What does the I Ching think of itself? The subject goes far deeper than just "The Well, but that is a good starting point. The hexagram starts out defining the well as being in disrepair, but in line two the water is clear but not being used. In line three the well has been repaired, but it is not recognized for the value that it has. In terms of the I Ching itself, The I Ching is saying that its wisdom is not being used. Often when we contact the I Ching we recognize an immediate answer to our question, which sometimes is superficial but it is all we need, and we stop there. We are all so busy in our daily life that we have no interest in the wisdom involved, but only a quick and immediate answer to our question. The I Ching say that this is it's sorrow - that men or women do not take advantage of the life giving waters or the wisdom of the I Ching. With practice, the I Ching takes on a life of its own and shows a personality. When line 3 changes, we go to hexagram 29, the abyss, or the deep. This shows us that the wisdom is unfathomable. In H29, the superior man walks in lasting virtue and carries on the business of teaching. But in order to attain the value of the lesson, "we must have sincerity, and a right attitude toward the use of the I Ching." Then "whatever you do succeeds."

Gene

Hi Gene,
I like those thoughts, but I wonder how you came to choose The Well as the starting place? When Jung asked the (similar) question, I believe he got #50, the Cauldron - and as I recall, drew some similar conclusions. When I asked, I got #31, Influence (Wooing) - the dance of approach and receptiveness.

Willow

I just like that particular line. I intend to write more later on other hexagrams and lines that say similar things. I intend to still write on my timing thread too.

Gene

Hi guys,

All three hexagrams seem appropriate to me. But then, so would 61 and 1. Since it bears with me, 2 also seems to work. So does 4, when its the teacher. The more I think about the faces of Yi, the more faces it takes on, it seems. And to think that they all are us! Boggles my mind!

Candid

Maybe Candid didn't mean to imply this, or maybe he did -- but he made me wonder . . .

What does the I Ching think of itself? What do I think of myself? What do you think of yourself? What do we all think of ourselves? These are basically the same question, are they not?

Lindsay

Lindsay...

Yes

Val

Hi Lindsay,

If my memory serves me correctly, when Jung(whom, as I recall, you have some disagreements with), asked the Yi what it thought about being introduced to Western culture, the Yi responded with Hex 50 Ting The Cauldron. Jung's interpretation of that was that the Yi was describing itself as a "ritual vessel containing cooked food...the food itself being spiritual nourishment". Jung also got 9 in the second and third places on this throw. He goes on to interpret the second line as the Yi saying of itself "I contain (spiritual) nourishment". Jung's further analysis of 9 in the second place is: "Since a share in something great always arouses envy, the chorus of the envious is part of the picture. The envious want to rob the I Ching of its great possession, that is, they seek to rob it of meaning. But their enmity is in vain. Its richness of meaning is assured; that is, it is convinced of its positive achievements, which no one can take away". Amen to that, is what I say!

Jung's analysis of 9 in the third place is as follows: "The handle is the part by which the ting can be grasped. Thus it signifies the concept one has of the I Ching (the ting). In the course of time this concept has apparently changed, so that today we can no longer grasp the I Ching. Thus 'one is impeded in his way of life'. We are no longer supported by the wise counsel and deep insight of the oracle; therefore we no longer find our way through the mazes of fate and the obscurities of our own natures. The fat of the pheasant, that is, the best and richest part of a good dish, is no longer eaten. But when the thirsty earth finally receives rain again, that is, when this state of want has been overcome, 'remorse', that is sorrow over the loss of wisdom, is ended, and then comes the longed-for opportunity."

Jung then goes on to say, "The answer given in these two salient lines to the question I put to the I Ching requires no particular subtlety of interpretation, no artifices, no unusual knowledge. Anyone with a little common sense can understand the meaning of the answer; it is the answer of one who has a good opinion of himself, but whose value is neither generally recognized nor even widely known."(Remember this was written circa 1949, and the Yi was not widely known or used in the Western world.)"The answering subject has an interesting notion of itself: it looks upon itself as a vessel in which sacrificial offerings are made to the gods, ritual food for their nourishment. It conceives of itself as a cult utensil serving to provide spiritual nourishment for the unconscious elements or forces('spiritual agencies') that have been projected as gods...in other words, to give these forces the attention they need in order to play their part in the life of the individual."

