...life can be translucent

Menu

Can the Yijing cause you to lose your personal power?

autumn

visitor
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
430
Reaction score
4
Interesting..
This is what Bradford says about 59.6 (29). Kind of a "deliverance" line.

59.6 Dispersing on'es (hot-) blood(edness)
Removed from suffering

"Some say it is living to steam up with passion, to burn oneself up with high heat, to bleed much and often, for this means that they have made contact. And yet it is this, not staying away from trouble, which leaves them numb and thick-skinned. Passion is much more fun when it gets to choose where and how it plays, but this might mean cooler hearts and minds, with plenty of air, wind, and distance to take away some of the heat of hot blood. The emotions wrongly called "strong" become vapor and steam; it's the best way for them to get carried away. Resentment and jealousy, anger and fear: detachment from these is not anesthesia, it's staying far from entanglements and unenlightened activity. The climate is full of alternative states to explore. In some of these, angst and suffering are voluntary endeavors.
 

nicky_p

visitor
Joined
Jan 14, 1971
Messages
368
Reaction score
1
I can't really comment on what other people use the yi for and nor should I as it is a personal choice but I can tell you why I do.

This thread stikes chords with me as I've done a little demon work on myself.

The line that Autumn uses is really interesting and rings some of my bells. I started consulting the yi because I'd lost confidence in myself - in my ability to assess a situation and so consulting was a way of hearing my voice again and building my confidence and intuition. Which was great :D BUT, one day I heard my voice - loud and clear and it frightened the cr*p out of me. I got to thinking that if it frightened me then maybe it frightened other people as well - so I started to quieten it a little. Not be so forthright and listen to what other people had to say. But that is so unlike me that THAT frightened other people! Cool my blood so to speak. And there were consequences of that which I'm not going into right now.

So I guess, right now, I'm just trying to find the healthy balance again. See, I have no wish to be superior but I also have no wish to be inferior either. I am puzzled as to where that leaves me :confused: Hopefully in the land of colours :)
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
What one views as angst another sees as conviction. The first is voluntary, the second you either have or don't have.
 
J

jesed

Guest
Hi Bruce
bruce_g said:
I don’t recall me or anyone else mentioning Catholicism specially, however.
See post 16 in this thread.

bruce_g said:
It is true that Jesus followed the law of Moses and many Semitic traditions, but he was anything but a traditionalist...I don’t think he was too concerned with traditional thought
That's depending on what is your image about traditionalist.
The fact is: in the built of the crhistian identity (II to IV AC) there was a need to diminish the judaism of Jesus. Jesus didn't attepmt to create a new religion. He attempted to renew the traditional spirit of the prophets.
The mayor issue of conflict between Jesus and the Temple leaders was the legalism in the interpretation of the Tora. There was 2 mayor schools in those times: the legalist school (the priest and the pharisei) and the mistic school (the zelots and the qumram's am'ahretz).

Jesus clearly put himself in the group of mistic school (the debates about the Day of the Lord is not original of Jesus, but from the time of the return from Babilon). But he was more radical than the qumram or the zelots. Because even mistical, qumram's people was based on ritual issues. And he was based only on compassion.

That's why Jesus clarify to his disciples: "I'm not here to change the Law, but to fullfill it"

The best way to understand historical Jesus (another issue is the image from Jesus for our days, or his significance in nowadays lifes) is to understand him as a renewer of the mistic tradition of Israel.


About the spirit, in the Bible is clear that Jesus think on deamons in the traditioanl way (some external entity): see the part when he expelkl some deamon from a man to pigs; and when he said to his disciples "this kind of deamon can be expelled only with prayer"

Best wishes
 
Last edited:
B

bruce_g

Guest
I’m not going to debate or argue the point further with you, Jesed. Believe what you wish. That’s the beauty of myth.
 
C

cjgait

Guest
Casting lots vs. Urim and Thummim

bruce_g said:
Autumn,

The Bible is funny about divination. On one hand it condemns the practice, but yet they “cast lots” to make important decisions, such as when the apostles had to choose someone to replace Judas....

Actually there is a very close parallel to the Yi Jing found in ancient Judaism, the Urim and Thummim. Google it and you will see what I mean, but in brief it was a binary oracle used by the kings of Israel to help with major decisions and even determine guilt and innocence in certain circumstances.

Unfortunately all traces of it were gone a long, long time ago, so there is no equivalent to the Yi in the Jewish Bible.

Casting lots is a whole different practise, and comes later in the Bible, only found in that one spot in the NT, if I recall.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
cjgait said:
Actually there is a very close parallel to the Yi Jing found in ancient Judaism, the Urim and Thummim. Google it and you will see what I mean, but in brief it was a binary oracle used by the kings of Israel to help with major decisions and even determine guilt and innocence in certain circumstances.

