Does the Yi take the translation we use into account?

[ewald]

As the 35.2 - positive or negative?-thread is in danger of going off-topic, I'm opening a new thread about this off-topic.

This is what Martin said:

This raises the question, btw, if the Yi somehow takes the translations that we probably use into account, even if these translations are inaccurate.
I mean, in this case, is it part of the intended message of what speaks through the Yi that the same word appears twice in often used translations (grandmother in Legge, ancestress in WB), although the words are not the same in the original?
Then what if a translation is not just inaccurate, but wrong?

Hmm, I think this opens a big can of off topic worms.

 

[ewald]

As many are probably aware of, the Yi translation that I am working on is different in several details from the Wilhelm/Baynes and other translations.

To check the validity of my translation, I have often referred to checking the situations people have described on this forum (using the hexagram index). I have in several instances found that my departures from the usual were actually reflected in what people described was happening.

It is probably more complicated than that, but I do think that some kind of inner logic of the Yi is an important part of what readings you get as you throw the coins. Assuming that the original Chinese version of the Yi, as it was understood by the originators, is the most accurate one, I believe that it is important to get as close as possible to that. In other words - an incorrect translation does get you incorrect readings, it's not that the Yi completely adapts to that.

It also has to do with the inner logic of the story of a line. If a translation of such a little story doesn't make sense, how can the reading make sense?

 

[Sparhawk]

Hmmm, is this what is called a "conundrum"...?

I would say that the Yi has a curse and a blessing for us in the West. The curse is, of course, that the darn thing was originally written in Chinese (whose idea was that, eh? ) and our Western minds are born with the "linear" gene of an alphabetized language, not with the "circular" gene of a metaphoric language like the Chinese. The Chinese "ideographs" are hardwired in their people, in such a way that they found a way to "standardize" their common cultural "metaphors" in their language. This set of metaphors sparks naturally in their reading abstractions for a native reader and they can concatenate gap-less concepts with no much effort. Westerners reading and interpreting Chinese, on the other hand, have to deal with a number of different interpretations for any given Chinese "ideograph" and then try to stitch those concepts together in such a way that makes some sense to our different way of processing information. The mere fact that there are so many "translations" published, and in the works, is an undeniable testimony to this. The good thing is that a Western reader that can read Chinese can, and many do, personalize a translation to his/her own set of abstractions. But that's what it is, a personalized translation. I would venture to say that "objective" translations do not exist, period; not on this subject, not on ANY subject (I've done my fair share of translations over 20 years and what I say apply to any-to-any language) The problem arises when that "personalization" is let loose to the world. Yes, it may find resonating souls and it does, but it will not resonate with as many souls as with those with whom they do resonate. Is a natural outcome. MInd you, I'm not trying to stop the efforts of anyone to translate the Yi; totally the contrary, the more the better. This gives other readers that do not have the advantage of knowing the original language a chance, if they feel so inclined, to compare interpretations and average. IMHO, so called "definitive" translations do not and will not ever exist.

The blessing is that the Yi is a fixed system of, at first sight, quite sterile symbols. Even other divinatory systems, like the Tarot for example, are open to different designs and archetypical interpretations. Not so with the Yi: 64 hexagrams, 8 trigrams and all based on Yin and Yang... I would say that in interpreting the Yi, this fixed symbology is equally important to the attached text. These textless symbols should be the first thing that resonate in our psyche. The text, in whatever language, comes later. Furthermore, if we are to believe legend (of which I'm somewhat skeptic), the text is the result of a pious pastime of an imprisoned person and his empowered nephew based on what else but those sterile symbols... Twenty five hundred years of commentary, interpretation and speculation, most of it in the original Chinese, based on the words of two people?!?! They are giving Laozi, Confucious, Buddha and even Jesus Christ a run for their money!!

Those sterile symbols we can play with and make ours, much more readily than with any attributed text. Still, and I'm not contradicting myself here, I find the text as important as the symbols, only that averaging text interpretations takes longer.

So yes, at least in my opinion, the Yi speaks to you regardless of what translation is being used.