I was reminded at this point of the theme in Tom Robbin's book "Jitterbug Perfume" concerning the plight of Pan after the onslaught of Christianity. He was slowly fading from public view as the populace no longer paid any attention to him; both his physical being and his power being derived primarily from the fact of being acknowledged. It seems the same holds true for just about everything.

I hope I didn't burden those of you familiar with the Jung story by putting you through it again; I have always thought it exquisitely unique as regards the essence and power of the Yi, as well as a very good example of someone in the modern world(Jung), transforming ancient symbols into modern concepts.

I'm sure, Lindsay, that you have read the story, but if not, then perhaps it answers your question of what the Yi thinks of itself?

Namaste,
Leonard

Dear Leonard,

I"m sorry, but I"m afraid Jung"s story is by no means as clear to me as it seems to be to you. I do in fact have a number of problems with Jung"s preface, and it just so happens this story stands at the center of one of them.

Let"s say I am an ordinary, curious reader with no particular knowledge or experience of the I Ching. Jung has told me the book gives meaningful answers to questions according to the principle of synchronicity. This principle cannot be demonstrated scientifically (through experiment) because every divination refers to a unique and unrepeatable situation. But, according to Jung, "the only criterion of the validity of synchronicity is the observer"s opinion that the text of the hexagram amounts to a true rendering of his psychic condition."

Of course, the ancient Chinese knew nothing about synchronicity. Instead, Jung explains, they thought "it is "spiritual agencies," acting in a mysterious way, that make the yarrow stalks give a meaningful answer. These powers form, as it were, the living soul of the book. As the latter is thus a sort of animated being, the tradition assumes that one can put questions to the I Ching and expect to receive intelligent answers."

Let"s stop here for one moment. Jung assures us the I Ching does in fact give us meaningful answers to our questions. Yet our questions involve asking for information or advice we do not know. If we knew the answers, we wouldn"t bother asking the questions. So clearly Jung is suggesting the I Ching can give us meaningful information we would not have known without using divination.

So how does this work? Gaining information we did not know seems to imply an external process. That is, the answers are coming from a source outside ourselves. How can they come from within ourselves if we did not know them in the first place? So, it follows that using the I Ching is not a psychological process. Indeed, Jung makes it fairly clear that both synchronicity and spiritual agencies are factors external to the individual querent.

Returning to Jung, the next point he makes is based on telling the story you summarized. Jung says: "This is occurred to me that it might interest the uninitiated reader to see the I Ching at work. For this purpose I made an experiment strictly in accordance with the Chinese conception: I personified the book in a sense, asking its judgment about its present situation." Personify? Let me remind you that "personify" means to treat an inanimate object as though it were a person. That is, in Jung"s mind, the I Ching is not a person, not a conscious, intelligent being ~ but he is going to pretend the book is a person.

What does this mean? It means, I think, that Jung knew perfectly well that asking the I Ching to give an account of itself as though it were a person was nonsense. And yet, because of the principle of synchronicity, the answer did make sense as though it came from a person. Why? Because the question was based on the assumption the book was a person, and the Yi always gives a meaningful answer to the question (i.e., in the same terms as the question). "This seems a perfectly understandable reaction," Jung said, "such as one could expect also from a person in a similar situation." But Jung"s Yi is not in fact a person, it is a personification.

What does a personification think of itself? Who cares? Jung"s "experiment" proves nothing. But then he admits synchronicity cannot be validated scientifically.

Things start to get murkier as the preface proceeds. It becomes increasing unclear whether the operating principle of the I Ching comes from outside or inside ourselves. "The method of the I Ching does indeed take into account the hidden individual quality in things and men, and in one"s own unconscious self as well." "If the I Ching is not accepted by the conscious, at least the unconscious meets it halfway, and the I Ching is more closely connected with the unconscious that with the rational attitude of consciousness." "The I Ching insists upon self~knowledge throughout. . . . It is appropriate only for thoughtful and reflective people who like to think about what they do and what happens to them ~ a predilection not to be confused with the morbid brooding of the hypochondriac." "I have no answer to the multitude of problems that arise when we seek to harmonize the oracle of the I Ching with our accepted scientific canons. But needless to say, nothing "occult" is to be inferred." "Clearly the method aims at self~knowledge, though at all times it has also been put to superstitious use."

Finally, Jung says: "Any person of clever and versatile mind can turn the whole thing around and show how I have projected my subjective contents into the symbolism of the hexagrams. Such a critique, though catastrophic from the standpoint of Western rationality, does no harm to the function of the I Ching. On the contrary, the Chinese sage would smilingly tell me: "Don"t you see how useful the I Ching is in making you project your hitherto unrealized thoughts into its abstruse symbolism?""