Unfortunately all traces of it were gone a long, long time ago, so there is no equivalent to the Yi in the Jewish Bible.

Casting lots is a whole different practise, and comes later in the Bible, only found in that one spot in the NT, if I recall.

Interesting. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=U

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casting_lots
 

RindaR

visitor
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Aug 2, 1972
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
42
There is a tradition within the broader church of a couple of different types of divination we've not discussed yet here.

The first involves holding a question in one's mind and closing one's eyes and flipping through the pages of the bible, then pointing to part of the page. One reads the verse and then applies it to the question held in mind.

The other tradition is one called lectio divina, and we might find a kind of parallel in the way some here use the Yi. One chooses and reads aloud a verse or a few verses of the bible in a group. The attitude is one of mindfulness, and each person takes a turn sharing with the group something/anything that "jumped off the page" at them, or that sparked an insight, or that seemed especially meaningful. There is a period of silence, and the passage is read aloud again by another reader. Then follows sharing as noted above. This is done again a third time.

This is a very powerful process, I have seen it used by the church for/with people who are in discernment about whether or not a person has a call to ordination, and by groups who have dedicated themselves to work on a specific problem, within or outside of the church.

I don't see this as much different than what we do with Yi here, although many who identify themselves as christians would be scared or offended by the use of anything designated as an "oracle".

Rinda
 

hilary

Administrator
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
19,151
Reaction score
3,418
I think it's more scared than anything. I've heard from a couple of fairly fundamentalist Christians wanting to rescue me over the years (and despite sounding flippant about this, I actually do recognise their efforts as real altruism, and respect that). Their basic objection seems to be to the source of the answers - something we generally are pretty happy to say we don't know or can't name. That puts it firmly in 'evil spirits' category.

I remember a similar sort of logic from teenage Christians at school. Someone was running a dream interpretation group or event, and they wanted to get this stopped - - too dangerous, too much like talking with evil spirits. What, I asked, about Joseph? Obviously (they said) Joseph was different... I forget exactly how they put it, but the gist was that God was working with Joseph and sending him dreams, and this was not normal.

The inner voice, the realm of truths from somewhere unnameable - this is not a safe place. Joseph has the stamp and sanction of authority behind him, and bibliomancy with The Book might have the same.

This is probably a good moment to point out that I'm talking about fundamentalist Christians I have met. Not about all Christians.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
I used to use the “open Bible and point” method of divination, and often it did provide images, which if contemplated, gave surprisingly applicable answers. But I confess (joke) that I did sort of ‘aim’ toward the book of Proverbs, which contains a great deal of wisdom.

If you’d like a peek into the real world of fundamentalist Christian youth culture, look for the movie called “Saved” on DVD. It’s satirical comedy but with a beautiful message, though it’s been called the work of the Devil (of course) by Christian fundamentalist groups.

Also, if you’d like a good chuckle, take a look at Deuteronomy 14:22-29, specifically verse 26. It’s about the tithe, but you’ll never hear it preached from the pulpit. I’m amazed it made it through the editing process into the King James. Consider when reading it that the Levites were the equivalent to today’s Pastor, who now not only receives an inheritance, but also a pension plan, paid insurance, a company car, and most often free housing. That’s the problem when applying old laws to a modern culture: they are entirely out of their original social context.
 

mudpie

visitor
Joined
Feb 22, 1971
Messages
687
Reaction score
22
bruce_g said:
I’m not going to debate or argue the point further with you, Jesed. Believe what you wish. That’s the beauty of myth.

The beauty of myth is that you can bend a story to mean what you wish? I do not think so, I think that is missing the point.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
listener said:
The beauty of myth is that you can bend a story to mean what you wish? I do not think so, I think that is missing the point.

Missing THE point? Yours, Jesed’s or mine?

Ok, I’ll try to be clearer as to what I meant.

People can argue themselves silly over details, of which they have no way of proving. Myth, in the way I intended it, isn’t to be confused with untruth or bending truth. While a Myth may have a specific story and associated meaning, it isn’t limited to that meaning alone. It also speaks to the individual in a way that is significant and meaningful to them. Jesus' story itself is a Myth, a parable, a metaphor.

Jesed and I are obviously two very different people, and our ways of viewing “facts” are likewise different. Jesed is by nature a lawyer; empirical facts are essential to his way of living and understanding. I am more toward a philosopher nature. To me, the empirical facts aren’t as important as the lesson they teach. What is known as fact about Jesus’ parable or metaphor? Who can prove what he meant by what he said? If your understanding of it works for you, use it.
 