L

 

[autumn]

I think this question is mirrored in debates I've heard between Bible teachers. One the one hand, there is the inner intergrity of the text, and the call to understand its consistency and relevance in its original form. The idea is that the orginal form is inspired.

One the other hand, there is the practice of stichomancy, or the use of the Bible as an oracle. Many teachers who take a rational, linear, linguistic approach to biblical hermeneutics believe in uncovering the inner consistency, the internal validity, of the text, and also uncovering the external, historical references, or the external validity of the text and using this understanding exclusively. Therefore, stichomancy is superstitious and invalid and detracts from Christian growth.

However, in reality, stichomancy works, and it doesn't care about the original or intended meaning of the text. If you were examining the phenomenon from a purely bio-psychological perspective, of course it would work. The *invalid* method of understanding the text would be to try to figure out its original literary intent. Because that wouldn't matter. It would have no relevance to you, today. All that would matter would be the insight generated in your brain by looking at a word and making symbolic connections that are specific to the individual.

A third perspective might be, the oracles are just tools that spirits speak through. If they are speaking to an individual, they will use whatever they can in the physical world to draw attention to a "sign" that makes a specific message very clear. For example- stories of mundane things just showing up in people's lives by coincidence that communicated something important to them about a dead loved one. Or, hearing a song on the radio and the timing being meaningful.

Everyone has seen readings with many, many layers of potential meaning, communicated from both a literal understanding of words that occur in the translation and from a deeper understanding of the authors' original intent, or a historical understanding.

 

[autumn]

Not so with the Yi: 64 hexagrams, 8 trigrams and all based on Yin and Yang... I would say that in interpreting the Yi, this fixed symbology is equally important to the attached text. These textless symbols should be the first thing that resonate in our psyche. L

Right. At its core, the Yi is energetic. The energy is flexible, as well, and molds itself into patterns to communicate. For example, there's an archived reading here on 33 changing to something, (I don't remember what), that triggered in the querent insight that her bank account was being plundered. I doubt a literal, historical understanding of the lines would have lead to such a firm conclusion. It was looking at the energy pattern of 33 as an abstract energy signature that communicated the message.

 

[bruce_g]

The Wizard (of Oz) didn’t give the Lion a heart or the Scarecrow a brain, he only gave them a symbol of same, and that led them to their own answers within themselves.

 

[lindsay]

This is really very interesting. Is it fair to conclude it doesn't matter what translation we use? The Yi seems to be something bigger and better than any single translation, something able to guide us despite the errors and misinterpretations of any given translator. In fact, the Yi is more than a text - it is also a collection of symbols. And it doesn't even matter whether we get the symbols completely right, does it? The Yi still speaks to us significantly, according to our capacity and understanding.

If one translation is as good as another for the purposes of divination, if all allow access to the Yi - then how do we decide which one to use? What are the qualities of a good version of the Yi for divination? Maybe it isn't historical accuracy or closeness to the original (was there ever an "original" after all?) or literalness. What is it that makes one translation more useful than another for practical readings?

Lindsay

 

[bruce_g]

Hiya Lindsay,

I think it does matter how accurate a translation is, but I don’t believe that’s all that matters in receiving a workable reading. If you or I had to clear a field, would we prefer to use a stone axe or a nicely honed Wetterlings axe? Either one would get the job done effectively, eventually. I believe those old dudes knew what they were saying. But even if we don’t completely get it, the effective answer we’re seeking may still be found.

I liken the Yijing to our dreams. Both use symbols to communicate an essential and timely message to us. If someone in the past has made an intensive study of dreams and wrote a book on their findings, it could handily make our job of understanding our own dreams easier and possibly more effective. But even if there were no such book, if we follow the signs we’re shown, we’d arrive at something meaningful and useful.

So, I think an accurate translation is extremely helpful, but even those which wander from the original text can provide insight. This has been said here many times before, but, it’s largely a matter of which work resonates most clearly to an individual.

