Crossing posts and chuckling, i.e. same thoughts on survival and stealing.

sparhawk said:

Perhaps it wasn't the intention of the compilers and it was only a collage of plain narratives of omens and oracular and historical events, but the unentioned consequence is that the ethical actions (ethics as defined above) of those characters have been used for philosophical purposes.

Click to expand...

Well that's a whole different thing: being used for philosophical purposes. Certainly, and obviously even by the views expressed in this thread, the Yi is used for philosophical purposes. It's used for all kinds of purposes!

Would you agree that, around the Junzi, can be found a homogeneous code of ethics? Something recognizable as such?

sparhawk said:

Would you agree that, around the Junzi, can be found a homogeneous code of ethics? Something recognizable as such?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure, Luis. It depends how you mean "homogeneous code of ethics". I think it's too easy to attach our own opinion of what constitutes good ethics, to the point that ethics can degenerate into nothing more than polite manners, or some easy idea of a good person. I don't think a Junzi could be a Junzi if they sought to conform to an external standard because that's what some book, teacher or rule said it's what Junzis do. I think a Junzi is atuned to the time, and the available courses of action or non-action. His own ethics may be called upon to choose, and those same ethics may be frowned upon by the ethical elite.

"the ethics are conditional, as always, upon context"
"When the mores change, the ethics change with them"
"There is no fixed set of rules"
"I do not perceive this fixed-in-stone ethical standard anywhere in the Yi"

Meng im not sure how you define 'ethics' here. You seem to define it as the
polarity between action/inaction; or perhaps as a matter of timing, and what
is the 'right thing to do at a given moment, in a given social context, ruled
by an "ethical elite" as you put it (i take it you mean trend/values-setters here?
or just the prevailing attitudes of a certain society?).

Agreed, there are some things which are socially acceptable today, which
were not in the past, and so on. Social rules always change. And timing is
of the essence in everything we do (although sometimes, despite even the
best course of action, and the best of timings, a 25:3 can and does happen;
we can influence many outcomes, but not all).

But, if ethics depend always upon context, why then are there some values
which have been held high all through the history of humanity? For example,
take arrogance. In the I Ching, as well as in the history of humanity, nowhere
is arrogance praised; there are no tales of arrogant kings and princes who
were admired and lived happily ever after. Arrogance, together with abuse
of power and of others, is guaranteed to bring downfall to the person
exercising them - not only in the I Ching, but in general, no matter which
way you look at it, and no matter which context you take into account.
There is not a single word in the I Ching which recommends arrogance, or
abusing power, at any given context/situation. On the contrary, these two
things are consistently shown to be wrong courses of action - in any context,
at any given moment.

I do believe there are a few basic rules in life, and always have been, which
the I Ching consistently endorses, but not as a flag, or banner, or any other
pseudo-hollier-than-thou attitude, but exactly for the reason Heylise mentioned:
"If an action brings good things about, your survival, your prospering, a job,
love, happiness, then it is 'good'. It is the ethic of nature and the law of nature.
Not sure if that is something you can call ethics. It is a kind of very high level
(or maybe deeply-rooted) common sense."
I couldn't agree more with this. 'Good' is, at the end of the day, what is best
for life itself. Man-made and social rules are flawed. Nature rules work. In
this sense, the I Ching speaks of the ethics of nature, not of the ethics of
any given society or context.

"Yi is very opportunistic. What is good at one moment is not good at another
moment."
I'll agree with this statement too, but only in the sense of action/inaction/
what-action-to-take. There are some things which are never good, at any
given moment, or context, or social environment. I really can't find any part
of the I Ching in which it would advise you it's a good moment to be arrogant;
or to be restless and agitated; or to harm others and abuse them. In this sense,
there are definitely some fixed points. Again, not as moral badges of honour,
but as the most intelligent survival skills one can have.

Reading a question like , "Does the Yi have a philosophy?" reminds me how when someone says the word "world," ten different people may have ten different automatic and unconscious associations when they hear the word, although they may have a general awareness of what sort of "world" he may have in mind at the time. Already several have defined their sense of what is meant by "philosophy" in expressing their views on the nature of the Yi.

