Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Thanks Hilary.So often, I hear people say, ‘It feels as though it’s telling me…’
And then you have to be willing to let yourself be guided, and change your plans. To start now, even though you’d feel more comfortable with an extra month’s research – or not to start now, but go back to the drawing board instead. To spend money on the risky proposition – or not to buy the super-shiny object available for a limited time only; to start the scary conversation – or not send the email you’ve been writing in your head for days.
And second, the Yi was never intended to be the only guide to a decision: it doesn’t replace research, expert advice – or even common sense.
Sometimes this will mean going against other people’s advice, or against ‘common sense’. It will often appear quite inexplicable to onlookers.
In practice, if you approach every reading with this degree of respect – knowing what difference it could make – it’s likely to mean you do fewer readings! If you know you intend to do (or not do) something, if you know that it’s the right choice for you, you won’t consult. Not because you’re worried about what Yi might say, but because you aren’t.
I believe you show respect to an oracle through the quality of attention you pay it. This needs to be full, true, non-selective attention, and that means reading what it says. Skipping over the oracle’s words in favour of the commentary (or forum replies or trigram associations or what you ‘know it means’) is not respect.
To awaken this kind of respect, I think it helps to conceive of Yi as a separate being, a ‘person’ in its own right.
Yes, that's the one I'm talking about.It need not always be joyful, nor profound, nor all-encompassing - and it doesn't always involve all the hexagrams or trigrams, or all the words, or all the images ... (though it might included any or all of these) ...
... it's just an "ah-ha, I get it" moment of understand or connection.
Yes... though if your plan/want was that strong to start with, why ask?I also think you have to be willing to ignore what you think it says and do what you planned or wanted.
'use common sense'
'be prepared to go against common sense'
Your 2 statements about common sense might look contradictory.
True, not completely, but... consulting a magic talking book isn't exactly rational in the first place, is it? By which I don't mean that we're all cuckoo, only that much of the point of consulting is to go beyond what's rationally available. You wouldn't want to abandon your Yi answer in favour of rational thought, either.But on the other hand you don't want to completely abandon all rational thought in favour of a Yi answer.
That reminds me of an example in one of Diana ffarington-Hook's books, where someone asked 'Why did I fall?' expecting some kind of message about the deep psychological significance of it all, and got an answer that basically said 'because your feet went out from under you' - 52.2, I think.Several times now when I have asked about an argument Yi has just described precisely what the argument was about and just that, not the underlying tensions or anything.
Yes... though if your plan/want was that strong to start with, why ask?
They were meant to be
By which I don't mean that we're all cuckoo, only that much of the point of consulting is to go beyond what's rationally available.
Actually sometimes that seems the best thing to do if you don't understand it anyway. At least I think that when reading other people's readings here sometimes. I don't entirely abandon Yi answers but sometimes I will just put them to one side if they don't make sense and I have to make a decision. Of course I also think one has to give answers time to percolate. Ahem of course some people just 'forget', rather than 'abandon' the answer and go steaming on ahead with their plan anyway Remember how many 'forgotten' readings there are, well submerged if forgotten. Also think of how many times we ask the same question over time forgetting we already had an answer. One can see that with the Resonance Journal where I have become aware of asking similar questions over long periods of time and each time I ask I think it's a new thought but it isn't.You wouldn't want to abandon your Yi answer in favour of rational thought, either.
Yes.it reminds me that there's another potential contradiction here: .... paying attention to the whole reading, (or only) to some bit that jumps out at you and doesn't involve the whole reading.
I've had similar things happen and have learned to keep it in mind as a possibility. Now I often manage to find it amusing and even a relief. "There's not a lot to say here, maybe it can be less fraught?," I sort of hear Yi saying, something like that.Several times now when I have asked about an argument Yi has just described precisely what the argument was about and just that, not the underlying tensions or anything.
Experience where the shadow and ideal lines seem helpful:
My washing machine had been acting up for some time, occasionally stopping in the middle of a cycle and just sitting there. I'd wonder what to do; Yi would say to let it alone. That had always worked - eventually it would start back up, finish the cycle, and then work normally for a while.
This time, not so simple. Its new trick is not performing various parts of the cycle, for instance, it'll fill and drain, but not spin. "What makes this time different?," I asked. 19.4 to 54
19.4 (Hatcher): 'Complete commitment / Without mistakes'. Maybe it's truly, completely broken now.
