not matter very much.....but its all good learning. Asking over little things is good learning I think so we are more ready when the bigger things come up.


Overall I see no big deal about yes/no questions. I have heard briefly of the Carol Anthony method of pinning Yi down and I really would dismiss it as unecessary. You can recognise yes and no easy enough without that palaver of twisting Yis arm behind its back and forcing a yes or no out

Think of all the questions you ask others in a day. They don't always say yes or no....they can make quite long stories out of yes or no and you get more information besides. For example you ask a friend 'shall we go to the cinema ?' he may say "well the thing is I have got alot on, I'm not sleeping well, I'm behind with work" He hasn't said 'no' but you know his answer boils down to no..plus you got alot more information besides about him, your relationship with him, your expectations and so on, Communication is rich between you not sparse yes/no

Yi isn't a machine IMO its at least as intelligent as your most intelligent best friend and you don't need to insist your most intelligent best friend only answer you in a yes or a no do you

I may have missed some of your finer points cos I don't have time to read all the thread. I just wanted to put my 20pence worth in FWIW

Depend what you call a yes or no answer, 亨heng properous or not, lucky 吉 ji or misfortune 凶 xiong. Is possible to use the I ching this way, but you will miss the most important part of it. The yes or no are probably not supported because you can see clearly that the I ching can make mistake, something not appreciate by some, something difficult to happens with the vague and colorful text of the I ching, that you can turn a interpretation in whatever you want. According to Karl Jung, this method used today should bring your personal opnion from your own opinion, something a yes or no answer, if used in a methodical way, should be difficult.

isley said:

it's often bothered me that I couldn't get a direct "yes" or "no" response

Click to expand...

You sound like a Gemini.

The problem sounds to me like you're not in agreement with yourself.

I should continue the thought. I perceive that the Yijing confirms what we already know.... it's in our knower. For me, that is my gut. That's what I've learned to trust, far and away above my monkey mind.

So, let's say I receive 23 for a yes/no question. I can interpret that as "oooh, nooo" or I could interpret it as "strip away the superfluousness and see the real deal," which I would interpret as a "yes". The question, yes what? If you don't know that clearly, nor the better outcome your knower desires, than how can you interpret a hexagram as yes or no? There are always plenty of daemons on hand to jump in, to decide for you, be they psychological, mythological, literal or virtual; and sometimes even well meaning.

There are usually more productive questions to ask, once you know what really want.

I've been thinking about the yes and no thing and perhaps I am a little wrong.. and a little right too. I think in the end, once the reading is over, after doing a reading with hopes of a yes or no answer, we do come to the conclusion of a yes or a no. But I still do not think that the Yijing actually gives us the yes or the no. Instead we ourselves determine the yes or no based on personal interpretations from something far more complex. The Yijing gives the water, and we boil it down. The answer is much richer than black or white. There are a million shades of grey.

I Ching can of course be consulted to provide a "yes" or "no" answer, such as Yang or Yin, Luck or Misfortune, respectively, etc… as is expressed on I Ching as Isley would prefer. Yes or no might clearly as well be picked up by differing ‘fortunate or without fault’ from ‘unfortunate or no fruit,’ but also ‘Yang’ from ‘Yin’ etc…, to say the least. Isley may write a personal version commentary with yes or no connotation. What would female horse to be? It might as well be regarded as Yin, but good, ironically, as in the context of Gua 2, as would I join Isley classifying polarities between the two theses. An interpretation limited to the text, if not applied to Isley’s specific personal case of inquisitiveness or to other great cause from Isley’s perspective according to corresponding circumstances, might be considered as ‘wisdom undiscovered yet’ rather than a ‘drawback.’ Hence the necessity for everyone’s own commentary!

Quite right to the point as Answeredquestions’ thought on Gua 12, whose first sentence might as well be understood as ‘Crossing Each Other’ leading to ‘Going Wrong,’ rather than ‘To say no,’ since heaven and earth in 12 do not interact so as would they in Gua 11. Just as Gua 12 or 11 might as well be understood more than no or yes, so might Isley’s sincere but insistent query as well call for one out of 64 Hexagrams in place for expecting yes or no answer.

