Hex 1

[dobro p]

I used to think Hex 1 was about unity, that it was the Chinese equivalent of God. Now I've changed my mind, and I think Hex 1 is the force just prior to but the counterbalance to Hex 2. I think Hex 1 is about energy flow, force, dynamism, expansion. In other words, Hex 1 is completely within Creation, and is not equivalent with the Creator. Fresh from the Creator, mind you, but within Creation.

 

[my_key]

Hi Dobro
I see Hex 1 very similar to your take on it, as all that embodies pure yang. Strong, enduring masculine energy. It's your get-up-and-go to be creative. It starts the ball rolling. It's your potential energy.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed so it has to flow. It has to flow to things that are receptive.
So I'm not sure if on it's own it's about flow, it needs to interact with the yin for flow to happen. I've always thought of it more as the potential to flow. A subtle difference I know.

It's a hexagram comprising of all lines of young yang.

I was just thinking how to sum my view up and I got this picture in my head of It's like the universe a nano-second before the big bang.

Mike

 

[maremaria]

The picture in my mind about hex 1 is of a General of a army at the time he gives the order to go to the field and give a fight. I see just one man thus I can't connect it with the "unity" but on the other hand the moments before that specific moment of "Fire !!) I see the meeting with the general and the other military officer planing the battle where "unity" make sence.

Bottom line :

maria

Ps. Maybe is what Mike said (if I have understand it?)

 

[dobro p]

Energy cannot be created or destroyed so it has to flow. It has to flow to things that are receptive. So I'm not sure if on it's own it's about flow, it needs to interact with the yin for flow to happen. I've always thought of it more as the potential to flow. A subtle difference I know.

Yes, like electricity, it needs to go somewhere. Hex 1 NEEDS Hex 2 to flow to.

But I see both of them as arising a nanosecond *after* the big bang. In fact, they *are* the big bang - that's what the big bang consists of - energy on the move, first from Hex 1 to Hex 2, and then on down the line, multiplying and ramifying and developing new levels of laws and worlds.

 

[my_key]

But I see both of them as arising a nanosecond *after* the big bang. In fact, they *are* the big bang - that's what the big bang consists of - energy on the move, first from Hex 1 to Hex 2, and then on down the line, multiplying and ramifying and developing new levels of laws and worlds.

Hi Dobro

I can see what you are saying, but having difficulties getting my mind around the whole concept of just before and just after the big bang.
I still think before. Hex 1 is the creative energy. Surely, it must have been there before to create the big bang. If it wasn't there what was? ( Now, there is a real can of worms to open - )

Hex 2 - Karcher says its " the fundamental power to give things form".

So my cartoon show shows Hex 1 is sitting around in his cave, full of energy but not sure on what to do with it all. He's biding it's time thinking "I'm wondering how I can use all this energy to create or destroy something today?" and then Hex 2 sends him a text message and she says "Well I'm sitting here twiddling my thumbs . I've got some great ideas on what and how to make but nothing to make them from. Why don't we get it together?"

Perhaps Hex 1 and 2 had had a row and were poles apart, but Hex 2 is more community minded and decides that it was time to entice Hex 1 out of his cave. Probably some seductive belly dancing did the trick this time round and hey presto......

BANG.....
and up pops Hex 3 and the rest, as they say, is history, .

Hex 3 sits better for me just after the big bang.

I'm no astrophysicist or nuclear physicist (or whatever), so I'm sure there are quite a few more sophisticated takes on this momentous occassion but simplicity is always a good place to start.
This has taken me years of research but I'm quite happy to have this well thought out hypothesis shot out of the water.

Mike

 

[dobro p]

Let's say, for the sake of speaking a language that most people think they share, that God created the universe, and therefore can be called the Creator. But since we all know that God is essentially unnameable, undescribable, and beyond Creation, we sort of have to call God nothing, ascribe no qualities to God, and leave God out of the Yi.

Okay, the big bang is the beginning of things, it's when you have *something*, right? So, I'm thinking the first something is what's imaged in Hex 1. Pure energy, pure flow, pure dynamism. Then, like you say, it flows somewhere. That's Hex 2, receptive to the energy of Hex 1. (In Kabbalah, Hex 1 is right pillar energy, and Hex 2 is left pillar energy.)