This has been a long journey, but here finally is the problem. Jung begins by asserting the I Ching works according to a principle external to the human mind. It is a tool like a radio ~ it can tune into the synchronicitous moment and help us hear the meaning of the situation. Then slowly the active principle in the Yi shifts to hidden qualities within ourselves, to our unconscious thoughts and feelings, and finally to the Unconscious itself. In other words, the answers of the I Ching come from within ourselves. So the Yi is a tool like a stethoscope ~ it allows us to hear hidden, inaudible truths inside our unconscious minds.

Leonard, I honestly do not see how the I Ching can be based on both external and internal sources at the same time. The Yi is not a person, it is a personification. I myself do not believe the Yi has any external agency ~ I think synchronicity is bunk. I myself believe that everything the Yi does, it does inside our minds. You are the Yi. I am the Yi. Hilary is the Yi. But there is no objective, single Yi we can all access.

And so I believe, when you ask the Yi what it thinks of itself, you are asking yourself what you think of yourself. What humans think of themselves. What humanity thinks of itself.

How can I be wrong? Val says she agrees with me.

Lindsay

Wow Lindsay,

For about one minute after reading your post I just sat here speechless; then I rolled off the chair, hit the floor, kicked my legs in the air and rolled around for about half an hour laughing my arse off.

Now, correct me if I?m wrong here, OK? You are a member of this IChing forum and you do contribute to these discussions, right? So, one would assume that you at least have some interest in the magical/mystical. Now, I could be wrong here but the last time I checked I found scant empirical evidence out there for the existence of either. I mean, how many scientific experiments do we have record of which PROVE anything with regard to the IChing? Yet, your first paragraph states that you have a problem with synchronicity because it cannot be demonstrated scientifically? Through experience?;-)

Looking in my Funk and Wagnall?s under the definition of synchronicity I found the following:
?The fact or state of happening at the same time, esp. considered as a manifestation of intent or meaningfulness rather than chance or randomness? I?m sure there are other definitions of the word, but would you agree that this one seems appropriate? If you do agree, then I am confused. Does this mean you have selective/subjective preferences for improvable phenomena? I?ve never had any problem whatsoever with synchronicity, in fact, I?ve experienced it every time I?ve thrown the IChing, haven?t you? It seems to me that the crux of the word lies in the part stated as ?manifestation of intent?. One has the intent of consulting the oracle, throws the coins and voila!, manifestation!

Next point. You maintain that if we knew the answers, we wouldn?t bother asking the questions. IMHO, we DO know the answers; it?s just that we need the Yi as interpreter. The answers reside in our subconscious; our subconscious speaks in mathematical symbolism, the coins, yarrow stalks, dog droppings, etc., are manipulated by our INTENT and thus we get to communicate with ourselves. I believe this also addresses your next point.

And yes, Jung is clearly suggesting the IChing gives us meaningful information thru divination. When we all become totally enlightened individuals, I?m sure we won?t need our precious interpreter, but at the present its purpose seems to allow us access to our own storehouse of knowledge. Some call it the ?streaming subconscious?. I just call it the ALL.

I?m sorry, but I fail to see any dichotomy extant in Jung?s explanation. I also fail to find any implication on his part to ?personify? the Yi. Think of it as a thought experiment or an allegory. To me it was very clear that he was attempting to allow human brains circa 1949 to become capable of grasping the concept of this magical oracle.

Yes, it was a long journey, and ultimately we have wound up exactly where we started. Just like in the ?real? world, whatever/wherever that resides.

Lindsay, I just fail to see your problem with Jung and with his process, it all makes a wonderful kind of sense to me. I?m just glad all over that we can?t empirically prove that the Yi works, that synchronicity works and that magic and miracles exist in this world. It seems to me to be the only beautiful part in it.....with the exception of love. And I don?t have any empirical proof for you that loves exists either. I guess you?ll just have to have the experience for yourself; like all the rest of us.

Peace be with you forever, my friend.

Namaste,
Leonard

Is there really any difference between inside and outside? Along the same lines, is there a difference between the mind and the brain? If so which functions how? Neurologists and physicists are arguing about this one heatedly and angrily almost every day. It's unscientific in many circles, not to be a materialist. But little by little, their seat of authority is being undermined.