In order for Gua interpretation clarification, yes or no, to be obtained to the utmost, however, Determination before resorting to the Divination, Staying with the first answer from the Oracle, and Seasoned Fidelity, all combined to yield no fault as described in Gua 8, where all five yins follow the Yang in the 5th position, etc... Before query either for yes or for no alternative, an inquirer’s strong will should be the prerequisite in order to initiate asking for oracle’s advice whether the outcome would be fortunate or not. The inquisitive mind wondering either yes or no answer implies in itself a status of mind neither determined what to do nor ready to take any action. If an inquiry such as ‘Would it be okay if an inquirer does something?’ expects only to receive either rosy ‘Yes, it is okay’ or dreadful ‘No, it is not’ answer, I Ching expressions such as ‘fortunate’ as opposed to ‘disastrous,’ or ‘no fault’ to ‘unfortunate,’ should be accepted as respective alternatives. Fear is the sentiment to be overcome within the mind of the helpless rather than to keep away from, once determined, unless otherwise. Expecting yes or no answer from I Ching Oracle without firm resolution reveals the status of the mind where an inquirer asks "herself or himself,' instead of asking the Oracle, if okay to go for it or not as should be clarified, more precisely, accepted by the distressed, within the mindset looking for either yes or no, just as much as can be. This alternative may be more often than not mistaken for the Oracle’s judgment, but yet in the midst of questioner’s journey, a growing will projected towards own willful choice.

We do not simply want to ask the Oracle to read our minds whether we would think yes or no for some query, then make a decision, but rather as if having taken exams first, having answered to problems in the test, without referring to ‘Solution,’ and then get graded, and thereafter, realize what we should study further as well as learn which answer is right or wrong. Computer, the Oracle per say, does not give correct answer to each problem if yes, no or else, but only to grade either right or wrong afterwards, and would point out 'incorrect' to ‘blank answer' on examination, meaning ‘Query without determination until any Divination.’ What if the Oracle would likewise respond to weak or no resolution? No wonder I Ching considers Yang good and Yin otherwise. If strong will power would bring about good fortune, would you be inclined to your own determination to take action before asking the Oracle? If the Oracle tells ‘Good to go for it,’ ‘Give it up,’ or ‘Wait and see what would come,’ would you take the word for your life? Or would you rather give something a deep thought to find your own resolution but only to ask the Oracle whose advice might as well be one of the manifold information, prospect and advice in hand? That practice might as well not be recommended but rather shifted to the conclusion what to do with something followed by wondering ‘How to handle?’ or ‘What to be prepared for?’ etc…

More importantly would I like Isley to share describing own example Oracle onset situation where what might have as well been decided before resorting to the Oracle consultation. Interpretation goes along the way with how deep resolution might be, so is important as Confucius I Ching Commentary puts more emphasis on how is advised to do what once after own decision made, rather than on what would come afterwards while lacking strong determination. Lifestyle is the choice which way to go but with advice of integrity, rather than hopping on an oracle to find where to go for. Firm will would call for complementary advice, job done, otherwise should bring about hesitation, say, which one is better over another, or yes or no, helpless alternatives on. What time, date, and month of the year, if not also with where Isley was at the time of sincere query while who the other party, if involved, might have been where else, in terms of which directional distance from each other. Time and place have respective weight in terms of which way power is generated from, driven by, or drawn to.

I've said this before and it was taken as sarcasm (I guess it kinda was though) but if you believe in the premise of synchronicity or divinity that powers the I Ching... couldn't you just flip a coin? For questions where you just want a basic yes/no that is. I've tried this before with fairly interesting results.

mryou1 said:

I've said this before and it was taken as sarcasm (I guess it kinda was though) but if you believe in the premise of synchronicity or divinity that powers the I Ching... couldn't you just flip a coin? For questions where you just want a basic yes/no that is. I've tried this before with fairly interesting results.

Click to expand...

The I Ching is based on the yin yang. yin is no, yang is yes. yin is inactive, yang is active. yin is dark, yang is light. You can almost think of the hexagram as simply a complete version of the answer yes/no encompassing all of the universe in it's present form... it's like the i ching is saying yes... but.....this and this and this and oh did i forget to mention this?

isley said:

It seems taboo to try and get a yes or no response but a yes/no can clarify an ambiguous reading as well eliminate self-deception (i.e. reading into the hexagrams how you want them to mean), just to mention a few.

Click to expand...

Agree.