I don't know anything about the big bang, and I don't know anything about God, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just changing my idea of Hex 1 from what it used to be, and I thought it might be useful to share. I used to think Hex 1 equated with God as Creator, but now I'm thinking it's completely within Creation. What's nice about this idea is that if you're operating within the Judaeo-Christian mindset (as most of us on this board are, whether we admit it or not) then thinking of Hex 1 as I've described is completely understandable and useful. And if you *don't* operate within the J-C mindset (if you're Indian or Chinese, for example), then this idea of Hex 1 is still understandable and useful.

 

[my_key]

Hi Dobro

I appreciate your comments. Likewise I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I find typing the words in here helps to clarify my truths for me.

My truths appear to be in a constant a state of flux. Which I think is good.

(In Kabbalah, Hex 1 is right pillar energy, and Hex 2 is left pillar energy.)

Would you be able to expand on n this more in relation to teh other Hexagrams?

Mike

 

[dobro p]

Would you be able to expand on n this more in relation to teh other Hexagrams?

Not very well, really, cuz I don't know a lot about Kabbalah, and also because I find the two don't map onto each other very readily. The Kabbalistic Tree of Life has three pillars: the right one's force or expansiveness, the left one's form or contraction, and the center one's consciousness and/or will. So there are three forces at work, it seems - yang, yin, and a balancing or neutralizing force in the center. That doesn't work very well with the yin/yang basis of the Yi.

Also, some people say the level at which the Yi operates, that of archetypal images, is found only at the upper level of the Tree, and not throughout. This isn't an issue of flow or limitation, but rather of a certain level, a certain 'altitude' in the structure of the universe. I suppose this isn't problematic really, cuz a lot of Yi users would be happy to think that the Yi images reality at an archetypal, or even angelic level.

But I've wondered about how to map the hexagrams onto the Tree, and I think it's really problematic. Each hexagram images a situation, whereas the Tree images forces, fields, levels and worlds. Having said that, I've seen books in which each of the Tarot cards is ascribed to a particular position on the Tree, so I suppose it might be doable. The numbers are all wrong, though - 64 and 450 don't map very easily onto the Tree structure.

 

[martin]

So there are three forces at work, it seems - yang, yin, and a balancing or neutralizing force in the center. That doesn't work very well with the yin/yang basis of the Yi.

A third factor is implied in yin/yang, though, because yin and yang are not absolutes. We perhaps tend to forget this but when we call something 'yang' or 'yin' we mean that it is yang or yin relative to a zero point or 'point of indifference' that we have chosen, with or without being aware of it.
That is the third factor.
But this zero point is not a constant. It's like with warm/cold. When it's freezing outside and I enter the house I experience it as warm but when there is a heat wave I may experience it as cold, although the temperature inside is the same. What is different is my zero point.

Back to yin/yang, what is hexagram 1 for me may be hexagram 2 for you or for myself when I am in different state.

 

[my_key]

There are 32 categories overall - look at the tree of life. Each category has an inverse and so 64 categories possibly mappable to the IC.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/taro.html

Note how we can also extract three different systems from the tarot - major arcana, minor arcana court cards, minor arcana.

For trigrams and the sephiroth see:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/qbl.gif

Chris.

I just found this while searching the older threads. You may not have seen this before but it looks to map Hexagrams to tree of life.
Pretty interesting..
Mike

 

[gene]

Dobro

How do you separate the creator from the creation? They are one and the same thing. Exactly the same thing. Totally.

in the west we tend to think that this is this and that is that. But it is not. This is that and that is this. It is all the same thing. There is no differentiation in anything. It is all one. The creation is created by itself. Actually there is not even any creation. There is simply that that is.

Gene

Gene

 

[dobro p]

Dobro

How do you separate the creator from the creation? They are one and the same thing. Exactly the same thing. Totally.

in the west we tend to think that this is this and that is that. But it is not. This is that and that is this. It is all the same thing. There is no differentiation in anything. It is all one. The creation is created by itself. Actually there is not even any creation. There is simply that that is.