More explanation:
Shadow line 46.4: 'The king makes offerings on Mount Qi. Good fortune, no mistake.' I'd gotten used to it fixing itself if I made offerings (letting it alone when it stopped), and figured it would continue that way forever, like the endurance of the sacred mountain (46.4 zhi 32). Not anymore.
Ideal line 59.4: 'Dispersing your flock, From the source, good fortune. Dispersing gains the hilltop, No barbarian has occasion to think of this.' Freeman Crouch (paperback, very nice Kindle edition) says, "Consider a novel approach to incentives and rewards." Novel approach, a.k.a. a workaround.
Combining the two: re-conceive of the previous solution as a successful but temporary workaround - worth doing, but in 46 it's always just one step up a mountain, after all. I wasn't actually winning (59.4 zhi 6).
Now I often manage to find it amusing and even a relief. "There's not a lot to say here, maybe it can be less fraught?," I sort of hear Yi saying, something like that.
...that's not frustration it's surprise at how I was answered. I think you're reading frustration in where that wasn't what I meant.'Really ? I told you about this awful argument that I thought was absolutely terrible and you are telling me what happened with the parking,, what factor led to what factor, there was no space where she said there was.....oh...oh well hmmm'
As a reader the washing machine example is too shrouded in mystery to make sense. I don't know if you got it to work or not or what you did about it. Maybe it's just backdrop to the answer....I don't understand it anyway.19.4 (Hatcher): 'Complete commitment / Without mistakes'. Maybe it's truly, completely broken now.
The point was not really that I was frustrated with Yi's answer and so needed to go digging around for something deeper,
Sorry, not clear, I was more frustrated with the washing machine than with Yi. 19.4 (moving line) told me pretty clearly that it was really broken. It was similar (not the same, just similar) to yours in that "Yep, it's broken" was a statement of fact that I found a bit taciturn.Trojina said:When I said this
...that's not frustration it's surprise at how I was answered. I think you're reading frustration in where that wasn't what I meant.
Definitely experimental. I've found them (including the lines) really helpful, often enough to pay attention. There are also plenty of times I don't get anything from them, but that's true of primary-relating-moving lines, too (we just don't always understand every reading, as you said).I'm afraid I really don't think the 'Ideal' has validity as a concept and I'm doubtful about the Shadow let alone the 'shadow lines' ? Shadow lines are I presume the corresponding line in the shadow or ideal ? That's way too far removed to be considered surely ?
It was definitely broken. The apartment manager replaced it. Have edited WikiWing to make that more clear, I hope - thanks for pointing out it wasn't. (The OP is the worst judge, at least this one ...)As a reader the washing machine example is too shrouded in mystery to make sense. I don't know if you got it to work or not or what you did about it. Maybe it's just backdrop to the answer....I don't understand it anyway.
(Edited for clarity: it was really, truly broken. I had it replaced with a new washer. I interpreted Bradford's 19.4 to mean, "the washing machine completely committed itself to being broken," in contrast to what had been happening before, which was that it would act up, but eventually finish its cycle and work normally for a while.)
I see what you mean, but I think the Shadow might be pretty intrinsic, being the Sequence from the other end. I know you question the Sequence itself, though, and I'm nowhere near equipped to discuss that.Especially so since the shadow and ideal aren't true 'hexagrams of context' at all. That is they aren't manifestly intrinsically there in the reading the way the line path or change patterns are. Karcher just invented them.
Before we can trust the oracle we have to be able to trust in ourself. when we are able to do that we free ourselves from just engaging with robotic responses to what Yi has advised. Without trust and a discerning nature which allows us to make interpretations that are right for us then we can easily become a mindless follower.I think it all comes down to trusting the oracle.......
As in all relationships or communication respect and honesty are key in ensuring the quality is the best it can be. Honesty and respect breed authenticity. Yi can only be authentic in relation to the information it provides. The least we can do is mirror that.Trusting an oracle means respecting it as an oracle, not some kind of random, Rorschach blot test.
When we trust, are honest and respectful, and bathe ourselves in the authenticity that Yi offers then we receive the message that is meant for us. The message may not make full sense or be the message that we wanted to hear but it is our message and our message alone. Not understanding every last detail of the message or having it tell us something we don't want to hear is just something our ego is going to have to learn to accomodate.You can’t get this wrong, and there is no ‘expert’, in print or online or in person, who can tell you otherwise, because this is the oracle speaking to you, not to them.