 

[Sparhawk]

If one translation is as good as another for the purposes of divination, if all allow access to the Yi - then how do we decide which one to use?

I gave up on making that kind of decisions a long time ago. I have a library with about 95%, perhaps more than that, of what's been translated into English and most of what's been translated into Spanish, plus numerous Chinese dictionaries that haunt me like the ghosts of the Immortals. I just go with what feels right for me in the moment. Lately, for example, I've found Alfred Huang's translation pretty close to my heart. This is prone to change tomorrow, of course.

L

 

[bradford]

This question might be akin to the parallel one about knowing which side of the coins count as 2 and which 3, to which the best answer is usually "make a choice and stay with it".
I think subconsciously we are at least dimly aware of what we might expect from the books we are currently using, and adjust our vision accordingly.
A lot of people swear by the usefulness of the incredibly bad translations they are using. Does this mean it doesn't matter because it all depends on the depth of our comprehension anyway? I don't think so. The translations that we use help to define the "universe of discourse" of the response. A good translation and a bad one might have equally large universes to offer us, or an equal number of images to capture our subconscious. But only one of these might significantly overlap the Chinese tradition than has survived for three thousand years. I would much rather do readings in this world than in the world of someone who wrote a quick New Age I Ching book for the money. This perspective also suggests the usefulness of using not one but a Few good translations.

 

[lindsay]

Yes, Bruce, I agree with you completely. I also find I agree with most of what everyone else has written in this string.

I do not want to suggest the quality of a translation makes no difference. But I am very skeptical about efforts to reconstruct the 'original' Yijing, not just because the materials are basically unavailable (making the 'original' Yijing a chimera), but also because of the attitude of historicism that maintains the superiority or purity of the earliest, most ancient work. This is a fallacy of rational thought. There is no good reason to postulate a superior wisdom to the ancients. Nothing they did made the world a better place. Their insights were not greater than our own. The proof is in the history of their own times, and in the history of ours. I believe the Golden Age never happened - but our thinking is riddled with this kind of thoughtless reverence for the past. Human nature, I suppose. It is interesting the ancients also looked to the remote past for their own inspiration.

Back to the Yi. The thing that really interests me is not why some translations and commentaries fail, but why some seem to succeed and win widespread respect. Let's take Wilhelm, for example. Of course it's very de rigueur these days to diminish Wilhelm's achievement, but the fact remains his translation is the classic Western translation (in whatever Western language it appears). Why is that? Why not Legge or Blofeld or Huang or some other? What is it about Wilhelm that wins so much support?

The same goes for a handful of other Western versions. The gulf between the popular ones and the not-so-popular ones is pretty wide. What makes a small handful so popular? Not scholarship, I think. In fact, I would wager most Westerners look to the Yi right from the beginning for hands-on divination. So a popular version must be useful in the practical arena of doing readings. This is a usefulness all the sinology in the world cannot guarantee. Perhaps it is only a coincidence Wilhelm was a very deep student of Chinese culture. Somehow he came up with something useful, a good tool - not just a competent translation of an old Chinese book.

Why is this so?

I believe the spirit of a person comes through in every mode of expression, including their writing. Perhaps the cues are unconscious, but readers can often pick up on the spirit of an author by reading his work, however impersonal or dryly expository it may be. Richard Wilhelm, by all accounts, was a burning seeker and a sincere mystic - a person who saw the Yi as a life-altering gift - just the sort of person I would trust to tell me something important about a subject like divination. Other authors are less trustworthy, and their works show signs of lack of conviction and superficial understanding.

Wilhelm, in my view, had a great character and a great intellect that still inspire our trust. He was a giant in a field of pygmies. When you read his work, you know him. Perhaps you do not agree with everything he says, but you feel he is telling you the truth as he sees it. There are so, so many lies in the world, deceptions, prevarications, partial truths, hidden agendas, outright distortions for self-promotion and advancement. What a wonder to find someone not enslaved by his own ambitions.

I may be wrong about this. Perhaps, as some people claim, an author is completely divorced from his text. Maybe he or she didn't write it at all in the creative sense, but the book wrote itself as the necessary child of a certain time and place.