Might tentative also be expressed as conditional? A conditional yes or no works better for me, as it isn't the Yi which wavers, but I. I doubt the Yi was ambiguous, but the condition it was addressing may have been. If the skies are cloudy, a weather forecaster will say it's cloudy; though their vision is perfectly clear. Sometimes a maybe is absolute, lol.

I've been interested in this thread because I have realized for some time now that even though I am careful not to put my questions in a yes/no format, more often than not what I am wanting is a yes/no answer. Sometimes it is clear to me that I am being told "yes/or no ...AND/orBUT..." More often than not I cannot tell if it is a "yes" or a "no". For example, I recently asked a question and received 4.2 > 23. Whether I read the answer as being "don't know", "yes", or "no" depends on which translation/commentaries I use. The question was about whether or not to apply to be manager of nonprofit community house. The overall hexagram seems to say "Don't know". But the changing line says "Good fortune" which seems to indicate "yes". Hilary''s translation, "The child governs the home" certainly would speak to the situation. In terms of managing a community house, I certainly would be a "child". Karcher's translation, "This young son can control the dwelling" seems to indicate that I am capable anyway. And so I am taking this as a "yes", this would be an O.K. thing to do and I would learn a thing or too. I suppose that it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best option open to me at this time. It would certainly be a "Stripping Away." I am in the process of making a change in how I earn a living. My long term goal is not to be a house manager, but the situation could "envelope/protect" me while I develop the career change I have in mind.

The spring forms a pool, the pool grows. At first it doesn't know where to go, but a way opens and he begins to flow. Learning is often like that, hence the association with water. A small spring-fed pool doesn't stay that, he becomes a stream, which may converge with a river which leads to the ocean. It doesn't stay the same. It matures, gathers momentum and gains depth, and together gives birth.

When my young son tells me how he fixed a sheet metal junction box by extending the sheet metal collar, fastening with screws, insulation and duct tape, rather than taking an easier rout of extending the flex duct, I know he is capable of 'taking a wife', having a child, buying and caring for a home for his own family. He's no less my young son for becoming his own man.

Callingcrane has received 4.2 > 23, Gua 4 蒙 changing to Gua 23 剝 for an inquiry to determine whether or not to apply for the position, manager of nonprofit community house. Gua 4 蒙 in a version translated as "Don't Know" goes along with Wilhelm’s ‘Youthful Folly.’ The latter goes further with narrower inclusion than the former. The character 蒙 in its broad sense, however, falls into ‘Infant,’ or ‘Very Young.’ Infant character trait can partially include ‘Don’t Know,’ ‘Ignorant,’ but not quite ‘Foolish,’ if not ‘Dark,’ in its another literal meaning of 蒙.

‘Ignorant’ cannot embrace ‘Dark’ category realm, while ‘Dark’ can include that of ‘Ignorant.’ ‘Youthful Folly’ concept cannot include the category of ‘Ignorant,’ and worse yet, it has by far deviated from the original intent of Gua 4 蒙 Infant. Gua 4 蒙, if translated either as ‘Don’t Know’ or as ‘Young Fool,’ once being narrowed down to either one, neither version could explain the full meaning of 蒙, while ‘Infant’ may later be specifically interpreted as ‘The Ignorant’ in particular circumstances, but not the other way around. How could Gua 4 represent to cover, if its translation too specified, one of the 64 Hexagrams that explain or constitute whole universe, including but not limited to living beings, inanimate substances, spiritual beings, intellectual projections, concepts, etc...? Categorical reasoning works its own way to necessitate Gua 4 蒙 to stay put ‘Infant.’ Going on, what if Gua 4 蒙 is determined to represent ‘Very Young Stage of Animal Life,’ as opposed to Gua 3 屯 positioned for ‘Sprout of Vegetation’ such that Gua 1 乾 Heaven and Gua 2 坤 Earth beget their off-springs, Gua 3 屯 young vegetation first and Gua 4 蒙 young animal life next. Gua 4 蒙 in overall hexagram(s) context, therefore, its translation needs to stay at “Very Young Human Being, Animal, or Animal Life.’ Here comes the ‘Infant’ in order to take the next step Gua 5 需 ’to want,’ or ‘to be in need of ‘ mother’s milk, comfort, protection, attention, affection etc… ‘Infant’ becomes the author of innocent desire or natural appetitive compulsion. ‘Young Folly’ seems too deviated to deal with these natures of animal life desire, etc… ‘Those who do not know’ or ‘ Youthful Follies’ do not match with these disposition intrinsic to ‘Infant.’ Nor can they embrace the realm of 需, Gua 5 characteristics, 'To Want.’ 'Young Folly’ would ‘want’to grow wiser. ‘The Ignorant‘ may want to acquire knowledge. ‘In need of Wisdom or Knowledge’ is limited to the author who is foolish or ignorant, which is inappropriate to go over its boundary to include whatever can be wanted by ‘Infant.’ It is categorical error to try to match ‘Young Folly’ with the next step Gua 5 需 ‘being in need of‘ what is necessary to be grown up to a ‘Normal Adult’ from a baby Gua 4 蒙.

