Blog post: Yes/no questions

[hilary]

Yes/no questions

As you might know, I’m very keen on keeping things as simple as possible – not least the questions we ask the Yijing. But this can cause some bafflement when I advise against asking questions that are looking for a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ answer. What could be simpler than ‘yes’ or ‘no’? If you want to know whether to do something, isn’t it simplest to ask the first question that comes to mind: ‘Should I do this?’

It seems as if it ought to be, but it really isn’t – probably because an oracle doesn’t answer questions like a human being.

Humans vs oracles…​

If I want your advice on whether to do the thing, I’ll certainly ask you,
‘Should I do it?’

You might answer,
‘Yes, because if you do, it will probably work out like this…’
or,
‘No, because if you do, it’ll probably work out like this…’
or even,
‘No, and here’s what I think you should do instead…’.

In any case, I’ll understand what you mean because you started your reply with ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and then you explained what scenario you were about to describe. That is, you’d tell me if you were about to paint me a picture of how it would work out if I did the thing, or a picture of what I should do instead. And then you would get into the details and show me the future scenario you want me to imagine – where I’d end up if I follow the path I have in mind.

So there would be three steps to your reply:

1) ‘Yes’ or ‘no’
2) Telling me what you are about to describe for me.
3) Describing it for me.

Here’s where Yi is different: it doesn’t normally do steps 1 or 2.

Instead, it goes directly to step 3: it paints you a complete and vivid picture. Since we need to know what its painting depicts, step 2 belongs in the human half of the conversation – in your question. If you ask, ‘If I do this, what can I expect?’ Yi can paint you a picture of that. If you ask it ‘What should I do?’ it can paint a picture of you, taking the best course. In each case, you asked for a description – exactly what Yi’s good at – and you know where you are with the answer.

But if you ask, ‘Should I do this?’ then the first thing you have to do with the answer is guess what it might be describing. Is this a picture of you doing the thing? Is it a picture of what you should do instead? You can’t even start to understand the answer until you’ve guessed, and you will always be wondering whether maybe you guessed wrong and it might all make more sense if you read it another way. The question may have been simple, but it can make the business of interpretation disconcertingly complicated.

‘But it works for me!’​

Some people ask yes/no questions and find they get clear responses with no problem. If you’re one of those, and are wondering what I’m on about and why I’m complicating something completely straightforward… then good for you, and obviously don’t change anything. What you’re probably doing without realising it is reading the oracle’s response as an answer to your implied question. Often people will move seamlessly from asking, ‘Should I do x?’ to reading an answer to ‘What if I do x?’ – and why not?

Also, you might find it easy to guess which scenario the answer’s describing. Suppose I ask,

‘Should I get stuck in and do this work?’

and receive Hexagram 8, Seeking Union, without changing lines. If the work is something I hate doing, something I’d have to discipline myself into, then I might take that as a ‘No – do something that brings you delight instead.’ That works because I can recognise the work I’m contemplating as something like Hexagram 7, the Army, and can’t believe there’s any way doing it could be like the natural flow of Hexagram 8.

Hm… unless… this were saying that I need to change my mindset about the work, choose it wholeheartedly and get on with it, since ‘for the latecomer, pitfall’… . Even with a single hexagram and an imaginary reading, I’m already second-guessing myself.

But if I’d asked ‘What if I do it?’ or ‘What should I do about it?’ and received 8 unchanging, I’d know it was calling for that change of mindset. If I’d asked ‘What if I don’t?’ then with the same answer I would know not to attempt it, but to look for something that comes more naturally. Simple – no second-guessing required.

If in doubt…​

If you’re just getting started with readings, do keep your questions simple! In practice, that means knowing what you’re asking the oracle to describe for you. What do you need to see? You can always imagine your question starts with ‘Please paint me a picture of…’ or ‘Please tell me the story of…’.

 

[my_key]

I guess we all approach Yi with a wish to understand what wisdom is going to be offered to us and to have it expressed to us in a manner that we can easily make some sense of.
Open questions, like the examples in the final paragraph (really open !!), make this a more likely outcome of the consultation. Where, how and what can also provide a good entry for those with a less creatively inspired outlook.
Where am I heading if I do X? How does this impact me? What is going on here?

Closed questions requiring only a Yes or No can be, as you say, useful or not. In my early I Ching experience asking them seemed to lead for me towards looking to wrestle with those monosyllabic grunts I got, back in the day, from my teenage lads when making any sort of enquiry of them. Noncommittal and un-intelligible.

 

[surnevs]

(maybe it all started with a Shall / shall not - or maybe not)
______________

Many years ago we were a small group on holiday and now and then it happened that we were arguing about some decisions to take. At some point, we got tired of that and decided to let the one who won a simple little game take the decision, and we found ourselves satisfied with that. We left the trivial matters up to a simple chance game. Comparing this with more complex and dangerous situations in the remote past imagining small groups getting into conflicts about matters about which none knew better than others what the right decision would be, even getting into fights about getting the right to decide, I can imagine that at some point an elderly in the group proposed it all to be left in the hands of an impartial higher court: some kind of an oracle media. But about that, we will never ever know; the oracle could as well have been handed down to mankind from higher instances... Or not.

