...life can be translucent

Menu

Carol Anthony's latest book

hilary

Administrator
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
19,149
Reaction score
3,418
Over at http://www.ichingoracle.com/, Carol Anthony's new book, 'I Ching, the Oracle of the Cosmic Way', is available to pre-order (with a modest offer of reduced postage). There's also a sample from the book , Hexagram 3, which I think must give a very clear flavour of the whole.

Any comments?
 
D

dharma

Guest
An excellent suggestion Hilary. A book I am likely to add to my small personal library. The sample chapter offered clearly follows my belief system to a T.

I especially liked the two following paragraphs which reflect the main points I have been trying to make over the months here at Clarity but especially on the "Playing Small..." page.

1. Another misunderstanding that occurs at the beginning comes from thinking in terms of changes rather than transformations. The Sage makes us aware that harmony with the Cosmos is not to be achieved through making superficial changes, such as changing one's mind, habits, or attitudes. True change is impossible so long as a person retains the false program introjected into his psyche during childhood. Transformations occur on the base level of consciousness when he deprograms the false phrases and images of this program. A true new beginning requires that he examine and rid himself, with the help of the retrospective-three-coin method (see Appendix), of the false basic premises that underlie all belief systems he has accepted into his psyche, whether consciously or unconsciously. He needs to add nothing. What is uncovered through this effort is his true self that is in harmony with the Cosmos. This is the effort that leads to transformation by engaging the Helpers of the invisible world. This is also the meaning indicated by Lao Tzu when he described freeing the true self as "daily diminishing [aspects of the ego]".

2. The belief that a person's animal nature is inferior and that to become free of it, he needs to develop his spiritual nature. This idea divides a person's wholeness into parts that are considered antagonistic. A person's true nature is inextricably connected with his body, which is the vehicle for receiving chi energy (life force) from the Cosmos. Disdain of the body blocks the nourishing and healing chi and thus creates susceptibility to illness. Such a person needs the help of the Sage to free his animal nature from this spell/slander.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Dharma
 

humblesoul

visitor
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Carol Anthony's Latest Book: Question

I really love this new interpretation of the iChing - it's on a very deep level and really 'speaks' to me. However, I have a serious question for those who have read it (please, if you haven't read it you probably won't understand the context in which this question is being asked).

Personally - and where else would I start from? I have a problem with two terms that the book uses: Sage and The Helpers. The reason I have a problem - I should say ego-problem with these terms is that I find it practically impossible not to think of the Sage in anthropomorphic terms and The Helpers, likewise like Gods. I know - I do know they are not meant to be seen this way, that the Sage is the teacher of the cosmos - or the teaching aspect and the Helpers are the underlying attributes of the various ideas we make. I also understand the need to call them Helpers is for us to be modest - i.e. to recognise that Love etc does not come from our small egos or the other but from the Cosmos. However, these terms bug me because the very sound of the word 'helper' makes me feel help-less (which is an egoistical idea) and the sound of the 'sage' as in 'the wise person' makes me feel inadequate and I simply cannot shake off these associations.

Any help on this or any other suggestions as to what they/It is called? I have to add that for many years I couldnt' stand the word 'God' either for the reason that it just made me cringe as upholding the Judeo-Christian concept but I am neutral to that idea now. I have no religious upbringing or dogma - I hasten to add but the collective ego and the terms - as described in Anthony's book are very difficult for me to comprehend.

Thank you
 

lecubiste

visitor
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Letting go

Humblesoul,

I would only counsel that the true understanding of the ultimate is that it is not discernible. In the Hindu image of Shiva, Lord of the dance, under the foot is a dwarf on its belly, trapped, and holding a dagger. That dwarf is the ego.

To let go of the ego altogether allows one to merge in identity with the cosmos. Your own letting go is the supreme act, not a concern over the egocentrism of others, though there is plenty of that. Focus instead on achieving your own freedom.

It is not a perfect world, especially with humans in it. Best not to judge others, and thereby be yourself not judged. Acceptance of self is true humility.
 

thetahat

visitor
Joined
Jun 19, 2021
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Carol Anthony's Latest Book: Question

I really love this new interpretation of the iChing - it's on a very deep level and really 'speaks' to me. However, I have a serious question for those who have read it (please, if you haven't read it you probably won't understand the context in which this question is being asked).

Personally - and where else would I start from? I have a problem with two terms that the book uses: Sage and The Helpers. The reason I have a problem - I should say ego-problem with these terms is that I find it practically impossible not to think of the Sage in anthropomorphic terms and The Helpers, likewise like Gods. I know - I do know they are not meant to be seen this way, that the Sage is the teacher of the cosmos - or the teaching aspect and the Helpers are the underlying attributes of the various ideas we make. I also understand the need to call them Helpers is for us to be modest - i.e. to recognise that Love etc does not come from our small egos or the other but from the Cosmos. However, these terms bug me because the very sound of the word 'helper' makes me feel help-less (which is an egoistical idea) and the sound of the 'sage' as in 'the wise person' makes me feel inadequate and I simply cannot shake off these associations.