Gua 4 蒙 might as well, within 64 hexagrams sequential position, reflect the stage of ‘Infant’ in between Gua 3 屯 Sprout and Gua 5 需 Want, or simply the stage before Gua 5 需 as can be made better sense in the context where Heaven and Earth initiated interacting to yield Sprout/Infant, who then in need of nourishment. ‘Sprout’ would not simply go through ‘darkness,’ mistaken for Gua 4蒙, and ‘wait,’ misled for Gua 5 需, in order to compete among other sprouts in the contextual environment of Gua 6 訟 ‘Fighting.’ A lot more things to do along the way than ‘darkness,’ and ‘wait.’ Nor would ‘Infant’ just ‘wait’ in order to ‘fight,’ having ignored ‘the need to grow up’ further to a child. Gua 5 需 ‘Needy’ nature is intrinsic to ‘Infants’ who compete among one another over food. ‘Youthful Folly’ won’t do the job.

Gua 4 蒙 rings the bell of stage ‘Infant’ metaphor to represent Callingcrane’s qualification for or experience in the field of property management. The 2nd line of 蒙 Gua, ‘moving’ with enforced influence, would be considered ‘lucky’ if ‘Yang’ on this position strong enough to protect its corresponding ‘Juvenile’ 蒙 on the 5th line, or if this ‘Yang’ accepts another ‘Yin’ on the 3rd or the 4th line, ‘Bride,’ then the ‘Yang,’ ‘having protected’ the 5th ‘Juvenile’ or ‘Married’ the ‘Yin’ on the 3rd and 4th, or both ‘Yins,’ which is to say, having thereby already turned into ‘Adult,’ so does indicate conditional "yes". This ‘Adult Son’ is not anymore an ‘Youth’ in ‘governing his home.’ (The adult son would govern the family if he is lucky by protecting juvenile or by marrying bride.)

Callingcrane may attest to see if three ‘Yins’ are under control to qualify for the manager’s position, and better yet going on. He may confront with difficulty, however, since being together with ‘Juvenile’ are too young between them to be protected by each other, unless changing to Gua 20 觀 by way of moving the 2nd and the 5th lines. Gua 23 剝 would not make good career by moving the 2nd line alone, while Gua 20 觀 would make step by step progress.

I never got a yes or no in more than 40 years of working with the Yi. I agree with mriou: better to flip a coin.
What I did get very often, is something (maybe an answer, maybe just some hint) which told me what I knew myself, deep inside. Or what I felt to be right. And from there my own yes or no could come to the surface.

isley said:

I've decided to use Carol Anthony's "Retrospective Three-Coin Method" (rtcm) to clarify and better understand some previous answers. For reference the rtcm method is basically a 9 = strong yes, 6 = strong no, the other two is either a tentative yes or no.

Click to expand...

You don't cast any hexagram with this method, do you?
If I understand well the rtcm consists in tossing the coins only once, as if casting a single line, right?
My mother uses this method almost daily, because she tried to consult the Yijing for a while, years ago, but in the end she decided it was not for her, so she resorted to this other method to only get yes/no replies, which she simply calls tossing the coins.

I'd like to understand what a tentative answer from the Yi actually means.

ten·ta·tive/ˈtentətiv/
Adjective:

Not certain or fixed; provisional: "a tentative conclusion".
Done without confidence; hesitant: "tentative steps".

Click to expand...

Do you mean it's tentative upon our actions? Or that Yi just can't make up its mind? If it's upon our actions, that's conditional.

Sorry everyone for the delay. I had intentionally stayed away from this thread as it originally seemed no one was interested -- guess I was wrong, somewhat at least.