A parallel situation exists in translations of the Laozi, now numbering many hundreds. Why is it only a handful stand out as truly good? What is the quality that makes us trust and remain loyal to a certain work? I wish I knew the answer to this question. When I think about my own reasons for liking this or that translation, I usually end up with the notion that I feel a certain affinity for some authors and not for others. Nothing remarkable about that - except that all my reasons, examples, analyses, criticisms and justifications turn out to be nothing more than rationalizations for my own instinctive judgment. I like X because I trust X. That's all it amounts to in the end.

But why do I trust X? That is the question I would like to be able to answer.

 

[Sparhawk]

I believe the spirit of a person comes through in every mode of expression, including their writing. Perhaps the cues are unconscious, but readers can often pick up on the spirit of an author by reading his work, however impersonal or dryly expository it may be. Richard Wilhelm, by all accounts, was a burning seeker and a sincere mystic - a person who saw the Yi as a life-altering gift - just the sort of person I would trust to tell me something important about a subject like divination. Other authors are less trustworthy, and their works show signs of lack of conviction and superficial understanding.

That's a great observation, Lindsay. In the case of Wilhelm I have the feeling he is as popular as it is because he appears to have been the first one to show sincerity, honesty and humbleness in his work. Take Legge, for example, he was a brilliant mind but he always gave me the impression of being a self-important and arrogant stuffy prick. I can't really judge the quality of his translation but I've never resonated with it.

L

 

[bruce_g]

Lindsay, I think Wilhelm is most popular for a few reasons.

1. Availability. It’s the one most older users started with.
2. As Hilary once pointed out here, the poetic appeal, which also makes it memorable.
3. Wilhelm’s sincerity and passion.
4. Interesting commentaries.
5. Wilhelm’s Christian/neo-Confucian influence is most familiar to western thought, providing a comfort zone factor, easy comprehension.
6. Trigram analogical sequences made easy.
7. It works!

I agree with what Brad has said here. There’s a dialogue that develops when you stick to a particular translation or translations. I still use Wilhelm, LiSe’s mostly, and use Brad’s to center the beam, so to speak. If I can’t make sense of a reading using those three, my head’s in the wrong place to begin with.

 

[toganm]

There’s a dialogue that develops when you stick to a particular translation or translations. I still use Wilhelm, LiSe’s mostly, and use Brad’s to center the beam, so to speak. If I can’t make sense of a reading using those three, my head’s in the wrong place to begin with.

Does the dialogue develop between one and the particular translation or the Yi Jing itself? I tend to think the more one studies ( not memorizing lines ) Yi Jing there is an deeper understanding of the images, the firm and the yielding lines. In my opinion, just by using this one can get a better understanding of the situation.

Of course then comes the name of the hexagram and judgement which one may need a translation and more importantly a commentary. I think the commentary is what makes the particular translation be in one's heart.

I think the key is as you have pointed out, "if one can not make sense of a reading one's head is in the wrong place to begin." I think, it is vital to have a calm heart/mind which is open, that is not disturbed by the coming and going of thoughts and emotions. Once one has the proper state of heart/mind I think it is not the issue of a particular translation that counts anymore.

Togan

 

[bruce_g]

Hi Togan,

Is the dialogue with the Yi itself? That places the Yi as an entity, and I personally don’t buy into that thinking. But I believe that we can make a particular version of Yi into an institution or a “Holy Scripture”. That may serve a purpose for a time, and it does make one inclined to remember it word for word, like a holy scripture, and that too can create a sense of dialogue. From what I’ve seen, it also greatly limits the landscape from which we can draw our answers and understanding. I notice this from an old friend of mine, who used Wilhelm only. Our conversations about Yi can only go so far, because it hits the wall of his institutional understanding of Wilhelm, and can not penetrate beyond that.

So, I think that one version isn’t enough for a serious student. In order to broaden our understanding of both the Yi and its messages, other sources are important. One can still experience a sense of dialogue with a council of two or three versions, I think.