Yeah, sure, if you're a mystic. But if you're down here on the street with the rest of The Fallen, then you need particular words to refer to particular things to have any semblance of useful communication. Which means, on the one hand, that although 'it is all one' is probably true when you're enlightened, it says nothing useful about how to get there or how to deal with things before you get there.

I think it's all one too. But I act as if we're all separate. So do you, I bet, if you tell the truth.

Anyway here's my answer to your original question: I don't separate Creator and Creation, but I do talk about them as if they're separate for two reasons. One, I believe that the universe exists in different layers, dimensions, realms - whatever you want to call them - and that each has its own function, different from the others even though their coexistence overlaps, intercommunicates, and bridges. (Think 'physical, psychological, spiritual, divine' and you'll have an idea of the realms I'm describing.) So, although these dimensions are not separate in the sense that they're all part of the One, it's also true that they have different qualities, and different laws operate in each one. Like this: it's all one planet, but it's useful sometimes to talk about different oceans and continents.

Second, although I can't perceive God (I mean, I shouldn't even USE the word 'God' cuz I have no idea what I'm talking about), I *can* perceive the world. I do it all the time and so do you. I perceive the physical via my senses and I perceive the psychological via my mind. In deep meditation sometimes I perceive the spiritual, I believe. (Maybe it's just the upper psychological. Dunno. How would I know?) So the part of the One that I can perceive I call 'Creation' and the part of the One that I can't perceive (yet) I call 'Creator'. Sure, it's all one. But where I can't see God, I can see a golf ball. I give God and the golf ball different category names. It's just a communicative convenience. If you don't like that convenience, then don't use it. But please don't take issue with me about stuff like this. It's such a waste of time to argue about definitions of God.

 

[martin]

I don't think hex 1 is about flow though. Neither is hexagram 2.
Hex 1 is one pole, hex 2 is the other. Both poles are virtual, pure ideas in a sense, abstractions that have no counterpart in reality as we experience it. Reality, life, flow, is inbetween these poles, where yin and yang mingle.

To put it differently, when yang never meets yin it doesn't even know that it is yang. It would be like a man in a world in which there are no women. How could that man know that he is a man or even unknowingly be one? For a man to be a man and know, feel, that he is one, he needs a woman. The woman makes the man. If she is the right woman for him, that is. THE woman.

It must be the same for a woman, I think she needs a man to be a woman. THE man. But I have to admit that I don't know this from personal experience.

 

[Trojina]

yeah I agree with that - its like hexagram 1 can't be about anything without reference to hex 2 and vice versa

 

[dobro p]

Okay, so if it's not flow, then what's it about?

 

[gene]

Dobro

I wasn't taking issue with anything. And I wasn't describing God. And why is it a waste of time to talk of oneness?

Of course we have to speak in terms of duality when we are speaking to those who understand it no other way, but I was speaking in reference to your first statement, and asking a question. I am sorry if I wasted your time. I could just as easily say it is a waste of my time to read this kind of answer. I am not being a wise guy, I just felt I brought up a valid point. But I don't argue about God or definitions of God either. I simply tell it like it is, the universe is alive and has intelligence. That is not a theoretical consideration, it is an indisputable fact.

Gene

 

[gene]

One thing more. I am not trying to start trouble here. My responses are for everyone, not just one person, and if the group as a whole wishes me to leave, I will do that. If that is not the case I will state my message, and I don't care if a particular individual considers it a waste of time. Get used to it. But the language here was uncalled for. As long as I am accepted here, I will post what I post. I have a message of value to people. Many do not recognize it or accept it, but some do, those who can understand my meaning. It is those people who are my audience, not any particular individual.

Gene

 

[mudpie]

Okay, so if it's not flow, then what's it about?

the first day of creation: And God said "let there be light"

pure energy, yes, pure potential. but not necessarily flow. To flow it needs the Field.
1.1 a very horny male
1.2 looking for a mate;
1.3 cruising, watching; waiting, deciding
1.4 the Right woman causes him to leap, be careful
1.5 Bingo
1.6 He: She:

 

[dobro p]

One thing more. I am not trying to start trouble here. My responses are for everyone, not just one person, and if the group as a whole wishes me to leave, I will do that. If that is not the case I will state my message, and I don't care if a particular individual considers it a waste of time. Get used to it. But the language here was uncalled for. As long as I am accepted here, I will post what I post. I have a message of value to people. Many do not recognize it or accept it, but some do, those who can understand my meaning. It is those people who are my audience, not any particular individual.

