...life can be translucent

Menu

Blog post: Foundations: trusting the oracle

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
The ideal does not replace the primary hexagram, ... It's another angle.
I agree. It's another interpretive tool, one that Karcher came up with. And as with any tool (or idea ...) they can be used and also misused (and misunderstood).

It's interesting to note that on his Using Change - Nuts & Bolts page (which Hilary refers to), Karchers has:

* Change Operators
* Fixing the Omen
* Pairs & Crossline Omens .... along with
* Ideal & Shadow (and other stuff)

Aside from whatever critique or praise I might have for him, I find many of Karcher's PDFs do not do a good job of explaining his various 'tools' (nuts and bolts).

the "ideal line" doesn't replace the cast line.

In the Ideal & Shadow PDF he gives an example case. As far as I can tell it does not include either Ideal nor Shadow lines; he only works with the hexagrams. And this makes me wonder, where did the idea of Ideal/Shadow lines come from? Did Karcher talk about it later (or here, and I missed)? Or did someone else run with his idea and expand upon it? (I only ask out of curiousity.)

About the Ideal: what Karcher does is take two unrelated trigram circles, and he 'swaps out' the two trigrams in the received (primary) hexagram found in the Later Heaven trigram circle; and he replaces these with the two corresponding trigrams from the Early (or pre-?) Heaven circle, and these two trigrams give us an Ideal hexagram.

The idea here is that he's using trigrams (and their hexagram) which come from a more primal, pristine, or ideal time/place - before humans/man entered the picture (with their later, less-than-perfect trigam circle). And hence, we now have an IDEAL six-line symbol which Karcher says:

"... represents the most effective way to think about your entire situation, the ideal way to visualize it and act on it (Karcher)."

Life is just one huge bucket of plagarism, ....

I often see this. It's just that I like to know sources (whom said what, and where did they say it) and I also like to - whenever I can - give credit where credit is due, regardless if it's from Rutt, Karcher, Wilhelm, Hatcher, Barrett .... Without these, it makes it seem like I came up with all my brilliant ideas all on my own! :teapot:

Best, D
 
Last edited:

Liselle

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
8,339
Reaction score
1,196
(Wish I knew what darn keys I keep hitting. :rolleyes2: )


Washer example. Apologies that I'm not the best at explaining things.

The moving line was the answer (19.4): it's all the way broken. "Arrival nearing." "Complete commitment."

Shadow line 46.4 zhi 32 - the wrong way I'd been thinking about it, that it could keep acting up and recovering on its own indefinitely, since it had been doing that for quite a while by that point. But this way of thinking was a block.

Ideal line 59.4 zhi 6 - it would be much more effective to think of the previous behavior as a temporary workaround. I said, "Ah, I see," to myself, and asked for a replacement washer.

The ideal line mediated/facilitated between two aspects of the shadow line:
1. (the wrong one) It will keep acting up and recovering. The offering here was letting it alone so it could do that. Zhi 32 was my wrong-headed idea that this could continue forever.
2. (the right one) Offer up the old washer for a new one, make that sacrifice. As Hilary puts it, "you might suffer losses, but the mountain remains, and it sets these things in perspective." (It's important to note here how much I think appliances should last decades and how full of 'grr' I am if they don't.)

I didn't need the shadow and ideal, but they gave me a nice satisfied "Ah" and I'm grateful for that. The better perspective came more easily once I understood it had only ever been a workaround. I hadn't done anything wrong.

<Other examples moved to Yi Academy - privacy violation>

As Karcher puts it -
The Ideal gives you a hexagram that represents the most effective way to
think about your entire situation, the ideal way to visualize it and act on it.
@Trojina maybe that could be the one-sentence summary? (Or not, but I can't think of a better one offhand.) (Also what Hilary quoted and said here.)
(Pithiness can be hard in the I Ching generally. Sometimes I feel like we just have to peck away at it.)

Does any of that help at all?


I wish I could find one of my examples of how "effective" might be a better word than "ideal." Sometimes the ideal hexagram really will be scary, and really is best to think about it that way and not find its idealized better side. (In other words, not like Hilary's 28 one.)

I think it has to do with acknowledging/ recognizing/ seeing the badness, so you can deal with it. If I stumble on one I'll post it.
 