Stuckness or lacking of a spark is the starting point for not being stuck. After sitting in that chair, maybe even glued to it, the only direction we can take are towards being un-stuck or closer to engaging with that 'lightening bolt'. You are right that the sacrifice we have to make to unstick ourselves in these situations is our impatience.What when there’s no lightning bolt, not even much of a spark – nothing doing?
Openness to any reading is a state of being. If we carry a generally closed demeanour then it may be more difficult to follow through in a direction that the reading is giving us. Of course, seeing through all of the filters that we may apply to the reading; then trusting the message we have ascertained and being confident in our own ability to be discerning are all equally important in ensuring that we go down a road that suits us. Sometimes the reading may point us towards 'Gracelands' but if we do not want to take this route in a direct way then we can always go round the houses on a route that we think is right. That's called learning and that, fundamentally, is what the Yi promotes. It empowers.First, you have to be very sure that you’re responding to what the oracle is actually saying, not just what you wish it had said.
And second, the Yi was never intended to be the only guide to a decision: it doesn’t replace research, expert advice – or even common sense.
... important to me because this whole example is right at the top of my list as far as lyrical "speaking" of shadow, ideal, and their lines.
Does knowing the washer was really broken and got replaced help you with the rest of it? That's important to me because this whole example is right at the top of my list as far as lyrical "speaking" of shadow, ideal, and their lines. If I'm not getting that across, either I have to rewrite it more or accept that I can't and take it out of WikiWing. (I really don't want to put incomprehensible stuff in WW! Absolutely not what it's for.)
I guess I figure if paired lines and fan yaos are things, then shadow lines can be things just as easily. Who knows, though.It helps somewhat with 19.4 but I can't see any basis for 'shadow lines', where is that idea from, is it a new invention ?
[...]
I don't think shadow lines are even a thing are they ?
Not sure what to do with my example. It makes splendid, lovely sense to me (lol), but it doesn't to you, which could be either bad explaining or nonsensical interpretation, and I don't know which.
None takenno offence of course
Er, yes. Like the time I used 'Cast history' and found I'd had the exact same reading once before... when asking pretty much the exact same question. It's a good job Yi is patient, on the whole.Also think of how many times we ask the same question over time forgetting we already had an answer. One can see that with the Resonance Journal where I have become aware of asking similar questions over long periods of time and each time I ask I think it's a new thought but it isn't.
It is... and at the same time, I think there are some basic principles - where 'respecting the oracle' means 'not ignoring what it says'. Probably the key distinction is not allowing oneself to be selective with the basic answer, to make it say something convenient.And ... this 'whole vs. bits' notion also reminds me of how we work with the Yi: do we including only a few bits - a few ways of working with it - maybe only looking at the trigrams, or only looking at the text?
Or do we look at everything (or a lot) - lines, text, trigrams, line pathways, shadow / seasonal / ideal hexagrams, etc?
Even with this latter, more 'inclusive' method, I believe we still need to distill down the information we get into digestable or bite-sized bits, in order for us to understand and make use of them.
This is personal: how each of us resolves this contradiction.
... exactly. Jumping over the basic answer to 'extras' is also a kind of selectivity.Anyway I think if I had gone digging around too deep beneath my answer it would have been like avoiding the answer really.
Yes.Before we can trust the oracle we have to be able to trust in ourself. when we are able to do that we free ourselves from just engaging with robotic responses to what Yi has advised.
Also yes. (And I think I will steal this and quote it.)Stuckness or lacking of a spark is the starting point for not being stuck.
- also yes, why not? As far as I know, Karcher has never suggested this, but this is all a realm of play and experimentation, trying things with readings and seeing what helps.I guess I figure if paired lines and fan yaos are things, then shadow lines can be things just as easily.
I suspect that we may be way more in agreement here than not, and as you said, "... respecting the oracle also means honoring your own immediate response".where 'respecting the oracle' means 'not ignoring what it says'.
Oh - good question - I wouldn't have thought about 64.6, just because the Shadow isn't a turn-upside-down thing. But 64.1 and 64.6 aren't light-years apart - in both you're getting ahead of yourself in different ways, soaking your tail in line 1 and your head in line 6. So maybe whatever tale could be told about 1.1 and 64.1 as each other's shadow lines could also be told about 1.1 and 64.6 without sounding completely ridiculous.(Question: if you have shadow lines, should 1.1 correspond to 64.1, or 64.6??)