I have been reading Clarity for several months and this is my first comment. I have learned my place from reading the exchanges is rightly like that of an auditor in a post graduate course because I haven't the qualifications to discuss the Yi in the way this learned and experienced assembly does. I may understand their personal points of view and how they think - as distinguished from their scholarship and experience in regard to the Yi.

I have studied the Yi at different times over many years, over fifty, I guess. It always seemed to me be an example of higher knowledge with levels of meaning. (I read Jung's introduction to my copy of Wilhelm. He didn't grasp its source in the sense I meant.) So the Yi is a representation of "Truth," the one knowledge: It could be worked with and there are teachers who know the Yi and could guide a learner. I didn't know any who knew the Yi (Would I have known if I had?) and I hadn't the wish to seek one. There are many approaches and teachings for those who seek and wish to learn.

But I found I could learn from studying the Yi , even though I didn't know Chinese and the culture. The questions of its origins and its sources and versions are similar to the questions people ask about every world religion or teaching or works of sacred art. They may bring useful knowledge or not. New discoveries may be of real value. But new translation, for example, based on new material may be useful or not depending on those who make the translation.

The Hexagrams, individually and as a whole, can speak to one. The lines themselves can do so . So can the texts. The state I bring to the Yi to listen with and my attention and intention, may take me to a gate and maybe, unepectedly, there will be a step (a small one) through it. Something new may appear. Of course, if I try to make that happen, it won't.

So I wouldn't say the Yi "is a philosophy." Is it a guide and a catalyst to my search for truth. Maybe sort of, but that isn't quite right. That would be falling into the trap of believing that what I am is "Who I am". That doesn't work, period. It doesn't work well with the Yi. If I am aware "I don't know" working with the Yi may work.

Is all and everything contained in 64 hexagrams? The laws of how things change in time? Aren't those philosophical questions? Worth pondering. We need to learn about the Yi or any teaching by applying our mind, studying their forms and words and ideas. That is philosophy. But experiencing it is different. That is practical work, just as is dancing a dance or performing a ritual can be.

I will exit backwards to my proper place as auditor. I enjoy Clarity,'s comments on the Yi, the Hexagrams, the readings and the sharing of research. I have been doing some readings , by the way, but more for others than myself and based on readings they had done and asked me about. I considered sharing them with Clarity but it didn't feel right to do so with ones that concerned others

sparhawk said:

Would you agree that, around the Junzi, can be found a homogeneous code of ethics? Something recognizable as such?

Click to expand...

Recognizable? No, not recognizable. It can be inferred to some extent. But you know, to a certain extent, it's a meaning that we can only:

1 infer from the Yi

2 learn from other, non-Yi sources

3 learn from personal experience

So, is it homogeneous? Well, I don't see how you can say whether it's homogeneous or not until you have a clear idea of what it is. And as for that, see above.

diamanda said:

For example,
take arrogance. In the I Ching, as well as in the history of humanity, nowhere
is arrogance praised; there are no tales of arrogant kings and princes who
were admired and lived happily ever after.

Click to expand...

I'm unsure what "living happily ever after" has to do with it, but there have been many Junzis who were considered arrogant by the ethical elite of their time. Jesus was considered ultimately arrogant for his claims to be the son of God, and for frequently insulting the Pharisees, calling them "whitewashed tombs" and "a brood of vipers". Nietzsche, Freud, and Socrates are just a couple others who come to mind, who were considered arrogant by prominent aristocrats of their times.

I'm in no way downplaying ethics, and I assume a strong ethical constitution is a prerequisite to being a Junzi. All I'm saying is, those ethics come from the Junzi, not from any established set of do's and don'ts. There is no judge over one who rules himself. And maybe living happily ever after does apply after all, since it is ones self one must spend eternity with. Scary thought! lol

meng said:

All I'm saying is, those ethics come from the Junzi, not from any established set of do's and don'ts.

Click to expand...

Totally agree! But where does the Junzi gets his/her ethics from?
What does he/she base them on? Are they totally arbitrary?
Does the Junzi get them solely from what suits him/her best at the very
moment?
And what is it exactly that 'makes' a Junzi a Junzi?

meng said:

There is no judge over one who rules himself.

Click to expand...