Gene

Lindsay,

I have also come across Jung on the Yi and it struck me that Jung did in fact believe in synchronicity and in the value of the Yi's answers.

Anyway, whether he did or not is not the question. The question is do I value the Yi as a guide to a better way of life? Yes I very much do.

Moreover, for me the fact that Fu Hsi, Lao Tzu ad Confucius -- so connected to the formation of the Yi are also Masters of my spiritual path has imbued it with further value.

Haven't you seen how in these posts on this forum the Yi makes sense?

I wonder - what is your purpose on this forum when you do not believe in synchronicity? Are you trying to prove or disprove its existence?

Best for your Quest (whatever it may be)

Anita

Hi Leonard...

You said:

"You are a member of this IChing forum and you do contribute to these discussions, right? So, one would assume that you at least have some interest in the magical/mystical."

Why would you assume that? I, personally, have no interest in the magical/mystical, and I find nothing magical/mystical about the I Ching. I said that the day I stepped foot into this forum. It works for me because of my neurological functions, your neurological functions, our neurological functions. I'm not communicating with a book. The book is simply interpreting for me/you/us.

Just like gods and god (and whatever else) were words used by the ancients to explain the 'unexplainable' to them, synchronicity was a word used by Jung to explain the 'unexplainable' to him. As we learn more, and more is 'explained', we outgrow and outdate words.


Gene...

I see it as outside only because it emanates from within us to outside us...and to each other. But I do not believe for a second that anything outside us (humanity) emanates to us.

Val

Not got time to be especially articulate here, but wish to say I loathe and detest notions of the collective unconscious and the psychologising (if there be such a word)of the spiritual. It seems sheer human arrogance to believe that there can be nothing outside the human mind - where all answers come from. Given though, all answers must be filtered through the human mind. I tend to think whats so scary about acknowledging spiritual energies and beings that surround us all the time. Of course this is not the only dimension. As for any collective unconscious is this less magical and mysterious than any God/spirits/angels ? No of course not, people are just more comfortable with it - perhaps they think it looks more sensible.
Oracles have been regarded as vehicles for us to connect with spirit in a way that won't overwhelm us - a way we can understand. I guess I still hold to that view.

Finally though what Gene said is true - no real division between inner and outer - it really doesn't matter where we think Yis answers come from. With Jung I think hes trying to sanitise and 'make safe' any spiritual influences by saying its all coming from our own minds. Well if are minds are limitless I guess that has some truth, but a kind of gutless truth I find intensely unnapealing.

British readers (and others, via the website)might be interested in an article in today's Guardian newspaper science section, entitled 'Conscious objector'. It outlines the emerging modern view of mind/consciousness as something not separate from matter, but the other side of the same coin.
See http://www.www.guardian.co.uk

Hi Val,

In your post you said "I'm not communicating with a book. The book is simply interpreting for me/you/us."
In my post I said "IMHO, we DO know the answers; it?s just that we need the Yi as interpreter. The answers reside in our subconscious; our subconscious speaks in mathematical symbolism, the coins, yarrow stalks, dog droppings, etc., are manipulated by our INTENT and thus we get to communicate with ourselves."
It seems to me that we are in agreement on this point.
If so, then I am assuming you have some difficulty with the word 'synchronicity'? Or do you have difficulty with Jung in general?

Namaste,
Leonard

OK, so if I get it - you both believe in something, but each disagree with how to express your understanding.

So long as you know what your own truth is, it doesn't matter if you don't quite get someone elses.

OK, so lets just accept we're all different (and we're all the same)

bored now

On November 5, 2002, Lindsay wrote:

?Sorry, Leonard, I?ve given this a lot of thought, and I?ve decided I am not going to defend or even explain my opinion about Jung?s preface. You certainly are right to ask me to do so, but when I look ahead, I see nothing but trouble for all of us if we go down that road. There are trolls in that particular piece of writing I dare not wake up.?

Now, two months later, Leonard has persuaded me to express a few of my views. What happened?

· After a hysterical fit of laughter, Leonard writes 593 words telling me how he doesn?t even see the problem I?m trying to describe, and, because he cannot prove the existence of love, I?ll just have to experience it (love?) for myself ?like all the rest of us.? So apparently, in Leonard?s opinion, doubting Jung makes me incapable of feeling love.

· Gene, who doesn?t seem to know his outside from his inside, thinks I?m a materialist.

· Anita thinks I?m a heretic, and wonders what I?m doing in the Friends forum anyway. Perhaps we should notify the Department of Homeland Security? Pile up the faggots around the stake?