Last edited:

Liselle

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
8,339
Reaction score
1,196
One more thing (then I promise I'll stop babbling) -

Shadow and Ideal lines - please understand how naively I did this. It was nothing more than thinking, "Well, we use fan yaos and paired lines and even the lines from nuclear stories (which I haven't spent much time with yet), so maybe all such lines are useful!" And then I tried it and found them helpful.
Haven't we found with fan yaos that sometimes it's important to know where exactly you are in the relating hexagram? Not always, maybe not ever absolutely, but if you happen to be at one of the lines that's at odds with the general drift of the hexagram, couldn't you go wrong by not noticing that? And then same with shadows and ideals (or so I told myself).
 

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
Does any of that help at all?

I get what you are doing and what you getting at (and I gave a brief example of using Ideal/Shadow too.)

I have no heartburn with what you are sharing here. I only think it's important (as Hilary said) to not let it replace our actual reading (which you are not at all doing); that it is an interpretive tool - though I think what you glean from it may 'jump out' at you as being important. or a key part of the Yi's response.

HOWEVER, I still have a question: where did the Shadow / Ideal LINES come from? Karcher didn't use them in his example; Hilary doesn't use them in the example you shared above, so maybe ... Rosada introduced them?

(Again, I have no issue with these lines, only a magpies' interest in their source - and it's also fine if it remains a mystery for me.)

Best, D
 

Trojina

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
22,648
Reaction score
1,970
Liselle already explained a few times where she got the Shadow/Ideal lines from. See post 30

She said

Shadow and Ideal lines - please understand how naively I did this. It was nothing more than thinking, "Well, we use fan yaos and paired lines and even the lines from nuclear stories (which I haven't spent much time with yet), so maybe all such lines are useful!" And then I tried it and found them helpful.
Post 14 when asked about where she got the lines from

I guess I figure if paired lines and fan yaos are things, then shadow lines can be things just as easily. Who knows, though.

So it's experimentation




Mixed feelings. I sympathize with your point, really I do, but it's tricky to reject things while at the same time not reading them. Bradford isn't easy to read, either, yet it's good we do. Etc.


I asked where the information here on this website was on the Ideal given I thought it should be in CC or wiki somewhere otherwise it should not be a category heading in wikiwing should it ? One generally isn't just sent off to the original author anywhere else in CC. Hilary explained why she did this here. When someone asks what the fan yao is you know perfectly well we would just say 'it's the corresponding line in the relating hexagram', we wouldn't not answer and say 'go and read Bradford'.


My best suggestion is read Karcher's pdf (it's quite short) and read Hilary's - go back and forth between them, even. Most important - look at examples while doing so

A decent summary is enough for me I have don't have the interest to go further as I feel this is a flawed concept anyway. You don't know the roots of it nor do I. Before even talking about examples you need to know where the Ideal comes from and what it is meant to signify. If we don't know what it's meant to signify how can examples help. However what it's meant to signify in Hilary's summary is this

So Ideal = 'ideal potential of the situation' and probably also 'what we might achieve directly'.
If the answer you get isn't telling you the potential of the situation what's it for ? If your answer, the primary hexagram/lines/relating hexagram aren't telling you what you might achieve directly what are they for ?
Okay so it's another angle on it except there's no reason for either the Ideal or the lines in the Ideal to be taken into account because there's no real link there between the primary and the Ideal. All we know is it has something to do with the below


Personal thought: we probably won't get far with the Ideal without fully digesting the difference between the two trigram arrangements first. I tend to think of the Before Heaven arrangement as the product of people's desire to have everything well-ordered and comprehensible, so I'm never going to be exactly captivated by the idea of using it to build a hexagram.


The ideal does not replace the primary hexagram, and the "ideal line" doesn't replace the cast line. It's another angle. It might be sort of, vaguely, akin to what Hilary says about the yin pattern:
Difference is I know where the yin pattern comes from, it comes directly from the change lines.


Does any of that help at all?


I wish I could find one of my examples of how "effective" might be a better word than "ideal." Sometimes the ideal hexagram really will be scary, and really is best to think about it that way and not find its idealized better side. (In other words, not like Hilary's 28 one.)

I think it has to do with acknowledging/ recognizing/ seeing the badness, so you can deal with it. If I stumble on one I'll post it

I think it's probably better not to think in terms of the hexagram you cast having an Ideal at all especially if you see the Ideal as 'it's idealized better side'. The idealized better side is in the hexagram you cast not in another hexagram.


There that's my view so it's not worth spending more of your time explaining to me.

Again I see your point, but we have to try using it in order to see. The other context things have credibility because people have demonstrated it by using them. It's a vicious cycle.