J

jesed

Guest
Hi Bruce

Again you misundertand me, and I guess is due to some prejudice.

bruce_g said:
People can argue themselves silly over details, of which they have no way of proving.
Are you telling I'm arguing silly?

bruce_g said:
While a Myth may have a specific story and associated meaning, it isn’t limited to that meaning alone. It also speaks to the individual in a way that is significant and meaningful to them. Jesus' story itself is a Myth, a parable, a metaphor.

I had said the same thing. Something is the historic context and meaning of the quote, and something else is the way it can be meaninfull to our days. Both are valuable things.

I did aknowledge the worthly of your meaning... but seems you cann't aknowledge the historical context of it meaning.

bruce_g said:
Jesed and I are obviously two very different people, and our ways of viewing “facts” are likewise different. Jesed is by nature a lawyer; empirical facts are essential to his way of living and understanding. I am more toward a philosopher nature. To me, the empirical facts aren’t as important as the lesson they teach.
Not too diferent (even if you like to see it like that. Lawyer/philosopher aren't really too diferent natures. Great philosopher had been lawyers :)
And, in the way you put it, seems like I'm not interested in the lessons of facts. That is the oposite. In my view, to aknowledge the empirical facts is not because a curiosity, but to learn the lessons the give. Many times I had write in this forum "the best teacher is reality".
Now, in my view, empirical facts are uselfull as a way to "asure" that the lessons are lessons and not delusions. (I'm not saying that your lessons are delusion. I'm just calrifying the way I see the relation facts/lessons. Facts without lesson...waste of time; lessons without facts, risk of delussion.
It is something like the old saying: "Wisdom withour knowledge is useless, knowledge without wisdom is dangerous"

bruce_g said:
What is known as fact about Jesus’ parable or metaphor? Who can prove what he meant by what he said?
There are tools to know that, and there had been used. There are 3 generations of studies about "historic Jesus", some issues can be said with security, some as hipothesis, and some as speculation. Of course, you won't find anything of this studies among the foundamentalist groups of christians, that seems are your reference group (I mean, the kind of group you had contacted in your experience)

bruce_g said:
If your understanding of it works for you, use it.
Indeed; I hadn't say the oposite. But undertanding the historical context can be (not necesarly, I know) useful to wide your undertanding for your actual life.

Best wishes

PS Funny that you find interesting something I talked about (only without given the technical name, about the first tool to divination in ancient Judaism), only when other people talked about it.
 

heylise

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 1970
Messages
3,128
Reaction score
202
I love threads like this one, where so many things are said and exchanged. But it makes me also confused, because there is so much, and so different, as if a stone is being carved with words, and all the time leaves and pebbles and footprints go over it, and I have trouble to read what it really says.

Bruce, your mail is like a big sweep, in one go the stone is clean again.

I do like the pebbles and everything, they make everyone speak and react, without them no words might be carved at all. But suddenly seeing the big picture again, is great

LiSe
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
I’m done with this thread. It probably was wrong to begin it.

PS: Thank you, LiSe.
 

hilary

Administrator
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
19,151
Reaction score
3,418
Nah - it's a good thread - called up some lovely posts about why people divine, and adds colour ;)

For Jesed - a mini-colloquial-English lesson -

'Arguing yourself silly' means 'arguing a lot' - arguing until it's pointless, perhaps. A bit like 'arguing until you're blue in the face'. It doesn't actually carry any meaning about how silly or sensible the argument is itself. Odd, but true.
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,120
Reaction score
107
hilary said:
'Arguing yourself silly' means 'arguing a lot' - arguing until it's pointless, perhaps. A bit like 'arguing until you're blue in the face'. It doesn't actually carry any meaning about how silly or sensible the argument is itself. Odd, but true.

Nah, Jesed! Ignore Hilary... (she's got a hidden agenda of bribing us with sweetness) Take it from another native Spanish speaker, it means that in the end we (we=everyone here) are just plain silly for upsetting each other over abstractions... :D

Hilary, on a side note, you may want to change the sugar substitute for REAL sugar: the gang is losing some of the old sense of humor -- with the exception of Chris Lofting, God bless his soul. Who knows, perhaps is because some elections are approaching on this side of the pond, Blair is taking a hint --sigh..., only if...-- and Armageddon is upon us... (I'll take Armageddon for $1,000, Alex...) :)

L
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
Jesed,

Just for the record, since my Christian background seems important to you: I was born and raised Catholic, which I took very seriously until I was 21. I came to Protestantism when I was 32, when I joined the Missouri Synod Lutheran church: a formal and conservative approach to the Bible if ever there was one, where I served in the radio ministry. Finding it too confining for my nature, I moved on to a nondenominational church. I’ve attended various Baptist churches, as each tends to be a bit different, and Methodist churches as well, just to see what they were about. Later, I joined the Four Square Church (which by the way was at least 30% Hispanic), where I served as teacher and music minister for 9 years or so.