As far as state of mind goes, inner composure is a good thing, but sometimes arousal of the senses can create a more vulnerable condition and therefore can provide a more impressionable answer to us. I think there’s a time for each condition and approach.

 

[martin]

But why do I trust X? That is the question I would like to be able to answer.

Yesterday we had elections for the parliament here and late at night, when the results were known, there was a debate on TV between the leaders of the main parties. I was watching them with this same question in mind. Why did party X win and party Y lose? Why did voters trust X more than Y?
The personality of the leaders seems to be an important factor and some have "it" while others have it less, although they do what they can and work very hard.
What is "it"?

Ewald wrote "It is probably more complicated than that, but I do think that some kind of inner logic of the Yi is an important part of what readings you get as you throw the coins."
Inner logic - or maybe we can call it "inner consistency", I wonder, is that what makes us trust some politicians (and parties) or authors (and their writings) more than others? Is that what makes a novel or a movie or an actor exceptional?

Yesterday the socialist party jumped from 9 to 26 seats, a big win. And the leader of that party - yes, he has it, he is, as one would say, "a man of one piece".
The same is true for the leader of the biggest party (the current prime minister) that lost a few seats but remained the biggest. The man looks as if he still lives in the fifties, an anachronism , but he too is "of one piece", he inspires trust.
One thing I noticed about these two (who both are called 'Jan' but hey, that must be a meaningless coincidence! ) is that they show very little signs of stress. They are relaxed, at ease. A small miracle, considering their jobs and what it takes.
I guess that is what comes with inner consistency, with being of one piece.

 

[ewald]

I don't think the Yi will simply give you what you need to know, regardless of the translation. To illustrate the value of a good translation, I'd like to present the following about 34.5.

Wilhelm's rendering is:

Loses the goat with ease.
No remorse.
​

Bradford has:

Losing the goat in the exchange
No regrets
​

Suppose you ask: "Will I gain what I want when I do this?" If you depend on Wilhelm's text, the answer is yes (you let go of a stubborn attitude), if you take Bradford's text, the answer is no (by doing it, you'll actually lose what you want in the process).

To get an indication of the actual meaning of 34.5, it is good to look at some actual situations for people who received it, on this forum.

Losing a relationship after sending a letter (this person actually felt confident about sending the letter after receiving 34.5)
Losing someone's closeness after declaring love
A boss taking everything the wrong way
Losing the contact again after talking with a previous heart-breaker

Bradford's rendering is in my view correct, and Wilhelm's is not. Relying on Wilhelm's version actually "puts one on the wrong leg," as we say in the Netherlands, it can make one do the wrong thing, as happened to the person in the first example.

So it does make a difference what translation you use. For most people it is pretty hard to find out what translations are accurate enough, though. You can go by authority and inner consistency of the text. The latter is the best indicator, in my view. It's one of my main points of focus while translating.

 

[bruce_g]

I don't think the Yi will simply give you what you need to know, regardless of the translation. To illustrate the value of a good translation, I'd like to present the following about 34.5.

Wilhelm's rendering is:

Loses the goat with ease.
No remorse.
​

Bradford has:

Losing the goat in the exchange
No regrets
​

Suppose you ask: "Will I gain what I want when I do this?" If you depend on Wilhelm's text, the answer is yes (you let go of a stubborn attitude), if you take Bradford's text, the answer is no (by doing it, you'll actually lose what you want in the process).

To get an indication of the actual meaning of 34.5, it is good to look at some actual situations for people who received it, on this forum.

Losing a relationship after sending a letter (this person actually felt confident about sending the letter after receiving 34.5)
Losing someone's closeness after declaring love
A boss taking everything the wrong way
Losing the contact again after talking with a previous heart-breaker

Bradford's rendering is in my view correct, and Wilhelm's is not. Relying on Wilhelm's version actually "puts one on the wrong leg," as we say in the Netherlands, it can make one do the wrong thing, as happened to the person in the first example.