Well no you've missed the point where I said this is not like other hexagrams of context since we can see that they are intrinsic to the hexagram, it's obvious, structurally obvious as to how they are involved, where they come from. This is not the case with the Ideal at all, that is a far more fabricated thing and most people don't know where it's derived from including you.

Nothing wrong with experimentation at all but I'm afraid I don't recognise the Ideal at all and I think people can just see what they want to see with the it. Which brings us back round to the actual Blog topic of respecting your answer. If people end up seeing anything for the Ideal then it's pretty much like the ink blot test isn't it. Hexagrams of context have a context, it's the structure, which the Ideal does not have apart from the 'before heaven' arrangement which Hilary says she isn't prepared to build a hexagram on.


So if Hilary does not recognise the Ideal really, and it seems to me she doesn't. She said
Personal thought: we probably won't get far with the Ideal without fully digesting the difference between the two trigram arrangements first. I tend to think of the Before Heaven arrangement as the product of people's desire to have everything well-ordered and comprehensible, so I'm never going to be exactly captivated by the idea of using it to build a hexagram.

If Hilary doesn't recognize the Ideal and has said she would never use this method to build a hexagram then I think she's probably right. It really doesn't sound to me like there is any basis at all for the Ideal hexagram. It's no use just saying 'try it' because I have to know where it comes from or it makes no sense to use it.
 
Last edited:

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
Re: My question about where shadow / ideal lines come from: So it's experimentation

Ah, good to know. (Sigh, mystery solved.) Sorry I missed that earlier - there's a lot here to digest here.
 

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
If Hilary doesn't recognize the Ideal and has said she would never use this method to build a hexagram then I think she's probably right.

I think she's correct as well.

The other day I was having a discussion with a friend, who kept bad-rapping 'the youth' or 'young people' - ie. young people (whose age we didn't really pin down) whom are selfish, self-centered, not interested in the world or the greater good, and won't wear masks, or get vaccinated, or vote ....

I could relate to what she was saying, and at times I can imagine myself saying: 'damn kids (i.e. younger than me by at least 20-30 years ....), they don't care about anyone but themselves ...!"

So I get what my friend is saying - and I (can) agree.

However ... I also told her about many of my friends' children (who also fit this broad 'youth' category), whom are solid people / citizens; they are educated, intelligent, vaccinated, and are engaged in and care about the world in which we all live ....

The thing is, I can hold both of these ideas in my mind - and heart, and in some inexplicible way, they both can be/are true. (And at this point in our conversation my spiritual, intelligent, caring, ex-hippie friend called me a 'liberal'.)

So yes, the Ideal and - for some of us - other methods are things we would never (or almost never) use. Completely true ....

HOWEVER (on the other hand) ... we have Liselle telling us of her:
Experience where the shadow and ideal lines seem helpful ....

And since Hilary started by talking about Respect, Confidence, Patience and Openness being foundational to what we're doing here ....

I can see how the shadow and ideal would be helpful (for someone) .... and meet all of the above criteria, including ...

Openness: ... being open to myths, images, fixing omens ... and maybe even methods that Hilary (with all due respect) would never use. That works for me.

Regards, D
 

Liselle

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
8,339
Reaction score
1,196
Trojina - can't disagree too much with most of that. I suppose other than what I've already said, that (a) it seems to work 🤷‍♀️ , and (b) I'm suspending judgement about Hilary's disinclination. I want to look into it (the early/late heaven arrangement things), but I haven't done that yet and may not get anywhere even if I do.

I doubt there will ever be a simple way to explain the Ideal in one sentence. The meaning of it, maybe, but not the origin. I mean, to start with you need two separate diagrams which aren't in front of you when you cast a reading.

Which I think is your point - if it's not deducible from a cast reading, how can it be real? I get that, but I'm not sure about rejecting things because they're complicated. Lots of complicated things work that most of us don't understand. On the other hand, people are good at dreaming up "systems" that are fantasies. Who knows.
 

Liselle

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
8,339
Reaction score
1,196
I asked where the information here on this website was on the Ideal given I thought it should be in CC or wiki somewhere otherwise it should not be a category heading in wikiwing should it ?
It kind of is in Hilary's "Shadows" mini-course in the Library. She makes it clear she's not really on board with it, but she explains it and gives it some space as part of Karcher's idea. So we could send people to that.
 

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
I mean, to start with you need two separate diagrams which aren't in front of you when you cast a reading.