This is dangerous territory.
Again, the question remains: what is it that 'makes' a Junzi a Junzi?
How do we know that a self-governed person is actually a Junzi, and not, let's
say a deluded psychopath who is indeed very self-governed, and defines his/her
own ethics based only on themselves? What is a Junzi supposed to base their
'ethics' (= conduct) on? And how do we, or the person himself/herself can judge
if he/she is a superior man/woman?

I'll agree with you totally that we can't base it on Pharisees', or aristocrats'
opinions, or on the 'ethical elite of the time', or on any inferior person. But then
again, how does one define an inferior person? If there are no 'fixed standards' in
the I Ching, how do we know then? If the I Ching has no fixed values, then surely it
must have no fixed definitions either. What is meant, then, by the numerous
references to 'superior' and 'inferior' people? Are these just notions which change
and get adapted according to circumstance and what suits us best at any specific
moment?

Which takes us back to the issue: are there any fixed fundamentals, which will
always hold true and valid, no matter what the context/environment/society?

Imo there are. They are life's/nature's laws.

The next question is: are these fixed life/nature fundamentals contained
and expressed in the I Ching?

My personal answer is still "yes they are and they are as clear as day".

Any honest and decent person knows, for example, what arrogance is. I hope we
don't all go into discussion now about what 'honest and decent' means? This is the
same question as 'what makes a Junzi'?

Or maybe it is debatable as to what constitutes a Junzi? i truly hope not...

The topic of "superior" and "inferior" has been covered many times on this forum, and again just recently.

Don't ask me what constitutes a Junzi. I just do the best I can, like anyone else here. Maybe ask the Yi?

re. any philosopy of ethical behavior in the I Ching.

gene said:

....
This is a most interesting interpretation of 17 line 6. As a rule, I would interpret it the opposite way. But there is an element of justification for the interpretation above. I suppose it depends on which way the character in line two and three decide to go. If they make the right choice in whom to follow, a more positive interpretation incurs. If not, the interpretation above.

Fortunately, we have a "more sure word of prophecy" within the text of the I Ching itself, and can depend on its counsel and advice.The question is do we follow it, and do we understand it?

hexagram 32 line 6 can also, once again, be interpreted as someone who acts from anxiety and fear, and is in a perpetual state of hurry hoping desperately that he/she can control his/her environment well enough to make it work positively for them. Such a person must learn that he/she cannot control anything, and must simply live according to the dictates of his/her own heart without worrying about the consequences. It is only when we give up worry and fret that the universe freely bestows its gift of wealth and abundance upon us.
....

Click to expand...

I find the I Ching often appears to counsel acceptance of conditions ("he/she cannot control anything" above); might acceptance have to do with acting morally, I wonder. The emphasis on "right" action (zhen), along with no codification (nothing resembling a 10 commandments, 5 precepts, or other moral rulebook), suggests to me that the reader is left wholly responsible for developing a sense of right/wrong. To be more than simply self-serving (animal-like, but whether my cat avoids using his claws on bare skin is due to fear of being yelled at, or understanding of my pain, I'm unsure) requires an element of altruism, that check on wholly selfish behavior in hex. 1 line 7 (I'm back at 1.7 vs. 2.7, looking for a dualistic relationship I suppose).

Following the dictates of the heart sounds possibly reckless on its surface, but depending where the heart is, can be a force for greater good (18.6 is a sure bucking of norms in favor of broader principles). I'd say the differentiator between the two must be a sense of responsibility to a greater good within the context, and that determining the truth of a situation (as I wrote), in terms of the inner life to which I Ching speaks, has much to do with figuring out one's own responsibility within it.

edit: Maybe that's what makes a Junzi. They get carriages, you know, while the rest let everything fall apart.

My questions were "philosophical", i know what constitutes a Junzi.

"I just do the best I can, like anyone else here." -
me too!

Diamanda, I'm too tired to address your points/questions one by one. With due respect, if your fundamentalist view of the Yi and its ethics works for you, I'm happy for you. It doesn't work for me. Fair enough?

meng said:

I'm not sure, Luis. It depends how you mean "homogeneous code of ethics". I think it's too easy to attach our own opinion of what constitutes good ethics, to the point that ethics can degenerate into nothing more than polite manners, or some easy idea of a good person.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Perhaps there is a good reason great commentators of the Yijing over millennia are spanned several centuries apart. None of them have failed to strive for the understanding of, and to give homage, to the concept of the Junzi. As I said, the text is static. The examples are there. There is no need to attach opinions but to digest what's in the text.

dobro said:

Recognizable? No, not recognizable. It can be inferred to some extent. But you know, to a certain extent, it's a meaning that we can only:

1 infer from the Yi

2 learn from other, non-Yi sources

3 learn from personal experience

So, is it homogeneous? Well, I don't see how you can say whether it's homogeneous or not until you have a clear idea of what it is. And as for that, see above.