· Val defends the view that the Yi works because of our neurological functions, a point I don?t remember making in my posting, but friends are where you find them.

· Louise accuses me of psychologizing, and finds my views detestable.

· Keith (worst of all) wants me to read the Manchester Guardian. (Hey, what do think of that Wallis Simpson story?)

· Binz is bored.

Are you guys sure you want to continue this conversation? Let's take a break.

It is all a bit mind-blowing, isn't it? I've certainly sprained a few brain muscles thinking about 'what's really going on'.

Wait, I'm just catching up!

I have no conflict with any point of view expressed here. God, gods, goddesses, spiritual, neurological, psychological, Yin/Yang, collective unconscious mind, materialism, existentialism, Taoism, Buddhism... its all rock n roll to me.

I lean strongly toward that which Willow so eloquently expressed in his lovely poem. We are together and then we separate. We are alone, and yet we are together. We have and then we have not. We work and than we rest. We think and then we feel. We experience from without out but then return to within.

What difference does it make what words we use to try and describe it? It is life. Isn't that enough? Discuss our thoughts and experiences, but to argue over which is correct seems just slightly futile.

Love you all,
Candid

Three cheers for Willow! Three cheers for Candid! Three cheers for everyone in the ICC!

Candid, you're the sanest one in this asylum. Just tell Leonard to keep his Funking Wagnalls away from me, please!

Lindsay

Hi Lindsay,
I don't think your incapable of love, it seems to me that at times you tend to be a reductionist. I certainly believe you have a right to your opinion, even though I obviously disagree.

I'm truly sorry that your bored, Binz, perhaps you should read a good book.

I believe that the original question from Gene asked "What does the IChing think of 'itself'. I attempted in my own fashion to contribute to that answer. As have other members of this forum. That we became sidetracked onto a discussion concerning Jungian psychology and the validity of the word synchroncity seems to me to be irrelevant. Sometimes that happens here, and I, for one, think that can be a good thing. I mean, if we already knew all the answers we wouldn't be here posing questions. As, I believe it was Crowley, said, "When seeking Truth, one must first understand that you are not Truth".

I am not trying to be argumentative here, merely attempting to utilise the site as a forum. If we're just going to run away when things become a bit 'heated', then I don't see where the forum part exists. We may as well be exchanging methods of doily-knitting or macrame designs.

OK, OK, I'll shut up on this...for the present, but I definitely think there are some questions here that went unanswered. Anyone who cares to discuss them can contact me by private email.

Namaste,
Leonard
kittymittens4u@yahoo.com

.... I think we may just have demonstrated why Yi has lasted very nicely in China through shamanic ancestor worship (or whatever you'd call it), Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Maoism (youch, that rhymes...), and been cheerily adopted by the Western newageyspiritualcumpagan school to boot. I've also personally read for Christians and atheists. I only ever had a problem when I let on more than was diplomatic about what I think of the theory that I Ching and Tarot were both given by aliens to the citizens of Atlantis.

I'm past being surprised, let alone shocked, at the variety of personal belief systems uniting around the Yi. We sprain brains and gallop in circles (all good healthy exercise!): Yi just works.

KTS - thank you for pointing out the nicely synchronous (sorry, Lindsay and Val) article. I've tracked down a direct link to it for anyone who's interested:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/science/story/0,12450,884678,00.html.

Now Lindsay,

I am not calling anybody a materialist. ha ha. I was simply referring to the two sides in the scientific battle. I will readily admit though, I don't know my outside from my inside. Well, to be honest, I have a lot of limitations, but am working to overcome them at all times. Inside/outside, "The putting together of opposites leads to the fortunate finding of things not looked for."

Gene

Wow

I had no idea this subject would create this kind of response. It seemed since last weekend no one was posting much of anything. Well, I personally certainly appreciate all the comments. I think they are wonderful. Incidentally, there are a lot of wonderful books out there now about physicists and what they are saying about consciousness. Admittedly, I haven't finished any of them, but I have a good start on some. Two that I own right now are, "The Self-Aware Universe", and, "The Spectrum of Consciousness." For those that are interested in that sort of thing, the former book is written by Amit Goswami, PHD, and the latter by Ken Wilber.

Being from the US, we don't get a lot of news from the mainstream about Aliens, etc. But if one knows to look, there is abundant material about it. I won't make any statements about the I Ching and Atlantis etc. but the longer I live, the more I find that truth is stranger than fiction.