In case you do want to have these two trigram circles in front of you when you cast a reading, I've included it below. (Note, the trigrams are 'read' from inside the circle out - the lines closest to the inner part of the circle are the bottom lines).

For the Ideal, you find your two trigrams in the right-hand circle, and simply replace them with the corresponding trigrams from the left-hand circle. Ex. Light becomes Heaven; Earth becomes Wind ....

I have a pretty good handle on the later heaven circle, and I have a good sense of what Karcher was doing and why. I can share that via messaging, or if you think it will be helpful, I can consider doing a thread here about creating and using the Ideal - though that's not my preference. And of course, Karcher's PDF has a lot to say, some of which I quoted above - and others have also noted.

D

Screenshot_2018-10-07-03-48-57a.jpg
 
Last edited:

Liselle

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
8,339
Reaction score
1,196
Thanks for the diagram! It's still not as in front of us as everything we can see just by looking at primary, relating, and moving lines, but now we know where to find it. (Have just bookmarked.)

( :flirt: I don't suppose you'd like to shrink the imagesaurus 🦖 a bit by editing your post, clicking on the picture, and making it smaller by dragging the little boxes at the corners?)

if you think it will be helpful, I can consider doing a thread here about creating and using the Ideal - though that's not my preference.
Why not your preference? Exploring Divination is a good place for it, at least I think so. Several of us have already exhausted ourselves discussing it here, and I don't see any particular reason to move to private message. We could always put a link to the new thread in this thread.

If you really don't want to, that's fine, too, of course.
 

Trojina

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
22,648
Reaction score
1,970
Which I think is your point - if it's not deducible from a cast reading, how can it be real? I get that, but I'm not sure about rejecting things because they're complicated. Lots of complicated things work that most of us don't understand. On the other hand, people are good at dreaming up "systems" that are fantasies. Who knows.


I wouldn't reject it because it's complicated but because it has no particular connection with the cast hexagram as far as I can see.

I may be overstating my point as I have no objection to you experimenting, I'm all for experimentation, why wouldn't one experiment with something that draws one in. That doesn't alter the fact I reject the Ideal but we can live with that.
 

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
It's still not as in front of us as everything we can see ...
Yes, I get that. It's sort of 'fabricated' (my word for it), but I thought the image might still be of use to you. I have shrunk it down a bit. I will try to do a thread about it, but I have some other stuff I'm learning, working with right now. Best, d.
 

Liselle

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
8,339
Reaction score
1,196
Thanks, Trojina. :)



Another thoughtlette which just now occurred to me - if readings are conversations, maybe different parts of one will echo each other a little bit. What you said about why do we need an "Ideal" line to show us the so-called most effective way to think about the situation, when we already have a perfectly good cast line and why wouldn't it be the most effective?

This is a good question that I think was illustrated in the example from WikiWing that I moved.

You probably see where I'm going with this - sometimes in conversations a little repetition (but not quite exactly) might help. Or not; sometimes it's annoying.

I'm not trying to argue, I really think people's points here are good ones. Airing it out with other humans beats amplifying possible nonsense inside my own echo chamber 💫 :lol: You know how I can miss the forest for the trees.
 

IrfanK

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
552
Reaction score
344
I don't really find the shadow and the ideal very useful in actual readings. But like many of Karcher's ideas, they are worth looking at just to see if there are linkages between them and the original readings, to get an idea of the relationships that may exist between two hexagrams.

David said something about Karcher not explaining his own ideas very well. It's true! I can't work out whether sometimes he's being deliberately mysterious, or if just assumes that certain connections are obvious and he's skipping some working steps. Hilary said something about avoiding Chinese whispers: well, but I always find I understand what Karcher means when Hilary explains it much more clearly than when Karcher explains it.
 

Liselle

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
8,339
Reaction score
1,196
It's fascinating to me how different things speak to different people.

Agreed about Karcher/Hilary. Where would we be without either one of them?
 

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
555
I often see this. It's just that I like to know sources (whom said what, and where did they say it) and I also like to - whenever I can - give credit where credit is due, regardless if it's from Rutt, Karcher, Wilhelm, Hatcher, Barrett .... Without these, it makes it seem like I came up with all my brilliant ideas all on my own! :teapot:
'Life being one big plagarism' I got from a You Tube video years ago where they were showing comparisons of scenes in various films down the ages. Words, story lines, imagery, mannerisms by actors, camera angles etc all the same or similar. There were I think 3 installments but no idea what it was called. It's probably still there if you want to take a look..... or I expect there is a copy of it.
 