Click to expand...

LOL! You are funny. You open a thread asking for opinions and then jump back in, some 38 messages later only to contradict what I say. I'm flattered. There must be something in what I said...

Now, focus. We are talking about the Yi, no? Don't tell me about other inferences from non-Yi and life in general. You asked a very specific question, centered upon a very specific text. I wondered aloud why nobody had mentioned until then the 'Three Amigos" in a discussion about the possibility of the Yi having an intrinsic philosophy built-in. That's why I referred to the text and the examples where the Junzi and the other two are in action.

Of course, in reality, we are twirling our thumbs and playing ping-pong with the semantics of the word "philosophy"...

Seems like this thread was founded on two completely different questions. Does the Yi counsel action or non-action? and "does the Yi have a philosophy." Don't know if they really mesh into one question, at least not in light of the specifc discussions which ensued.

Yi sure seems to have a philosophy about men and women though, in terms of the relationship between the two. I don't think anyone can argue that. and from those inferences, I draw a philosophy that promotes:

sincerity
perseverance/steadfastness
family
community
generousity
humility
and definitely, Harmony

sparhawk said:

LOL! You are funny. You open a thread asking for opinions and then jump back in, some 38 messages later only to contradict what I say. I'm flattered. There must be something in what I said...

Now, focus. We are talking about the Yi, no? Don't tell me about other inferences from non-Yi and life in general. You asked a very specific question, centered upon a very specific text. I wondered aloud why nobody had mentioned until then the 'Three Amigos" in a discussion about the possibility of the Yi having an intrinsic philosophy built-in. That's why I referred to the text and the examples where the Junzi and the other two are in action.

Click to expand...

You asked: "Would you agree that, around the Junzi, can be found a homogeneous code of ethics? Something recognizable as such?"

I answered that question as well as I was able. I don't think one can identify a code of ethics around the concept of the junzi. But if you think there is one, that means you know what a junzi is. And we've had that discussion so many times before that I feel it falls into the category of 'things we don't really know about but are willing to speculate about'. Which is a very prevalent condition on this board.

Great thread!

To me it looks as if we all walk on the same road, but some walk more in the beginning, others farther down (or up) the road.
I feel easily suffocated by rules, so what I like a lot about Yi is, that I recognize the origin of ethics. Not the form they get later, but the simple straightforward ways to survive in a world which is both great and awful. Eat and be eaten. Love and be loved.

E.g.: show your true intentions when the situation makes that possible, but hide them when it is dangerous. So to me “honesty” sounds like something which is very dependent on circumstances. When it becomes an ethical rule, it threatens my survival. Not gonna be honest when there is a chance that it will be used to rob me!

Everyone chooses the place on that road he/she feels most comfortable with. The road is long, it goes from the jungle all the way to manners. Somewhere in between there is a ‘best spot’ for everyone. Some are by nature more social than others, others are very much individuals. Both is fine, more important is that one finds one’s right place.

I think the Junzi knows his spot, and knows how to fill it in, how to be the best human being he/she can be, and give all things their best place. Zhen, perseverance, is acting according to the answer of the gods - of your true destination.

LiSe

dobro said:

we don't really know about but are willing to speculate about'. Which is a very prevalent condition on this board.

Click to expand...

Boy howdy!

I thought your questions were super provocative and fun to contemplate. If no conclusion is reached, so much the better. Hex 64 is the best note to end on.

Shawn,

I find the I Ching often appears to counsel acceptance of conditions ("he/she cannot control anything" above); might acceptance have to do with acting morally, I wonder. The emphasis on "right" action (zhen), along with no codification (nothing resembling a 10 commandments, 5 precepts, or other moral rulebook), suggests to me that the reader is left wholly responsible for developing a sense of right/wrong.

Click to expand...