I’m sorry you took offence to what I was saying to Listener, and that you perceive me as being prejudice against you, but I’m not responsible for your persecution complexes.

I’ve been known to beat a few dead horses, and I don’t mind that sometimes, but arguing over the finite meaning of a metaphor wears even me out after awhile.
 
J

jesed

Guest
Misundertand me again Bruce...

I'm not offended for what you say to Listener. And "prejudice" wasn't refered against me, but about Christianity

Yes, you are not responsaible for my persecution complexes. Only you are so sure about the image you have about others. :)

Best wishes
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,921
Reaction score
4,426
Not wishing to prolong a dispute but a little confused, my understanding was Jesed was pointing out that the story of the casting out of demons by Jesus was not meant as a metaphor. He then said to see it as a metaphor was a perfectly worthy approach but not how it was originally meant.

Seems reasonable to me. Personally I don't think it was meant as a metaphor either. Even today priests are still doing exorcisms and its not of a persons inner sub personalities either but real 'other' outside entities, spirits, souls whatever you want to call them that can sometimes torment/possess a person. Well thats just my opinion anyway, that it never was a metaphor - unless you want to see it as such. Seems to me Bruce that you are assuming we all agree its a metaphor ? I don't but if you do then thats fine too - uum and i think thats what Jesed was saying ?
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
jesed said:
Misundertand me again Bruce...

I'm not offended for what you say to Listener. And "prejudice" wasn't refered against me, but about Christianity

Yes, you are not responsaible for my persecution complexes. Only you are so sure about the image you have about others. :)

Best wishes

Well then, I guess we both misunderstood what the other was saying?

Am I prejudice toward Christianity? That's a hard one for me to answer. I am well informed about Christianity. I didn't only study it, I fully invested myself into it for a long time. I find a huge degree of hypocrisy in the way Jesus and his teachings are typically interpreted, taught and practiced. So in that respect I guess you could say I have a prejudice toward it, but not the kind of prejudice which is based on ignorance.

I no longer interpret Jesus or his teachings in the literal way it is taught. Jesus means something different to me now than he did before, something even greater than before. It isn't faith based, but more myth or archetype based. Jesus is a living part of my spiritual life, but not for the same reasons or in the same way as when I was a Christian.

“Only you are so sure about the image you have about others.”

Aren’t you?

I try to stay open, Jesed. I ask questions, form opinions and express them. As I learn more about individuals, those perceptions change. I try not to get hung up in personal matters though. So let’s move on, shall we?

Trojan,

If you understand Mathew 12:43-45 as being literal, as something more than a metaphor, and if that works for you, great!
 
Last edited:

autumn

visitor
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
430
Reaction score
4
Bruce,
The original focus of your thread was lost a little by that diversion into whether 'casting out demons' was meant to be metaphorical and refer to the inner nature or external entities.

I'm interested in what you're really trying to say, though.

I guess I'm a little confused on what exactly you mean by people losing their color- and how exactly you define the "shadow" or "inner demons". I am not clear how the "inner demons" give life its color. But I'm interested in hearing how you see this. Even Jung's goal was to integrate (bring to the light) the shadow- wasn't it? When I think of "inner demons", the meanings that I connect to that term are diseases and processes that destroy in a way that is chilling to witness. But maybe that's just because I've seen so much of it.

I mean- I remember being fourteen or fifteen and thinking there was something noble or passionate or colorful about really destructive behaviors. Kind of like- the existentialist Rebel Without a Cause sailing off a cliff. But then I grew up and saw the car crashed at the bottom of the canyon. Maybe that's not what you're getting at, though. Do you think you can give an example of how a "demon" in one's nature "adds" to life, and gives color? Then I think I'll understand your argument better.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
Autumn,

Thanks for pulling us back to the original topic. If the passage I used caused a theological argument, that certainly wasn’t my intent in creating this thread. Whether it is or isn’t a metaphor, I intended it as such.

I’ve never met a very creative person who has exorcized their own demon, or who has so sterilized themselves through austere spiritual practices that all things of a darker nature are made into their personal taboos.