So it does make a difference what translation you use. For most people it is pretty hard to find out what translations are accurate enough, though. You can go by authority and inner consistency of the text. The latter is the best indicator, in my view. It's one of my main points of focus while translating.

The Bradford's 34.5 I have reads:

Losing the goat with ease
No regrets

In both cases one relinquishes obstinacy, without regret.

 

[ewald]

The Bradford's 34.5 I have reads:

Losing the goat with ease
No regrets

In both cases one relinquishes obstinacy, without regret.

Indeed, I just downloaded his latest version, and he now has the same as Wilhelm. It's an older version of his I used.

 

[Sparhawk]

So it does make a difference what translation you use. For most people it is pretty hard to find out what translations are accurate enough, though. You can go by authority and inner consistency of the text. The latter is the best indicator, in my view. It's one of my main points of focus while translating.

It does makes a difference the translation you use but I must disagree with the reasons you expose. I believe the premise is incorrect and I believe it is so because is exclusionary. In my particular case, I've never had any problems interpreting any answer using Wilhelm, my first exposure to the Yi, and still remains one of my main sources for translated canonical text. If I take your premise literally, I must discard over 30 years of interpretations because they were based on a flawed translation, something that falls flat on the face of facts that developed almost like clockwork after each consultation.

A translation, any translation, either works or not but this is not based solely on the intrinsic merit of the scholarly work that brings it forward; a great part of the "usefulness" equation rests squarely on the shoulders of reader and how he/she uses it to interpret an answer. Books and canons are tools; mirrors we use to find what's already inside each of us. These mirrors though, are different for all of us and what one sees in them may be completely different from what another sees. Like the sound of a drum, each of us feels the vibration in a different way. This is the reason I believe that, when it comes to translations, "more" is better than "less". The more numerous the mirrors are, the better the chance of finding one that fits you. In the end, the Yi is a personal experience, not a communal one, regardless of what information sharing places like these may lead you to believe.

L

 

[ewald]

If I take your premise literally, I must discard over 30 years of interpretations because they were based on a flawed translation, [...]

Why would you have to discard everything? Lack of accuracy doesn't make a text completely useless when you don't have any better, or does it?

You've probably seen here and there that it was better to not take Wilhelm's text literally, and that the actual meaning was slightly different from what was there. Some useful details aren't there in an inaccurate translation. Here and there the actual meaning is more or less opposite of what's there, but that doesn't happen all the time. So, I'm not saying that Wilhelm's is a useless text, I just think that a more useful text is possible.

 

[bruce_g]

Ewald, I don’t think anyone here has cast a vote for inaccurate translations, or hasn’t expressed appreciation for accuracy. From what I’ve read here, we’re all in favor of accuracy. Most just seem to express that literalism isn’t all there is to constructing an effective, relatable and inspirational work.

 

[Sparhawk]

Why would you have to discard everything? Lack of accuracy doesn't make a text completely useless when you don't have any better, or does it?

Certainly not! The facts are there and I'm sure any future consultation won't be any different. But this is not the way you phrased it and came across the first time. The question is that, what's qualified to be a better option for you, may not necessarily be so for the next one over. Wouldn't you agree? I grant you the fact that Wilhelm's translation is far from perfect based on research that came "after" his publication and it has been continuously revised by every translator that came after him. No matter how is twisted, the work of a translator is NOT a science, is an art. You are an artist. Brad is an artist, LiSe is an artist. Joel Biroco is an artist. And so are countless others. You are producing a work of art and that's open to likes and dislikes.

So, I'm not saying that Wilhelm's is a useless text, I just think that a more useful text is possible.

Of course. I agree, but again, you may be measuring the field with your own yardstick.

L

 

[ewald]

The question is that, what's qualified to be a better option for you, may not necessarily be so for the next one over. Wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely. That however doesn't stop me from looking for ways to optimize my translation that I believe have some kind of universal significance, like for instance checking with readings on this forum like I did earlier in this thread.

 

[Sparhawk]

Absolutely. That however doesn't stop me from looking for ways to optimize my translation that I believe have some kind of universal significance, like for instance checking with readings on this forum like I did earlier in this thread.