I’ll try to make this post relevant to the discussions and issues raised in the last two pages. Judging from a few of the questions it seems either people are not fully understanding my proposed usage of the “yes/no” method for the key purpose of bringing about clarity (I.e.what situations call for a yes/no reading or not), or what is meant by a “tentative yes/no.” I may have not done a proper job of explaining myself; I hope this post will finally redress this.

First, situations which may call for a yes/no reading would not include questions pertaining to what A or B action/choice an individual is considering. Examples in this category would include such issues as “should I head out tonight?” or “should I take (insert specific job) or not?” Questions of this nature are better phrased not in an attempt to seek a yes/no response but rather a better alternative would be to ask, “What would be the result of (taking this job offer, heading out tonight, etc.)?” Not only is a yes/no response not needed for questions such as these, but ultimately you may get more helpful information to make your own informed decision by directly asking what the result of choosing one option over another would be. So it‘s really about asking good questions and being strategic in how you ask questions for maximum clarity and benefit. (Of course you can ask in a way to attempt to get at a yes/no, but when applied to the examples I’ve given this would really just be asking the Oracle to make decisions for you -- and from my experience the Yi doesn’t like that, it seeks to guide you into becoming autonomous in every way possible.)

So what sort of question, what situation calls for a yes/no reading? Primarily questions intended to clarify an otherwise obscure and ambiguous interpretation. For instance, this could apply to bringing clarity and resolution to any possibility of self-deceit (“reading into the lines what one wants to hear”), although with experience and enough honest active engagement with the I Ching one becomes more aware of self-deceit over time.

The next set of situations which may be appropriate for a yes/no reading would be important questions which would come down to a simple “yes” or “no.” And don’t try to rationalize it away, yes every situation changes, and indeed there are always conditional background factors behind every “yes” and “no”, but regardless certain cases a yes or no answer is what’s needed. For example, you need to know who amongst your circle of acquaintance, whom you’ve first narrowed down on your own, is responsible for stealing your prized heirloom. You don’t do a standard reading in this case, it just wouldn’t be practical nor bring any more clarity into the situation -- and that‘s the key in all of this: obtaining clarity and useful information, whether that‘s through asking good questions and doing a standard reading or narrowing down to a yes/no. So the first question you ask would be, “Is the thief amongst the circle of acquaintance I’ve narrowed down to?” to eliminate any doubt as to whether your amateur detective work thus far is correct. The answer will have to be a yes or no, not “yes, but (insert reasons why).” It doesn’t matter why Jane stole your heirloom, that’s not helpful in this situation. Next, assuming the answer was a “yes”, you go down each of the names on your list of suspects and ask whether [insert name] is the thief.

The value and the flexibility that a yes/no reading can offer is immense, any limits are due only to restrictive routine patterned thinking. Obviously a yes/no result isn’t only of benefit to such unhappy circumstances like the scenario I’ve provided, you can think of many instances in life in which a yes/no can be used to clarify and thus uncover the underlying truth. Sometimes the right strategy -- being whatever will bring the most clarity -- is to do a standard reading and ask good questions rather than getting a yes/no reading and in other cases important issues will have to be resolved with a yes/no.

As an aside, someone asked whether I cast a hexagram with the yes/no method: no, for the method itself you don’t cast a hexagram but rather throw your three coins once as if casting a single line. (To reiterate from my original post, 9 = strong yes, 6 = strong no, the other two is either a tentative yes or no -- I’ll get to the confusion regarding “tentative” next.) Now although the method itself doesn’t involve casting a hexagram this doesn’t mean you can’t augment this alongside a hexagram reading. As I mentioned before it depends on the situation and the nature of your question, sometimes it’s more useful/helpful to formulate a good question and cast a hexagram and do a standard reading. Sometimes it may bring more clarity to do a standard reading first, then if there’s any further questions which wouldn't be better addressed through another standard reading and would require a yes/no response, then it’s appropriate. And other times it’s best to just go with a yes/no reading and narrow down possibilities in a process of elimination, as in my example. It’s situational and requires mental flexibility and full engagement with the readings and being in touch with the basic nature of your question/problem to best determine which course would bring the most clarity. The beauty of a yes/no is in its simplicity and its almost limitless range of applicability, however I think that’s also its danger in that people could get carried away with it and apply it to questions which would be better suited for a standard reading, but ultimately the problem is with the individual and whether they’re at a stage of development where they can most effectively use it or not, not with the method itself which is only a tool.