Last edited:

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
'Life being one big plagarism' I got from a You Tube video years ago ....

Yes, and now that you've shared your sources (at least in part) and have explained what you mean, you have given what you said context and I can better understand it, And I get it, that it's not just about "one huge bucket of plagarism".

That's what I'm talking about.

FYI (offensive text removed): In Ireland they have found higly preserved mummies - some thousand of years old - that they call 'Bog People'. They have done DNA tests on them and in one they found DNA from southern Europe, and in another DNA from eastern Europe.

Aside from poking holes in the notions of national, ethnic or racial purity, it suggests to me that we've been plagerizing from one another for many tens or even hundreds of thousands of years: swapping stories, (movie plots), tools, songs, hair styles, types of weapons, myths, and even swapping spit and other bodily fluids.

I'm thinking that's the sort of 'plagerizing' you're talking about, yes?

Best, D
 
Last edited:

Trojina

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
22,648
Reaction score
1,970
That's what I'm talking about.
:???:


what are you talking about as you aren't making sense to me


What does it have to do with believing stuff on Youtube ? I thought Mykey just meant that is where he got the quote from.

Saying where he got the quote from does not amount to believing everything on Youtube.
 
Last edited:

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
555
Yes, and now that you've shared your sources (at least in part) and have explained what you mean, you have given what you said context and I can better understand it, And I get it, that it's not just about "one huge bucket of plagarism".

That's what I'm talking about.

FYI: we should not believe everything we see on YouTube. I've seen all sorts of made up crap about the Yi, as well as US politics, and most of those people have pretty iffy (or no) sources; and a lot of it is plagerized - and then repeated over and over and over.

D
Hi David
I'm not going to respond further here as I think it would take the thread off topic.
I would though be interested in seeing your insights on shadow and ideal if you'd like to start them in another thread as you offered.
Take Care.
 

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
555
:???:

What does it have to do with believing stuff on Youtube ? I thought Mykey just meant that is where he got the quote from.

Saying where he got the quote from does not amount to believing everything on Youtube.
You are right Trojina that was all I was writing about . To be perfectly honest I didn't get the quote from there it's just that the YouTobe vid was the catalyst for me taking on a world view about 'Life being one big plagarism'. I have no copyright on that phrase either so please feel free to spread it far and wide or if you'd prefer throw it in the waste bin.

Discernment is a huge life quality that we need to embrace though, and You Tube is a marvellous medium that allows you to fine tune that skill.
 

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
Hi back! I was trying to say that I now get what you are saying - because you shared your sources and that gave it more context for me. If you took offense, I apologize. I also changed my 'Youtube' comment, which I meant to be a caution - to myself as much as anyone - that I think we need be careful about our 'sources' in this internet age. I removed it since it seems to have offended some people - you might want to look at what I put in it's place.

D.
 

Liselle

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
8,339
Reaction score
1,196
Moreover this is a discussion forum. I'm not being disrespectful to Liselle, I'm not trying to stop her exploring her ideas, at least I wouldn't want to stop her, but I have questioned her about it.
For what it's worth, that's how I took it - questioning (with some very good questions).

If I decide at this point I reject the concept of the Ideal that is my right.
It is. At this moment I'm in an argument with my own self over "It seems to work in readings!" vs. "But true, how it's constructed is weird!" :spinning:
 

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
555
Hi back! I was trying to say that I now get what you are saying - because you shared your sources and that gave it more context for me. If you took offense, I apologize. I also changed my 'Youtube' comment, which I meant to be a caution - to myself as much as anyone - that I think we need be careful about our 'sources' in this internet age. I removed it since it seems to have offended some people - you might want to look at what I put in it's place.

D.
Hi david
I didn't see a necessity to remove your post, however that is your choice.
Plagarism means so many things to so many different people.

I am aware of the Irish DNA work that showed widespread origins of people buried in the bogs. Similar work applies to bodies found elsewhere in UK with DNA showing origins based in Middle East or Far East. Please don't ask me for sources though........ and there is the possibility I might be totally misremembering something here.

There is probably something about it to be found in a Google search.

There might even be a You Tube video.!! :)
 

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
I didn't see a necessity to remove your post, however that is your choice.
Thanks. It seemed to have elicted some responses, so I removed it, and replaced it with something that I feel is more relevant - which you responded to.

... aware of the Irish DNA ... (and) bodies found elsewhere in UK with DNA showing origins based in Middle East or Far East.