 

[IrfanK]

I think yes/no questions are fine. Just so long as you don't expect a yes/no answer.

 

[hilary]

I think yes/no questions are fine. Just so long as you don't expect a yes/no answer.

That's the whole point, isn't it? What answer do you expect? It helps - immeasurably - to have some idea.

 

[my_key]

(maybe it all started with a Shall / shall not - or maybe not)
______________

Many years ago we were a small group on holiday and now and then it happened that we were arguing about some decisions to take. At some point, we got tired of that and decided to let the one who won a simple little game take the decision, and we found ourselves satisfied with that. We left the trivial matters up to a simple chance game. Comparing this with more complex and dangerous situations in the remote past imagining small groups getting into conflicts about matters about which none knew better than others what the right decision would be, even getting into fights about getting the right to decide, I can imagine that at some point an elderly in the group proposed it all to be left in the hands of an impartial higher court: some kind of an oracle media. But about that, we will never ever know; the oracle could as well have been handed down to mankind from higher instances... Or not.

Your memories remind me of the book The Dice Man by Luke Rheinhart. He decided to let his trivial matters be ruled by a simple game and found that without wilful intervention complex and dangerous situations can easily arise.

 

[IrfanK]

That's the whole point, isn't it? What answer do you expect? It helps - immeasurably - to have some idea.

I remember watching an interview with Andy Warhol. The interviewer asked him some question like: "Do you think it's fair to say that the Cubist Movement laid the foundations for the type of modernist art that has become increasingly prevalent in the second half of the 20th century?"

Andy Warhol looked thoughtful and considered the question for a while, then responded with:

"Yes."

It was quite funny. But obviously the interviewer was disconcerted. He obviously expected an exposition on the issue. I think yes/no questions to the Yi are usually like that, except that the Yi is more helpful than Andy was feeling on that particular day.

 

[surnevs]

my_key #6,
I haven't read this book mentioned, only read a feature article from a newspaper some four years ago about the book, but I can see that it's the other way round here: where The dice man blindly follows the outcome of the cast, letting this form his way in life, the outcome of the drawing of the pile of matchsticks (that we used on this holiday) left the decision (of to example which attraction to visit) up to the winner but only in case of doubts, thereby avoiding arguing in the group and in worst case splitting up with the holiday wasted as the result ie saving us from trouble, where I can understand that The dice man ended up in trouble...
Concerning the source of the I Ching I believe it could very well have been "handed down to mankind from higher instances" as mentioned here and there in the commentaries (the fifth wing, Ta Chuan, part I ch. XI, 2 to example)

PS: I maybe was a bit hasty in claiming that we'll never ever know - about the origins of the I. Never say never...

 

[hilary]

There's a yes/no oracle in Paolo Coelho's The Alchemist, isn't there? Urim and Thummim? I haven't read the book for a long time, but I seem to recall they were (at least in the book) two stones, a 'yes' and a 'no': keep them in your pocket, pull one out for your answer. The protagonist used them a great deal until they both fell through a hole in his pocket, which I think illustrates that even a yes/no oracle can have more to say.

 

[my_key]

my_key #6,
I haven't read this book mentioned, only read a feature article from a newspaper some four years ago about the book, but I can see that it's the other way round here: where The dice man blindly follows the outcome of the cast, letting this form his way in life, the outcome of the drawing of the pile of matchsticks (that we used on this holiday) left the decision (of to example which attraction to visit) up to the winner but only in case of doubts, thereby avoiding arguing in the group and in worst case splitting up with the holiday wasted as the result ie saving us from trouble, where I can understand that The dice man ended up in trouble...

Yes he was blindly following the outcome of the cast. His actions, though, were based though in the nature of the question he asked and in the intent he set in deciding the limiting factor of the options open to him. He set the probability range for Yes / No. Using 2 die the outcome 2 and 12 were the most daring or had most dire. Throwing a 7 corresponded to safe decision.

His acts as a result of his casts certainly became more troublesome for him. Internally though there were moments of epiphany among the darkness, as I recall.

It seems your holiday experience was based in common sense and a gaining consensus on how best to resolve conflict. The Dice Man began to relish the conflict and chaos that his casts produced.

Concerning the source of the I Ching I believe it could very well have been "handed down to mankind from higher instances" as mentioned here and there in the commentaries (the fifth wing, Ta Chuan, part I ch. XI, 2 to example)

Yes. I can agree with the higher power origins.

PS: I maybe was a bit hasty in claiming that we'll never ever know - about the origins of the I. Never say never...

Perhaps to know for certain we'll have to ask Yi.

 

[my_key]

There's a yes/no oracle in Paolo Coelho's The Alchemist, isn't there? Urim and Thummim? I haven't read the book for a long time, but I seem to recall they were (at least in the book) two stones, a 'yes' and a 'no': keep them in your pocket, pull one out for your answer. The protagonist used them a great deal until they both fell through a hole in his pocket, which I think illustrates that even a yes/no oracle can have more to say.