Any help on this or any other suggestions as to what they/It is called? I have to add that for many years I couldnt' stand the word 'God' either for the reason that it just made me cringe as upholding the Judeo-Christian concept but I am neutral to that idea now. I have no religious upbringing or dogma - I hasten to add but the collective ego and the terms - as described in Anthony's book are very difficult for me to comprehend.

Thank you
Hello humblesoul,

This is a very late response because I have only come to the I Ching and discovered Carol Anthony's Oracle recently, but I feel compelled to reply because I had the same issue with the word "Sage" and had very similar problems as you did with feeling helpless or inadequate when I sought their help. I hope this will reach you, or at least will help someone else who might have the same question.

First, I agree with you that the name "The Sage" is a very anthropomorphic term and I had problems with it, too. For context, I grew up in SE Asia so my upbringing was heavily influenced by Chinese culture. In many Chinese historical dramas, there is often a "wise man" whose counsels the emperor seeks after in order to rule his country. Seeing the sage portrayed so often in such context inevitably impressed on me the idea that the sage is always a "wise/superior man," which has many negative implications, including, (1) the Sage cannot be a woman (i.e. women are inferior and cannot be wise), (2) the Sage would only help worthy people on important matters (that is, unless my problems are of national level, don't bother), and (3) we have to seek the Sage outside ourselves. You can see how these implications could trap one's thinking in a patriarchal and hierarchical frame, restricting the potential of our individual relationship to the Sage. I had suffered from growing up around people with the patriarchal mindset, so I struggled in relating to the Sage because I was resisting the idea of submitting to some old Chinese dude who would judge me according to Confucius ideas about women.

In her book "The Philosophy of the I Ching", chapter 3, Carol Anthony discussed a meditation in which she sought the identity of the Sage. She wrote,

It seems that we tend to give it whatever image that most helps us identify with it. For these reasons I refer to the Sage in this book variously as the Cosmos, the oracle voice of the Cosmos, and the Cosmic Consciousness, seeing that these names best describe what Lao Tzu meant by saying: "The Tao that can be named is not the Tao." (Tao Teh Ching)

The Sage revealed that it would initially tolerate people's usage of whatever authority figure they grew up with (e.g. a wise Chinese mandarin, Christ, a matriarch, or the Great White Spirit of the native Americans). But as we gain more experience with the I Ching, we would need to broaden our understanding of the Sage and depart from that image in order to further our progress.

After working with the I Ching and using the rtcm method for some time, I, too, got to the point where the Sage suggested I change the way I call it, perhaps because my childhood impression of a wise Chinese mandarin was interfering with how I interpreted its counsels. It was suggested to me that the Sage be called the "Consciousness" and the Helpers the "Micro-consciousness," given the nature of their functions in coordinating our psyche, body, and external events around us (for more discussions about their functions, you can check out "The Psyche revealed through the I Ching" written by Carol Anthony and Hanna Moog). Changing the names indeed changed the way I related to them, as I felt less like an inferior or a helpless, frustrated child seeking adult advice, but more like their "equal," a responsible person seeking help from wise friends. That said, I am aware that these names might only make sense to me because they have the most liberating effects on me. I still think everyone needs to inquire the Sage direct about what names they should use to address it in order to make progress on their relationship with the Sage, because everyone has a different childhood conditioning.

Honestly, I am glad that someone else had this same problem. I am not alone then. :)
 
Last edited:

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
409
I had the same issue with the word "Sage" and had very similar problems
First, do you realize your responding to a post that's 8 years old? And second, if you don't like the word 'sage' why don't you just use another term, or find another translation of the Yi to work with, one that doesn't contain all this malarkey?

It's very good to remember: you do have options, and you don't have to follow a path - or believe in something, or make use of a word - if you don't want to.
 
Last edited:
L

legume

Guest
possibly for future reference. there's a glossary at the end of anthony's book where she explains that with "the sage" she simply means "he (she or it) who speaks through the I Ching".
 

rosada

visitor
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
9,890
Reaction score
3,169
I like to direct my questions to a variety of entities, depending on what I'm wanting to know. Thus I might direct one sort of question to my "Future Self" ("How will I feel in a year if I take this job?") and another to The Sage ("What is the best attitude to take about such and so?") and another to a living person ("How do you feel about me :flirt: ?").
 

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
409
I like to direct my questions to a variety of entities, depending on what I'm wanting to know.
I don't think that's a bad approach. It's just that I usually like to 'phone it in' to the central Yi switchboard, and I trust that they'll know which department to send it to!

Best, D
 

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