Please don't ask me for sources though ....

Ah details! I will relieve you of your burden to provide 'sources' - this time! I often ask questions or want more details (and sources) because it can be very (very) useful to know these. It often provides me with context and meaning about something that I otherwise would find more obsure or that I would not understand (or believe).

Plagarism means so many things to so many different people ...

I see two meanings: first, it is just like what we're talking about - natural human interactions going back tens of thousands of years. It is (mythically speaking) someone from the Middle East living for a time among the Celts, and then they return home and bring 'the luck of the Irish' with them - in the form of objects which are then considered holy or otherwise magically potent - and which they end up hanging in their homes or on their doors.

The other kind of 'plagarism' is when someone 'quotes' or paraphrases Rutt or Karcher, etc., but doesn't say so, nor gives us their 'sources' - even if it's just "Rutt said ...".

We all do this to some extent (much of what we say may come from others), but if we know the source, it can be good to share it, so others can dig a bit deeper.

Similarlty, if someone makes a broad statement, I think it's good to ask for examples, or ways to better understand what's being said. When I say something like, 'can you give me examples of that ...' that's what I'm talking about.

There is probably something about it to be found in a Google search. There might even be a You Tube video.!

If I can ever pull myself away from Game of Thrones (I know, I'm a late bloomer), or silly cat videos, I can always check on YT, or do a "duck-duck-go" (not Google) search if I'm more curious. Thanks.
 

FrankieT

Newcomer
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
16
Reaction score
7
Hi Hilary. Forgive my ignorance. In your opening your refer to the Yi as "it". Are you saying that the Yi has a separate consciousness residing somewhere else in the Universe. I had always taken it that the Yi was a way of accessing my own inner awareness and consciousness. Is there something that I have been missing so that the Yi can be used for fortune telling as well as inner development. And if so how would one be able to tell the difference in a reading. I have always taken every reading as a guide to my personal development and every reading has made sense within that context. Could I have been deluding myself all this time. How would one be able to identify delusion from reality if polar opposites could exist and makes sense within the same reading.
Thanks
 

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
688
I have always taken every reading as a guide to my personal development and every reading has made sense within that context.

You've pointed the lens inward.
(it works very well for this)

It can also be pointed outward.
(it works very well for this)

If by 'future' you mean: what lies down a path, it works for that as well.

Sometimes it will point inward even when you've aimed outward, and vice versa,
because sometimes we are confused about the source of or solution to the problem.
 

Trojina

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
22,648
Reaction score
1,970
You could start off out
And it would direct you in
Or you could start off in
And it could direct you out
In Out In Out
You Shake the coins about
You do the hokey cokey
And you turn around
That's what it's all about

Re Yi being only a means to access your inner awareness some people do think talking to Yi is purely an inner dialogue with the self. It's not IMO it's a live intelligence beyond you but it doesn't matter much in practice what you think it is it answers anyway.
 

FrankieT

Newcomer
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
16
Reaction score
7
Thank you for the replies. But I still don't understand how you can tell from the Yi if an internal or external matter is being addressed.
And who or what is addressing anything anyway. Is the Yi Jing a separate entity,an "it", external to us, that has a consciousness existing somewhere in the Universe, or is it a means of accessing what lies within us.
If it is within us then how can it address external matters, unless we already know the answers to everything already anyway.
As I have only ever used the Yi as a method of self development, and regarded it as a mirror of my own subconscious, to bring what is hidden from conscious awareness to the surface,
Unless the Yi is a separate conscious entity I am struggling to comprehend how anyone could ask, and receive answers to anything other than internal personal growth matters.
As the context, and comprehension, of a reading would change dramatically, beyond recognition, depending on whether the Yi is something "out there", as an it, or something already inside of us, already known, identifying the reality of the source of the Yi, would appear to be the most basic of questions to be addressed and answered before any other matters relating to uses, and interpretations, could begin to make sense.
Thanks
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
16,585
Reaction score
2,012
To get a definitive answer to this question, I think you'd need to locate - with clinical certainty - the dividing line between your inner self and the universal reality. Then you could say 'this answer is from my inner self, which I know for certain to be hermetically sealed and have no connection to the cosmos' or 'that answer is from the outer world, and definitely no part of me at all.'

Yi's answers tell me things I wasn't aware of. Did some part of me already know them? Maybe, maybe not.

Or in other words... yes, you're right, it does appear to be the most basic of questions, but it really isn't.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top