And I look forward to it, really. I've nothing but admiration for such a task.

L

 

[martin]

Still, suppose, just suppose, I am this spirit, this fortunately or unfortunately disembodied being that somehow has learned the knack of speaking through the Yi.
And I would very much like to help .. Bob Iprefertobealonesopleasegetlost.

Bob is of Welsh descent (which explains the long family name) and he lives on an - apart from himself, 3 monkeys and a few million ants - uninhabitated island in the Pacific.
Today Bob has finally enough of eating bananas and coconuts all the time and he would like to know if and where he can catch some fish. West coast, south coast, east maybe?
So he decides to ask the I Ching ...
However, the only 'I Ching' he has is this very bad 1842 translation by a certain Dr Underwilhelm, God have mercy on his confused soul.

Will I, can I, help Bob nonetheless?
Will I be able to guide him to the right answer somehow? Even although Dr Underwilhelm translates 'Friends [read fish] in the southwest, good fortune!' with 'Sharks in the southwest, there will be evil on top of the mountain!' or worse?

Of course I can, of course I will. I'm pure compassion and if I want to help Bob nothing is impossible for me!

 

[bruce_g]

Gotta love this place.

 

[lindsay]

I think Martin is correct. After all, accurate or not, the text of the Yi is just a collection of words, a book, a tool. It serves as the mouthpiece for the spirit of the Yi.

What is the spirit of the Yi? Well, maybe it is something like our idea of a god or an elf or a faerie or a daemon. Or maybe it is some hidden, unconscious, intuitive voice within ourselves. It may be personal, or it may be collective. Whatever it is, two things seem to be true about it: (1) under normal circumstances it is difficult for most people to hear the voice of the spirit, and (2) the spirit is helpful and benevolent toward us in the broadest sense. It has our best interests at heart.

The whole point of divination is putting ourselves in conscious contact with this spirit, finding out what it has to say about our pressing issues and concerns. At first, communication may be difficult, because the spirit is forced to speak to us through the book we select, and we ourselves may not be very familiar with the symbols and language of that book. After a while, we learn to listen and hear the spirit, and the spirit learns to speak clearly in our language. Adjustments must be made on both sides. In the middle, brokering all this communication, is the book called the Yi.

The best version of the Yi is the one that makes communication with the spirit as clear and easy as possible, and offers the spirit the most bandwidth to communicate back to us. Keep in mind we may not be talking about communicating with an actual spiritual entity, but about getting in touch with some quiet and valuable part of ourselves, about literally talking to ourselves. This interaction is entirely metaphorical in any case, and it does not matter how we picture it or describe it. All that matters is making way for the interjection of a point of view entirely apart from our sweaty little daily selves.

When you pick a translation or a version of the Yi for divination, you are choosing a kind of cell phone to contact a good spirit who wishes you well. How well you can hear what that spirit has to say depends partly on how well you can listen and partly on how good your cell phone is.

Lindsay

 

[Sparhawk]

Bob is of Welsh descent (which explains the long family name) and he lives on an - apart from himself, 3 monkeys and a few million ants - uninhabitated island in the Pacific.
Today Bob has finally enough of eating bananas and coconuts all the time and he would like to know if and where he can catch some fish. West coast, south coast, east maybe?
So he decides to ask the I Ching ...
However, the only 'I Ching' he has is this very bad 1842 translation by a certain Dr Underwilhelm, God have mercy on his confused soul.

You mean there are no women in that island?? And still the man, not having to deal with any relationships that would push him into an insecurity frenzy to the point of wearing the spine of his 1842 version of the Yi, asking the monkeys to interpret for him and all, feels compelled to bug the oracle about fish?? Man, with that much peace I would wait for the fish to jump on my lap and would have enough to feed the monkeys and the ants!!!

L

 

[Sparhawk]

The best version of the Yi is the one that makes communication with the spirit as clear and easy as possible, and offers the spirit the most bandwidth to communicate back to us.

Exactly!!

L