Val, I am not sure how you define the term immanate, (sp) I can't remember the exact word. you were saying something about inside versus outside. Would be curious what you mean by that.

Gene

Gene or someone,

Would you be so kind as to give an example of how something that is perceived as 'outside' can be thought of as 'inside'. I have a lot of trouble with this concept. Gene, I think you 'get it' better than I do.

Cassandra

I don't mean to be distant at all. It is just that I would not be good at giving you an example, for in a sense, everything is an example. If someone asks me to read for them the I Ching, I might do that, but on the other hand, I might just point to the Temple. Why? Because one must "know" by personal experience, and not by a teacher's word. The problem is that we see ourselves as separate. Modern physics is saying, hey, nothing is separate, we are all one. The same thing was said by Jesus, the Buddha, and the Taoists, among others. How can that be explained? I understand it only on an intellectual level. I do not have heart felt experience of this truth, except, in a very limited way. Subatomic particles only become real, or particles, when we try to perceive them. Who is the perceiver? I would really like to give you a better answer, Cassandra, but I can't. I am limited by language, and by what I, at my present level of maturity, am capable of understanding.

Gene

Gene,

"Inside/outside, "The putting together of opposites leads to the fortunate finding of things not looked for." "

Would you venture to at least explain the essence of what was behind these words? Just a bit?

I know it's a quote, but what does it mean to you personally?

Well, I agree with everybody including Candid's referral to myself! Hee hee. One thing I think we all have in common is a willingness, no, more than a willingness, a fierce determination, to continue the engagement with the Yi, regardless of whether we can understand, or explain it. It reminds me of the story of Jacob wrestling with the Angel for a blessing - none of us are going to stop this dialogue (with whatever) until God (Herself?) puts our hip out. And there's a line in something the contributor NKS said here last spring that has really stayed with me:

"I think it's always been a connexion not a bond because we just accept the knowledge of each other as dancers of the same dance, without ever asking anything of that knowledge, not that it prove anything, give anything, be anything, justify anything, be the same for each of us, or even stay."

The slightly larger context/excerpt there (...and note, the topic was 60==>19...)is:

"I do not see the answer as giving me insight as to whether the outcome will be together or apart, but instead pointing toward the next stage in an intuitive link that seems to regularly connect us without being a bond.

"I think it's always been a connexion not a bond because we just accept the knowledge of each other as dancers of the same dance, without ever asking anything of that knowledge, not that it prove anything, give anything, be anything, justify anything, be the same for each of us, or even stay.

"We're tired now, both dancers reeling from blows, weary from the effort it's taken to do what it has come to us to do. There's promise ahead, and also likely worse to come.

"What the I Ching is helping me to see, as we go through these days, and shape these changes, move this energy, is that, again, we're not going to ask anything of that knowledge that we are dancers of the same dance.

"We're just going to show up. We're just going to do what we do. Two magicians, a little bit older, a little bit wiser. Something will happen, some magic.

"And then, we'll dance with that."

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/92/298.html?#POST2022

Anyway, that just seems to fit.

The other thing I have to say is, remember, we live in an age when "God is Dead," right? The way I see it, if that's the age we were born into, then whether god, spirit, synchronicity or anything else does or doesn't exist, no wonder we have such trouble agreeing.

Damn! Lots of interesting opinions here! And you know what they say about opinions.... they're like assholes, everyone's got one! HA! So, one more to the mix. I really like how Einstein put it: E=mc2. Resonates with me. So does the Hindu concept of Lila, the "dance of the divine", where matter and energy constantly in flux, transforming back and forth again and again. Why, because of joy, play, love... that is what Lila means. Einstein and Lila, same thing it feels to me!
Gene and Cassandra, hope yal don't mind if I jump on board, I like where it's going. Gene, I think your language is pretty damn clear! Cassandra, I think possibly the difficulty you are having is your pereception of such a tangible distinction between inside and outside. Similar to above maybe? Do you perceive matter and energy as two "distinct" "things" existing somehow separate from one another? I understand this idea can be very confusing, and as Gene said, language truly is the limiting factor. If I may be so bold, I will suggest to simply be open to the question, as honestly as you can, and see what kind of answers you find(over time)... I would be curious down the road to hear...

Peace- Brian

...what a simply exquisite expression of feeling.

Thank you, Nks, and thank you, Willow.

...I never thought it would be so hard to break old habits....

Namaste,
Leonard