The confusion behind what is meant by a “tentative” yes or no is due to poor choice of words. I have to apologize for that. I believe that’s what Carol Anthony calls it in her description of the “RTCM” method. Tentative = conditional, so yes, meng is correct. A tentative yes or no just means it’s a conditional yes/no based upon fluctuating background influence(s), although depending on the influence its duration may persist for any length of time, though the point is that it’s not absolutely set in stone. Also yes, it’s been my experience that the Yi doesn’t make mistakes; a tentative -- conditional rather-- yes/no indicates a yes/no based upon a fluctuating conditional factor(s) and does not mean that the Yi is unsure.

With all that being said, I recently asked whether the Yi thought it would give me another chance and consent to my incorporating the yes/no method. The exact question asked: “I still often have difficulty accurately interpreting the answers received, particularly to questions in which the answer is to be either in agreement with or not. It can feel like trying to solve a puzzle. You know me to be a sincere user. A while back I asked for your consent to use the “yes/no” method to which you denied. Would you reconsider at this point?”

The answer: 32.3 > 40.

Interpreting this, even though the answer expected was to be basically a yes or no, not only was the answer obvious (to me) but I got an overall bigger-picture-sense of some of the details behind the answer -- which is neat really. So this, to me, would be a case of where a yes or no answer could be clearly felt out from a standard reading, although this isn’t always the case. Since I first started this thread, having made an agreement of sort with the Yi to not employ a yes/no method I’ve had to use a standard reading to “sense out” the answer whenever I felt it necessary to get a yes/no answer. I’ve actually gotten quite used to it, and over that brief period of time I’ve noticed an improvement in my intuitive sense of whether it’s a yes or no. The key to accurately perceiving a yes from a no seems to be a combination of being clear on what your real question is, whether that question really warrants a yes/no reply, and if so phrasing the question appropriately so that the answer wouldn’t be too hard to discern, and finally whether you have as much knowledge and detail surrounding the background condition(s) of your inquiry. That last bit isn’t necessary, but I’ve found the more knowledge and detail you have the more easier to ascertain the real answer, generally. (Which is also why when people post up their results without posting their questions it’s honestly impossible to provide them with any sort of accurate interpretation, and even when the question and results are provided there may still not be enough information for strangers on the internet to go by -- after all they don’t know the entire life history of that person, sometimes that’s not necessary, sometimes it is.)

Interestingly, I found Karcher’s Total I Ching to be the translation which really “spoke” to me for this particular reading; especially the mythological story attributed to Hexagram 32 and particularly Karcher’s translation of the third changing line. Typically I use Karcher’s Total I Ching alongside Balkin’s The Laws of Change (sometimes I include Wilhelm’s translation as well), and they all have their pros and cons; sometimes one translation would seem to hit home more than another, sometimes the other translations can clarify an otherwise obscure line from another work, or they all can help provide an overall meaning to the answer. So I’d say everyone (at least everyone still in the beginning stages as me) can benefit from 2 - 3 translations that works for them, and one source shouldn’t be consulted alone. From my experience, Balkin’s version can often clarify obscure passages and bring it down to a conventional everyday level as his translation seems focused on the mundane practical perspective. But I’m becoming more a fan of Karcher’s approach as I come from an esoteric background and I often find his way of interpreting things to resonate with me whenever I’m interpreting the answers.

Now with all that being said, this doesn’t invalidate the immense potential nor the usefulness of simply getting a direct yes or no. You can only do so much with a standard hexagram reading regardless. There are many situations where a standard reading wouldn’t be able to touch. For example, how would you arrive at the truth in my scenario of narrowing down suspects amongst your circle of acquaintance using a standard reading. You can try, but the results would likely be ambiguity and confusion rather than clarity. Different situations and different questions call for different methods.


Anyhow, this post has gotten lengthier than expected, and I’ve tried to address most of the issues raised in this thread. If not than ask questions, criticize, comment away. I had originally intended to include a few more sample readings and maybe go into a couple of other tangential matters but those may be unnecessary for this topic.

meng said:

You sound like a Gemini.

The problem sounds to me like you're not in agreement with yourself.

I should continue the thought. I perceive that the Yijing confirms what we already know.... it's in our knower. For me, that is my gut. That's what I've learned to trust, far and away above my monkey mind.

