Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
It felt I had been reprimanded by the venerable sages for not understanding the real essence of the Church of the Yijing, so I'm very grateful for the positive responses. (Yes I do suffer from a lack of self-confidence).
52: Stand up straight and calm down mentally. If you look past comings and goings, you cannot go wrong.
Line 2: You see others running towards the abyss and that is painful. Don't worry about the foolishness of others. Leave everyone to his own process. Amen
Bradford, not sure of what to make of your reply.
Bob
What seems to have provoked my ire is feeling that some of the discussions revolve around the intricate meaning of words / ideas, when in reality, we're dealing primarily with symbols which are amorphous, imprecise and extensively rich in meaning. Not only that, but a common symbol will activate different nuances in different people. Here I mean internal archetypal symbols which are activated by the simpler external images and concepts.
You must be kidding me. See, for me, that's all play!! Really. And if I can discuss it with others, all the better.We can't do without academia and it has an important role, but life is to be lived (playfully), is it not?
Oh, that's the dream of every Yi "diviner". Still, I haven't met a single one that has reached such a goal. I quoted that same thing from Wang Bi, some months ago, in another context. Somewhere in the archives...I think it was Wang Bi who said we should strive to get from the words to the images, and then from the images to the ideas. I think once we've reached that level of maturity, we can throw the book away as it has done its job.
I think once we've reached that level of maturity, we can throw the book away as it has done its job.
Oh, that's the dream of every Yi "diviner". Still, I haven't met a single one that has reached such a goal.
Not so, my friend. 32 years ago, I not only threw it (it being W/B) away but ripped it apart page by page. It had done it's job for some 10 years. But, just because I no longer had it in writing didn't mean I stopped contemplating Wilhelm, and his bias, which I could no longer be satisfied with. 20 years passed before I'd inquire of it again, and I did so with a renewed mind and renewed resources. I had become more mature - which really meant I realized I knew practically nothing. And so, I took it up again, as a beginner.
I cheer Bob's essential creative and personal approach to interpreting symbolism of everything in life, Yijing included. No one says it needs to be followed according to the earliest known intended meanings. However, I'm extremely grateful that the brainiacs argue the finite details of translation, so that I may greedily benefit from what results from those threads. It doesn't take a thing away from my creative ability, it just gives me richer colors and notes to create with.
The reason that it nevertheless works is because we use it to access our unconscious. It is our unconscious that talks to us. It is not a sacred text , and like that earlier period in history, we can add or change any of it.
ie If the mind is a cauldron, trying to fill it with as varied a mix as possible: experiences, pictures, poetry, images, music and text. The richer the mix, the more the mind can answer appropriately. My hangup, if you like, is that spending time quibbling over the meaning of a few words is like putting the mind on a diet.".....it just gives me richer colours and notes.....".
I doubt Wang Bi had man-handling books in mind. But I suppose you had real good reason to do that, perhaps religion related (if I have paid some attention to bits of your life story over the years), perhaps I'm wrong.
Meng, I think that is one of the points I was trying to articulate, ie If the mind is a cauldron, trying to fill it with as varied a mix as possible: experiences, pictures, poetry, images, music and text. The richer the mix, the more the mind can answer appropriately. My hangup, if you like, is that spending time quibbling over the meaning of a few words is like putting the mind on a diet.
If I said the reading I've just obtained to the question, " Should I also ditch the Yijing? "is, "Three wheels on my wagon, but I'm still rolling along". Your mind would instantly make connections between the two. If it was a real example there would be significant meanings. All I'm trying to emphasise is the unbelievable creativity of the mind if it kept well-fed.
Regards to all compadres
Bob-need-some-food
Chinese words are like the clown cars of the language world. You pop one open and all these funny little meanings pour out and run around doing wacky stuff. Plus, they all belong there and it just wouldn't be a clown car with only one clown - even a perfect one.
For that reason, there can never be a perfect translation. This is why I can only call my own main rendition a "sample" translation. And even my Matrix version, which can literally spin off a thousand legitimate ways to translate each line, is seriously incomplete. The best we can hope for is to pick the most comprehensive and representative words and then build up a rich set of connotations in our minds. This last part is really the only way to take care of the multivalent words like Heng and Zhen.
There is a very interesting point to the beginning statement of this thread, namely that nearly everyone in this forum, and nearly everybody else who used the I Ching for divination, seems to find useful answers in it.
Divination means to ask God right? Maybe the ancient Chinese asked Heaven, I myself believe that’s where we get the answers from. But if you feel you get useful answers based on Kerson Huang's translation, you are either making it up, or asking your sub consciousness.
I would suspect that those completely attached to literal meanings rarely use yi as divination, and that if they do, they spend days pondering what Yi has said. scratching their beards, and poring over their texts with flashlights into the wee hours.
I'm very puzzled by several things in this thread:
A little surprised by some of the statements that implicitly devalue others' efforts to approach and understand the Yi, thus taking the position of believing their own approach is the correct one and even thinking "divination" is all that is worthy of discussion about the classic.
- there are those that, though patently unprepared, want to chuck the book but still stick around here;
- those that think that discussing details of the text from all levels of engagement, including serious philological talks, is to put ourselves in some sort of "mind diet" and a waste of time;
- those that chide others because they read too much and are attached to books;
- those that believe the key to understanding the Yi is a degree in Chinese and East Asian Studies.
Really? Is that so? If anybody has something to share that's on topic of a thread, should it be kept at some sort of imaginary "level of understanding" not to sound too "academic" or too "dumb" and thus avoid embarrassing themselves by approaching either end of the spectrum? Feels like an unwelcome environment for open discussions when a person is looked down if they depart from some sort of middle path that exists only in other minds. Is that the attitude this forum is adopting or will all sorts of valid and on topic opinions be respected?
I dont see it that way at all....I thought the discussion was about divination!!! My post was strictly speaking about divination, the need to allow the moment of divination to be unburdened by too much thought...it was not a critique of study or of book lovers ( I am one) or a criticism of studying the Yijing texts. I think bob's original statements were misunderstood.
the need to allow the moment of divination to be unburdened by too much thought...it was not a critique of study or of book lovers ( I am one) or a criticism of studying the Yijing texts. I think bob's original statements were misunderstood.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).