:bows:

Interesting discussion. To me it seems obvious that there are ethical standards and values in the I Ching but these are for the most part 'inner' standards. Not fixed rules of conduct that one has to follow, but more like the standards of the more mystically inclined followers of religions like Christianity and the Islam.
For other followers, who adhere more strictly to rules, it often seems that the 'mystics' are far too liberal or that they don't even have any ethics (or morality, or values) at all.
But that is not true, it's not true that 'everything goes' for them.
A mystic might steal your car or seduce your husband, but only if it serves a deeper purpose that it 'good'. She has 'conscience'. Maybe, who knows, she gives your car to the poor and your husband to somebody who is lonely, he is not necessarily for private consumption.
It think it's the more or less the same with the junzi. Of course he may not be at all that mystical but he is also not empty inside, he has inner cultivation, conscience.

dobro said:

I answered that question as well as I was able. I don't think one can identify a code of ethics around the concept of the junzi. But if you think there is one, that means you know what a junzi is. And we've had that discussion so many times before that I feel it falls into the category of 'things we don't really know about but are willing to speculate about'. Which is a very prevalent condition on this board.

Click to expand...

Nope, I don't think I have a hold on what a Junzi is; on the other hand, I did say "around the Junzi". I'd say that a discernible behavior pattern can be recognized in his/her actions, as well as the contrasting actions of the other two. It is in that behavior that ethics can be found, and that, in turn, is the scaffolding used to build a philosophy, as demonstrated by the Confucian school, for example.

As for speculation, well, that's not surprising. In a subject as abstract as this, unless we are able to go back in time and converse with the authors as to their intention, educated speculation Is the only thing we have left as tools of discussion. Barring that, there would be no discussion whatsoever.

Allow me to quote something I recently read and comes very handy in this discussion. The article runs eighteen pages long but I think this little bit will suffice. I suppose that a properly credentialed "Educated Speculator" words are much better than the casual opinions of the jokester of Clarity.

(underlines and bold typeface are mine.)

Interesting thoughts! Enjoyed reading them!

I need to talk somewhere about the I Ching. The audience are not ready to hear about it, was the advice I was given, So instead of talking about Chinese philosophy Junzi great man or inferior man I found a way to write about it covered so I made this story. This is just the first draft , something like a proposal, but more or less is how I see the Yi. A small box that one inside it can find the stories of all people passed during the centuries. Stories where fighting it can be good or it can be bad. Talking can be good or can be bad. Retreating can be good or can be bad. Acting can be good or can be bad.


Maria

sparhawk said:

I suppose that a properly credentialed "Educated Speculator" words are much better than the casual opinions of the jokester of Clarity.

Click to expand...

His words better?! Nah, I don't think so, give me the jokester, any time.
But the professor has a point. The problem is only, as Diamanda remarked earlier, that we have different uses of the word 'philosophy'.
I think Dobro (hope he will correct me if I misunderstood) used the word more informally as in 'the philosophy of our company is ..' or 'my philosophy is that the best way to solve a problem is to wait till it disappears'. Something like that.
Cheng talks about philosophy as inquiry and although he emphasizes practical application, that seems different. I would agree, though, that the I Ching, in that sense, is philosophy.

Great story, Maria!

Yes, wonderful, Maria. Only it is an introduction. Now you must write the 64 x 6 stories. Please!

Rosada

p.s. ooh, and wouldn't it be cool if instead of making them into a book, you packaged them in a box?

Martin

I would go so far as to say, "The I Ching IS its own spirit." But no more so, and no differently than any truly ancient sacred writing. They all come from the same source, ultimately say the same thing, and ultimately are the universal subconscious mind that flows eternally throughout the universe, and that all matter, and all non matter is a part of. In fact, there is no question that this is the case.

Gene

I shared a house with a genuine philosopher, to whom everything was philosophy.

I agree with the joker and the guy with the PhD, as I see no contradiction. Man uses the natural images to spur philosophic thought (metaphors), by which practical solutions may be recognized. The specific solution is determined by the context of the question/circumstance and time. But, Luis, sorry bro, I see no static "philosophy of Yijing" in that, other than being in touch with the time and with [the] nature [of things].

Stories in a box is a great story, Maria. It makes me think of 26.

Maria, wonderful story! Love it.

LiSe