1.1 'Dragon underwater – don’t act.' | 64.1 'Soaking your tail, Shame.' | 64.6 'Being true and confident in drinking wine. Not a mistake. Soaking your head, Being true and confident, losing your grip on that. |
1.1 'Dragon underwater – don’t act.' | 52.1 'Stilling your feet, No mistake. Ever-flowing constancy bears fruit.' | 52.6 'Great-hearted stilling. Good fortune.' |
Cast line 1.1: 'Dragon underwater – don’t act.'
Shadow line 64.1: 'Soaking your tail, Shame.'
Ideal line 52.1: 'Stilling your feet, No mistake. Ever-flowing constancy bears fruit.'
Karcher says shifting your thinking to the ideal brings out the positive side of the shadow spontaneously.
Well, you could say it's one giant turn-upside-down thing, turning the whole Sequence upside down. (I can't think of any reason to turn anything upside down for the Ideal, though.) Your approach, trying it out with examples and example readings, is the only way to explore, and it seems to be working better for you so far if you stay the right way up. As it were.the Shadow isn't a turn-upside-down thing
Trojina - I feel awkward having people refer to my ideas of Karcher's ideas.
The same applies to any 'extra' tool: change patterns, line pathways, nuclears, fancy trigram stuff. Any of it can help, or can become a giant rabbit-hole.
Life is just one huge bucket of plagarism, I fancy. I hold no copyright to this and think I probably nicked it from someone who said it to me once anyway. So go ahead and spread the word.Also yes. (And I think I will steal this and quote it.)
Reasonable questions. I suppose it's because we're trying to define and evaluate it, and for that it would be good to be sure we're actually talking about Karcher's idea, not Hilary's impression of Karcher's idea.But you are quite happy for people to use the ideas on your videos etc about Karcher's ideas ? Why would you feel awkward about the Ideal but not awkward about discussing your thoughts on change patterns or line paths ?
The Ideal and the Shadow form a pair of figures that let you grasp the ideal potential of the situation and a necessary transformative potential that is, for the moment, shadowed and unavailable but will manifest spontaneously if you do not seek it out.
a special and quite effective way to see what we should and should not be doing, practically rather than morally, at a given moment along with what we might achieve directly and what we can achieve only by renouncing our desires for it.
Well, you could say it's one giant turn-upside-down thing, turning the whole Sequence upside down. (I can't think of any reason to turn anything upside down for the Ideal, though.)
So Ideal = 'ideal potential of the situation' and probably also 'what we might achieve directly'.
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.
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 simply can't read Karcher's prose anyway and am not keen to download it .
[01:00:24.670] - Bradford
So it's important to the old-timer to really stay open, to keep that beginner's mind. And sometimes
[01:00:40.690] - Hilary
How do you do that?
[01:00:42.790] - Bradford
Well, for instance, I probably twice in the last 10 years, I have made an attempt to forget everything I
know and take your beginners' course. I mean, twice I've done that - the free beginners' course - just to
really start over. Or look at a new book as if I didn't know anything. And it's challenging because it's
easy for me to scoff at other theories - you know, being being something of a cynic, you know,
definitely a skeptic. You know, it's important for me to to try and keep beginner's mind when looking
at new ideas legitimately. At least then I can scoff at them legitimately
Agreed.Personal thought: we probably won't get far with the Ideal without fully digesting the difference between the two trigram arrangements first.
Ooh, a digestive aid! Thanks!I tend to think of the Before Heaven arrangement as the product of people's desire to have everything well-ordered and comprehensible,
Holding this in suspension, I suppose, since I haven't done step 1 yet.so I'm never going to be exactly captivated by the idea of using it to build a hexagram.
I think this is the hardest part of the whole thing, followed by being able to see two distinct sides of the shadow.One would think that if 52.1 were the ideal way to approach the situation then 52.1 would have been cast !
If 52.1 is the ideal way to act then what's 1.1 meant to be now ? I mean 1.1 was the answer cast so where does that fit in if now 52.1 is the way to go ideally ? What's 1.1 now then, what's it's role ? It was the actual answer after all
In practice, the yin change pattern is often going to read as advice.
[...]
The yin pattern may often work as advice, but it isn’t a replacement for
the advice in the reading. (Creating change in the realm of Biting
Through is not always necessarily quite the same thing as creating
change by Biting Through.) Rather than taking the yin pattern as an
alternative to your reading’s advice, you need to find how it interacts
with and complements it.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).