I quite often have people ask me whether I don’t agree that the I Ching is essentially philosophy, and wisdom, and ‘more than just divination.’ And I find it hard to know how to respond.
Yes, there is wisdom there, though the only consistent ‘philosophy’ I find is a very simple one: honour what is true. That, as far as I can see, is the philosophy of divination in a nutshell.
I think perhaps the people who ask this have a different idea of what divination is. If it only meant asking, ‘Will I ever be married?’ or ‘What if I buy this car?’ then yes, I’d agree, the I Ching at its heart is more than that. But divination – as I experience it – is about diving below the surface of the present moment, through all the layers of being, into a deeper understanding of where (and who) you are. It means entering into connection with meaning, and with soul, usually through the immediate questions of everyday life.
This is why I love that the I Ching is essentially an oracle, and more than just philosophy and wisdom.
I recently have been studying the writings of Chu Hsi (1130-1200).
He says, “….one will be able to see that the original intention of the yi was to create the practice of divination.”
The recorded conversations between Chu Hsi and his students also proved this point. The students wanted to “add to the yi” with explanations – Chu always returned them to the point that it was to be used for divination……not morality, not ethics, not politics, not philosophy, etc.
I too view it strictly from this point. It greatly simplifies things for me!
Ah – good old Chu Hsi. Where did you read the conversations with his students? Are they available in English?
Hilary,
Have you read Richard Smith’s “Fathoming the world”? Really, these discussions of what the Yijing is for or what can it be used for, have been going on for millennia. I’ve a lot of respect for Zhu Xi and his exegesis on the Yijing but, in the overall exegetical context of it, the big evolutionary picture of it over time, Zhu Xi is but an important milestone. Certainly one to be considered seriously but still just one of them.
My personal take is that, regardless what the so called “original” intention of the Zhouyi was, the Yijing is the ultimate shape-shifter. If one keeps within its historical, and yes, philosophical context, you can make it your own.
The above is very personal, of course, but, this is the main reason I find myself bemused when I read of efforts to pigeonhole the Yijing for others and those others must then decide between it being a divination manual (yes) or a philosophical work (also yes). No either or, IMO, or, as Chris Lofting would say, no XORing it. There’s no dichotomy to be found between the two aspects of it. Let’s allow the classic to fall where it will with each reader.
Luis Andrade’s last blog post..48.1 > 5, A matter of working with what’s available…
Divination is just a side product. The proper use of the I Ching is to learn about first, ourselves, and in learning about ourselves, we learn the nature of the universe. The I ching in its highest form is a treatise on quantum physics, on the highest form of psychoanalysis, and a treatise on every aspect of man’s life, its nature, and on and on. It is a full and complete book in itself. It is better and more accurate than a science text book. It is far, far better than any western psychanalist textbook. Learning the I Ching gives us the secrets of the universe. If you use it for just divination you are completely unaware of its true nature.
Gene
Luis – that sounds good. And no… I did order Richard Smith’s book from the academic publisher’s site, but they never acknowledged this and it never came. I just hope they didn’t bill me…never got round to checking the card statements. I should check to see if Amazon have it.
Gene – ah, yes, exactly the kind of juxtaposition I was responding to – the idea that ‘divination’ is something quite different from ‘learning about ourselves’ or ‘learning about the nature of the universe’. That hasn’t been my experience at all.
Hilary
You mean it hasn’t been your experience that the I Ching is a learning experience? And yet I have heard you say on several occassions that there has been something of a learning curve for you. Anyway, so much depends on our level of spiritual maturity what we can understand and what we can’t. It isn’t a matter of a difference of opinion, it is a matter of a level of awareness. Each of us can only pull from the text that which fits their level of awareness. I think the experience HAS been yours to share to a certain extent, and I have seen that in some of your posts. In fact, you are not quite the same person I knew when I first joined this post.
Of course, maybe that is NOT what you meant by “that has not been my experience.” I may very well have misunderstood. But regardless, let me say this Hilary. The very nature of divining is indistinguishable from learning about ourselves, because our future is not outside ourselves. Everything, and I mean everything, happens within. It just appears to be outside us. So the future is simply a revelation of who we are. Therefore, by divinng, we do learn about ourselves.
Gene
Essentially the Yi is a book of when to move and when to stay still. It goes without saying that you learn a lot about both yourself and conditions in the world in attempting to understand the reasons for these pronouncements. It is about fathoming the changes, in the old sense of the word fathoming, seeing how deep they go with the most rudimentary of equipment. In time, it becomes second-nature. An awareness develops. What started as divination in the beginning becomes knowledge in the end. This is how I see it.
There is nothing wrong with reducing the Yi to its essential nature, and this is entirely movement and non-movement. While hopes may be fostered by it, and fears quelled, we should remember that the diviner, to be a diviner, should be beyond hopes and fears before divining. And then all that is needed is whether to move or not. People would gain much by cutting away the rest.
I might add that the object of divination is to reach a position where one no longer needs to divine, because the essence of the situation has been grasped. Divination is merely a route to knowledge.
If knowledge never comes, and there is only divination, one should also stop divining.