So, let's say I receive 23 for a yes/no question. I can interpret that as "oooh, nooo" or I could interpret it as "strip away the superfluousness and see the real deal," which I would interpret as a "yes". The question, yes what? If you don't know that clearly, nor the better outcome your knower desires, than how can you interpret a hexagram as yes or no? There are always plenty of daemons on hand to jump in, to decide for you, be they psychological, mythological, literal or virtual; and sometimes even well meaning.

There are usually more productive questions to ask, once you know what really want.

Click to expand...

I know I come off as overly fixated on this "yes/no" issue, but that's only due to the topic of the thread.

No, I'm an Aquarius... double Aquarius if going by the natal chart, but I'm no expert in astrology. But going by Tarot symbology it'll be The Star (cosmic influence) with character symbol Prince of Swords (air of air), so that's a lot of thought and concepts attributed to one person -- it can be stifling.

Yes I'd agree that the Yi answers what we already know in a sense; it's the "knower" that speaks through. But unless a person is at a stage of development where their being is aligned with their innermost Self they'll need tools (i.e. I Ching) to answer questions which they already know in a sense. It's the "monkey mind" as you mention blocking the truth within.

Well but when you receive hexagram 23 in answer to a question seeking yes or no, you also factor in the nature of your question, what your question was, how you phrased it, and the details/circumstances surrounding your question. All of that ties into how you interpret hexagram 23, and 23 still has a number of associations to it, all of which would "speak" to you its answer. Only you yourself would be in the best position as to whether that answer is a yes or a no since you alone have all the details.

Yes I agree on "productive questions." I'm not sure what you mean by daemons jumping in however. If you mean Daemon such as in Socrate's Daemon then I'd say you don't have to worry about other "daemons" jumping in. The one that speaks through is always your own.

Isley,

My Gemini comment was only a tease. Didn't mean to pigeonhole you. I was actually identifying my own Gemini yes/no-ness, lol.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement regarding the details spoken of, including my 23 example and your own explanation. Context expands the meaning of a yes or a no. For me at least it's more of a "tell me about" such 'n such: good idea, bad idea, benefits, pitfalls, etc?

The daemons I'd mentioned weren't intended as being external entities but more ones own disturbed past experiences and the traces they leave upon our present decision making and discernment capabilities. Once a notion (correct or incorrect) has crystallized, it becomes an influence, through which our views become fixed or fixated, biased, distorted, unnatural, unreal.

I am joining very late this thread. I am using the RTCM method with great personal success (you might read my posts here.

Just one thought. There is always the danger as described by 4 mong Youthful Folly. I would point out that it is a *feedback* method about an oracle answer, and not this answer itself.

So your first try may have been annoying because skeptical asking as described by 4 mong.

IMHO the yes, tentative yes, tentative no, no answers are about the right *understanding* of an oracle answer. And this is a complete different thing than a yes/no oracle.

If you have intuitions while reading an oracle answer you might ask: "RTCM am I right when I understand the oracle such or such". Or "RTCM: Have I understood the answer xxx > yyy right?".

Or if the reading of an oracle answer inspires you to specific actions, you might ask: "RTCM: Does line xxx of yyy mean that I should do this?".

When the RTCM answers are full of "tentative yes or no" you might ask if you are annoying, or you can ask if you should stop asking. The answers to these questions are always fitting.

I added the usage of RTCM to determine the right moment for asking for an oracle answer and this is working really good!

Jumping into this very old discussion because I recently had a crisis of conscience about a few of my own recent interpretations.

Lately I've been seeing 16s, both as primary and relating hexes, in my answers about a situation in which I'm not getting much feedback from someone far away. My inclination is to read them as something akin to cheerleading. I think that maintaining optimism and enthusiasm is a big part of my role in this situation anyway, so the interpretation does fit. But if I construe those 16s as indicating delusion, or the possibility of delusion, the message changes significantly. Was I fooling myself?

I could have checked by asking a yes-no question, but I decided that there was no need to be so simple-minded. (If Requests for Comments are solid enough for the protocols that underlie the Internet, they'll do for me too!) So I asked: by way of "due diligence" about those 16s, how was I doing on those interpretations?

I got 5.1 > 48. This told me exactly what I needed to know, with far more emphasis and subtlety than I could have hoped for from a "yes" or "no" confirmation.