Gene

When I asked you not to take issue with what I said, and when I said it was a waste of time arguing about God, I was trying to prevent a FUTURE debate between you and me about something that neither of us knows much about. I didn't say what you said was a waste of time. The reason I posted at length was to clarify what I meant so that you might understand it better; the reason I posted at all was because you asked me a question.

 

[dobro p]

pure energy, yes, pure potential. but not necessarily flow. To flow it needs the Field.

1 Aren't energy and potential different?

2 Why does flow need a field?

 

[mudpie]

1 Aren't energy and potential different?

2 Why does flow need a field?

1. no. Energy: the capacity for vigorous activity; available power.

2. see the above post. In hex 1, we are talking creative energy. it can only create in the context of a field. If sex is not a metaphor you like, try something simpler: I have the energy to move my arm. If I move my arm, I create motion. Energy doesnt flow if there is no place for it to flow.

If you have a great idea or a creative impulse, does it really *flow* anywhere if you don't send it forth ( into the Field)?

In the story of creation, the spirit of God moved over the face of the water. but nothing happened until light was separated from darkness, water from land.

In the world of matter, though, you almost cant separate the Field from the energy. Your creative impulse probably moves regardless of whether you send it forth in any tangible way...because...TA-DA...we are ALL ONE! (SO, I can get rich off of your great idea if I pick up the flow.) lol.

But like you said, if we talk in ways that us fallen ones can understand, your energy wouldnt flow nowhere unless you have a field of activity!

 

[dobro p]

1. no. Energy: the capacity for vigorous activity; available power.

I would say that energy IS the vigorous activity you describe. I would say that the potential for that energy is intangible. Potential is God, energy is the hand of God.

God isn't imaged in any of the hexagrams, and sensibly so. The hand of God is imaged in Hex 1. If you want to say that Hex 1 needs Hex 2 to shake hands with, okay.

I think you and I are defining energy differently.

You say: "If you have a great idea or a creative impulse, does it really *flow* anywhere if you don't send it forth ( into the Field)?"

I say: "Creativity is before things like ideas. It's pure energy; energy is like a dragon, a powerful force on the move. Yes, a dragon needs a field to move in, but it's not the same thing as the field."

 

[Trojina]

I say: "Creativity is before things like ideas. It's pure energy; energy is like a dragon, a powerful force on the move. Yes, a dragon needs a field to move in, but it's not the same thing as the field."

Look at the yin/yang symbol and you find the answer don't you , both are contained within the other - the 2 are inseparable, neither can be without the other. A dragon cannot be a dragon without a field to be a dragon in - and yes the field is the dragon and the dragon is the field - between them creation happens, creation cannot be said only to issue from pure yang or pure yin. Its like you are trying to assign creativity to one polarity but its like the act of conception - in making a baby one cannot say the creativity is either from the man or from the woman - a sperm can't do or create anything with nowhere to go - an egg can't do much if noone comes rofl: pun not intended)

 

[dobro p]

A dragon cannot be a dragon without a field to be a dragon in - and yes the field is the dragon and the dragon is the field - between them creation happens, creation cannot be said only to issue from pure yang or pure yin. Its like you are trying to assign creativity to one polarity

I understand the idea of the dragon needing a field, but it makes nonsense of language when you say 'the dragon is the field and the field is the dragon'. If they are the same thing, why do we use different words for them and why do we have two hexagrams for them? Because they are different, obviously.

Secondly, my idea is not that Creation issues from Yang. My idea is that Creation issues from God, who is NOT imaged in the Yi. But that first outpouring from God, that first energy which manifests from the divine source - THAT is perceptible, and THAT is Hex 1.

You say: "it's like you are trying to assign creativity to one polarity'. I think you're not understanding what I was saying. What I'm doing is assigning God (who I called Creator earlier in the thread) no polarity at all. But I'm assigning Hex 1 polarity, yes. Extreme polarity. There's no balance in Hex 1 energy. It's extremely dynamic. It's on the move. It's on the move before it has somewhere to move to. In the Big Bang, Hex 1 preceded Hex 2.