Good memory Hilary. A black stone and a white stone. Very simple and clear yes / no. Every organism strives to become more complex, so expanding their being through wearing a hole in the pocket was only to be expected.

 

[surnevs]

About Urim and Thummim, I remembered to have read about this in Arthur Edward Waite's book, The pictorial key to the Tarot:

​

"An erect and princely figure carrying a drawn sword and corresponding, broadly speaking, to the traditional description which I have given in the first part *). On the shoulders of the victorious hero are supposed to be the Urim and Thummim. He has led captivity captive; he is conquest on all planes--in the mind, in science, in progress, in certain trials of initiation. He has thus replied to the sphinx, and it is on this account that I have accepted the variation of Éliphas Lévi; two sphinxes thus draw his chariot. He is above all things triumph in the mind.
It is to be understood for this reason (a) that the question of the sphinx is concerned with a Mystery of Nature and not of the world of Grace, to which the charioteer could offer no answer; (b) that the planes of his conquest are manifest or external and not within himself; (c) that the liberation which he effects may leave himself in the bondage of the logical understanding; (d) that the tests of initiation through which he has passed in triumph are to be understood physically or rationally; and (e) that if he came to the pillars of that Temple between which the High Priestess is seated, he could not open the scroll called Tora, nor if she questioned him could he answer. He is not hereditary royalty and he is not priesthood."

*) "7. The Chariot. This is represented in some extant codices as being drawn by two sphinxes, and the
device is in consonance with the symbolism, but it must not be supposed that such was its original
form; the variation was invented to support a particular historical hypothesis. In the eighteenth
century white horses were yoked to the car. As regards its usual name, the lesser stands for the
greater; it is really the King in his triumph, typifying, however, the victory which creates kingship
as its natural consequence and not the vested royalty of the fourth card. M. Court de Gebelin said
that it was Osiris Triumphing, the conquering sun in spring-time having vanquished the obstacles
of winter. We know now that Osiris rising from the dead is not represented by such obvious
symbolism. Other animals than horses have also been used to draw the currus triumphalis, as, for
example, a lion and a leopard."

 

[my_key]

Yes and No are diametrically opposed extremes of each other and yet not the only way. Urim and Thummim are associated with early day Hebrew, mystical or magical ceremony; so no wonder there are links to tarot. The Chariot symbolises a determined tendency towards finding the Middle Way through the chaotic vagaries that life throws in your path.

 

[surnevs]

Inside the Yes the No will be found and the other way round. In another connection I wrote this years ago:

​

But I think it fits into asking the I Ching "Shall I" or "Shall I not" ? - because every step we take has a good effect on something but a bad effect on other things so no matter which choice we take it will be beneficial for something and harmful for other things... I think that the replies from the I Ching serve what's best for the harmonious evolution as a whole versus what's beneficial for the individual. In the end, what is beneficial for the harmonious evolution as a whole will also be beneficial for all individuals. This is how it sometimes can feel odd when the I sort of leads our attention away from what we have in mind when asking. Something like: "There is more in play here than what will momentarily serve you best as an individual". But it's explained as also pointed out in #1, in pictures (or Scenarios) because the I Ching, like a Chameleon, shifts attitude according to the changing situations.

 

[my_key]

Inside the Yes the No will be found and the other way round. In another connection I wrote this years ago:

View attachment 5357​

I like it: a simple profundity. Many, though, find it difficult to utter the two letter word 'no' in any context, and many more hide the no-ness that needs to be seen in plain light of day.

But I think it fits into asking the I Ching "Shall I" or "Shall I not" ? - because every step we take has a good effect on something but a bad effect on other things so no matter which choice we take it will be beneficial for something and harmful for other things...​

The use of 'shall' certainly reinforces an intention of will and the laws of physics state that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I think that the replies from the I Ching serve what's best for the harmonious evolution as a whole versus what's beneficial for the individual. In the end, what is beneficial for the harmonious evolution as a whole will also be beneficial for all individuals. This is how it sometimes can feel odd when the I sort of leads our attention away from what we have in mind when asking. Something like: "There is more in play here than what will momentarily serve you best as an individual". But it's explained as also pointed out in #1, in pictures (or Scenarios) because the I Ching, like a Chameleon, shifts attitude according to the changing situations.​

Comparison with the 3 Fates, in Greek & Roman mythology, that wove the destiny of man and mankind come to mind from your words. The spinner, the dispenser and the cutter ensured the scenes were played out as they ought to be, even if it is not immediately obvious what needs or goals are being met.

Yi always advocates a best way to walk as a 'noble one' in each hexagram. This applies whether a Yes/No restriction is applied to the question or not. Again, beyond the realms of yes/no-ness in the question, how far progress goes towards emulating the thoughts or actions of the superior person is down to the manifestation ability of each individual. For that reason, there is always something chameleon-like and ineffable going on between personal and cosmic will.