LiSe, in her 44.4 commentary says it this way:
“When one is too unapproachable one makes the arrival of creativity in life impossible. It is not for nothing that the artist seeks the seamy side of life. Too much distance causes sterility. Give everything in life a chance to be met, just examine it's value. Often a mixture of mutually incompatible things brings about creativity.”

So, rather than casting all shady or seamy energy out of ones self, it’s better to tame the demon, so to speak, as in hex. 26 - Tame the bull, do not kill it. To kill the bull makes one a “white washed tomb”.

In addition, no one can really kill their demon anyway. They can only create the appearance or illusion that they have. The oppressed demon will retreat into the recesses of the psyche, only to later reappear with greater ferocity and more destructive power than when it first left, i.e. “and the last [state] of that man is worse than the first.”

While some hold to the belief that demons are external influences, who invade ones body, I hold to the belief that demons are our own dark energies. Does the religious practice of exorcism work? I believe it can, if the one being exorcised believes it can. The question is, where does that demon go? I believe it goes, as I’ve said, deep into the recesses of that person’s psyche, where it grows and multiplies.
 
Last edited:
J

jesed

Guest
Hi Bruce

bruce_g said:
While some hold to the belief that demons are external influences, who invade ones body, I hold to the belief that demons are our own dark energies. Does the religious practice of exorcism work? I believe it can, if the one being exorcised believes it can. The question is, where does that demon go? I believe it goes, as I’ve said, deep into the recesses of that person’s psyche, where it grows and multiplies.

Agree with that. I cann't say that there is no external demons for sure...but what can I do say is in the cases I know, it seems most like inner demons.

And agree about not seek "perfection". I like a quote of a mistic catholic woman (they call her a Saint):
"Don't try to avoid sins...it is useless; is enough to try to do more good than bad"

Best wishes
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
jesed said:
Hi Bruce

IAgree with that. I cann't say that there is no external demons for sure...but what can I do say is in the cases I know, it seems most like inner demons.

Hi Jesed,

I can't say either that there are no external demons for sure, any more than I can say there are no external (good?) angels. See? We do agree on something. :D
 
J

jesed

Guest
Oh...we do agree in many things...

not so bad from a lawyer, i guess:D
 

autumn

visitor
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
430
Reaction score
4
bruce_g said:
. In addition, no one can really kill their demon anyway. They can only create the appearance or illusion that they have. The oppressed demon will retreat into the recesses of the psyche, only to later reappear with greater ferocity and more destructive power than when it first left, i.e. “and the last [state] of that man is worse than the first.”

Are there only two choices? The polarity of oppression/repression is the only option? Or is there a third option- transformation? But what does that look like? Is it instantaneous, as the Church preaches, in salvation? Or, are there many shades and paths of transformation, which lead to the same state? And what does the concept really mean? I think it is closer to the Jungian concept of bringing the shadow into the light of consciousness than being 'fixed' by a greater power. It is reaching the end of the cycle, having learned every lesson in each stage of the cycle, and then taking a new form.

In my view, the problems that come out of Christianity, the hypocrisy, come from a short-sighted, fear-based understanding of transformation. They get stuck on the idea that things are black and white, too, and you are either saved or unsaved. They believe that the world is with them or against them. The problem is to stay in that kind of belief system, which is very common to short-sighted human beings in general, not just Christians, you have to deny the reality of human nature and the evidence of experience in the world.

My understanding of transformation moves beyond polarity. I believe in spiritual evolution, but even that term is a misnomer, because instead of truly evolving into more of what we were before, we are returning to our original natures.

In polarity, there is knowledge, an ideal of how something "should" be. Then there is experience, how something "is". The more diametrically opposed the two are, the greater the energetic tension. The tension drives each pole. The more a person rages, the more he or she wants serenity. In transformation, there is a third perspective which moves beyond polarity, and allows the person locked into polarity to experience union between the ideal and reality.

In Evolutionary Astrology, the planet Pluto represents the soul. Pluto is the energy of true transformation. And of course, true "creativity" is an integrative thought process, leading to the transformation of mediums.

Pluto takes dichotomy in your life and resolves it, integrates it, by forcing you to become conscious of the inner opposition between hidden ways of feeling and thinking and ideals that are unable to be realized. Once the hidden ways of thinking and feeling are held in the conscious mind, where the unrealized ideals of how a person should think and feel are, that opposition becomes integrated, and a solution to experiencing the ideal is found.

jesed said:
I cann't say that there is no external demons for sure...but what can I do say is in the cases I know, it seems most like inner demons.

How would you know the difference?
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
Autumn,

I wasn’t aware I had narrowed life down to two choices. Certainly there are more than two colors, or what we perceive as colors.

What transformation are you speaking of? Transform what into what?
 

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