I really liked the way you pointed at that. And also that the ultimate goal of divination is not to divine because knowledge is already there.
Luis Andrade’s last blog post..48.1 > 5, A matter of working with what’s available…
Cheers Luis. This goes back to the idea from Analects 13.22 (linking to hexagram 32/3) that to be a diviner a person must have constancy. And constancy means not to be the prey of hopes and fears.
Hi Steve,
I hear you. Chuckling here at your Analects reference. I think we are in the minority. In the overly liberal Western way of thought (for some things, mind you), there is a systematic Confucian phobia. Many of those that study the Yijing, casually or otherwise, cringe at anything that comes from that school as it being biased and backwards. Sad, IMO, as there’s much to learn from there.
Best,
Luis Andrade’s last blog post..48.1 > 5, A matter of working with what’s available…
While it’s good to get away from Confucian and neo-Confucian viewpoints, one shouldn’t reject them out of hand. And Confucius himself is before Confucianisation, so should be read as essentially fresh and demanding.
That’s very much the point I was making. You were saying that the I Ching was for self-discovery and this was separate from divination; I said this wasn’t my experience – the two are inseparable.
That ideal state of penetrating the nature of things and being able to put the oracle away is a few decades away from me yet, though.
Hi Hilary
I think we both had a misunderstanding. If I said what you quoted, I’ll have to go back and look, I didn’t mean it quite that way, and didn’t mean to say it that way. Self discovery and divination are not separate items. My point of contention was that the highest use was for self discovery, not divination. It is through using the I Ching regularly for self discovery that we come to understand ourselves better, and that also means better divination.
I think Steve Marshall said it very, very well. “What started as divination in the beginning becomes knowledge in the end.”
And, it is a matter of where you place the emphasis, because divination is self discover and self discovery is divination. But what are we emphasizing while we approach the I ching? Where is our focus?
Again, another great point by Steve Marshall is:
“There is nothing wrong with reducing the Yi to its essential nature, and this is entirely movement and non-movement. While hopes may be fostered by it, and fears quelled, we should remember that the diviner, to be a diviner, should be beyond hopes and fears before divining. And then all that is needed is whether to move or not.”
When I was seriously involved in trying to write a book, one major point was that it is all about cycles and timing, which I think relates to movement and non movement. It occurred to me earlier in life by a bunch of synchronous events that everything reduces down to a sine wave, as is also a brain wave. That too is a sine wave. And to understand the I Ching on a deeper level we must understand the sine wave, and how the I Ching informs us of where we are on that wave.
Gene
Chu Hsi references/quotes in english:
Read the works of Joseph Adler. He is a professor at Kenyon in the US. He has written books, papers, extensively on this subject. His PhD dissertation (available from Proquest/UMI) is about Chu Hsi and divination.
Maybe you could find useful the concept of “che” (“shi”) in your practice with the Yijing.
I use to see the Yijing as a treatise to learn how to understand and use the potential (shi) implicit in any situation (xiang) we may face. Therefore, we can walk the path (dao) to achieve “great effects with very little effort”.
You may change (in some minorities, you may reinforce) the way you see and use the Yijing, after reading this wider reflection on xiang (situation) and shi (potential)
http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=OS_YqZhWuAsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0
Hi Jeff,
Yes, I do have the works of Joseph Adler. One of the best Western authorities on Zhu Xi’s works and exegesis.
Enmedio,
Good advise. The more you can read about Chinese philosophy, from every angle, the better. And changing views on the Yijing isn’t bad, it is part of what the Yi is.
Luis Andrade’s last blog post..48.1 > 5, A matter of working with what’s available…
Just reading all these fine posts is intructive in itself. It shows how all of you – because of your interaction (in what ever way and on what ever level) are brought beyond yourselves – that is continually experience a self-overcoming. And in all of this it is a matter of reciprocity – our level of being is shown (mirrored) to us in our perception of the YiJing (symbols, signs, text, interpretations, commentaries, Ta Chuan, etc.). But it is a dynamic reciprocity – because it is not a static mirror – the YiJing is always and everywhere reveling the Tao with us, allows correction and insight and intuition and of course, ultimately action – “being in the world” as a presence of Tao situationally and in infinite flexability. In this was we come to have “responsibility” – in both senses of the word – being “responsible” for ourselves among the ten thousand things, and being able to “respond” with ability as a realized person.
This is the first thing I thought when reading all of these posts.
And, personally, my own experience has always been that the YiJing isn’t a “book” as much as it is a relationship. For me it becomes a relationship as (and only as) I engage with it in divination. It begins to build itself into me and I begin to build it into the world in my movements and non-movements. There is no “set in stone” meaning (as such) but “meaning” enters in this encounter, or this reciprocal engagement – then “what it means” is an evolutionary process.
It is also circular – that is – as this encounter expands my limitations and blindbess – I also find more “wisdom and meaning” in the “book.” And this in turn allows more of my expansion and seeing. Like a spiral, it combines both cyclic events and linear at the same time.
Thus: I don’t see myself coming to the point where I will not find divination as tool for wisdom nor wisdom a fact without divination.