 

[Trojina]

I can't see what your problem is no. Hexagram one is the pure yang, the male principle though i would not like to confine it to maleness as such as it is beyond that as a pricniciple. ,It could be said to be about creativity,inspiration, force of will and lots of other words can apply as well. So where is the problem ? I can't see why you wanted to relate it to 'unity' nor why you now think 'flow' is a better idea. For me to say the dragon is the field and the field is the dragon is no more me making a nonsense of language than you saying hexagram one is about flow . What do you mean by flow ? It could mean anything, very vague, meaningless even, but if it means something to you go ahead and use it. My saying the dragon is the field and the field is the dragon is only a way of pointing you to look at the yin/yang symbol where the seed of one is in the other and indeed the one cannot even be seen or known without the other, 2 principles creating a whole, neither knowable without the other. I am not saying they are not different but that neither can exist without the difference of the other hence each is dependent on the other - and one certainly didn't preceed the other.

The hand of God is not imaged in hexagram one (as you said earlier) any more than in hexagram two - if you think so you are falling into a very patriarchal creationist view aren't you ?



If you really believe hexagram one precedes hexagram 2 in any sense other than numerical order in the book haven't you missed the whole point of the Yi ? The 'big bang' could not be first or precede anything since an interplay of forces would be necessary for it to happen in the first place - hmm but not being a scientist and neither are you that analogy may best be left alone - but in any case i think you're on the wrong track if you see hexagram 1 as actually preceeding the existence of hex 2 - it would be as if you said yang existed before yin - and thats crazy since as been said they cannot exist at all without each other - ever.

 

[martin]

In the Big Bang, Hex 1 preceded Hex 2.

Are you sure? It sounds to me like saying that one end of the stick exists before the other, or left before right.
On the other hand, as the story goes, Adam preceded Eve. YHWH made Eve from Adam's rib. That would fit with your idea, I think, first YHWH (God), not pictured in the Yi, then Adam (hex 1), then Eve (hex 2).

I guess it all depends on what you call yin or yang, or hex 2 or hex 1. After all these are just labels. Depending on what you use them for (two ends of one stick, Adam and Eve, and so on) you will come to different conclusions.
I sometimes think of hex 1 as the product and of hex 2 as the market or of hex 1 as potential and of hex 2 as opportunity. And unlike two ends of one stick, you can have a product and no market or a market and no product, and potential without opportunity or opportunity without potential.

 

[Sparhawk]

Believe him, Martin. The man is so old, he was there to witness it...

 

[frank_r]

One idea is that life starts with water on earth. In water there is a yang line in the middle. This is the yang force from heaven. So Man behaves in a heavenly way when the powers of Heaven and earth are both yin. This is the expression of the most purest yang possible on earth, its the power which is concentrated in the seed.

As respons there will be fire which has a yin line in the middle. And fire looks like it is the strongest yang expression possible on earth, and has a yin centre. So the paradox as expression is the strongest power of its own opposite.

These two are the expressions of the greatest yin a and yang which are vissible on earth. Heaven and earth as a trigram are not really visible on earth.

The water with it's yang centre is known as flexible but also weak. http://afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?l=Daodejing&no=78

And fire the most brightest is only burning as there is matter(field) yin to burn.

It's what Martin is saying. What part do you want to give a name? the yang part or the yin part. For me one yang line is in a way hexagram 1, and a yin line is hexagram 2.

That's what I like when I'm reading Nigel Richmond, he calls for instance trigram earth, inner activity, and trigram heaven tranquility. For me this was the opposite what I had always done before. But I found it brilliant because he showed me the possibility to be flexible so that I could find the yin in the yang. And the yang in the yin, and that's what the Yi is about, at least for me.

But it stays a interesting discussion about what's the perception of hex 1 and 2.

 

[dobro p]

I am not saying they are not different but that neither can exist without the difference of the other hence each is dependent on the other - and one certainly didn't preceed the other.

Okay, I think I understand better what you're saying when I look at this. I'll consider it, cuz it's a useful idea (or rather, two ideas) for me. Thanks.

 

[martin]

Marvelous, here we have a man as old as the Big Bang and yet he is still changing his mind.

:bows: