Random and the Oracle

[candid]

I was listening to an overnight talk show last night who had a quantum scientist as a guest. His main topic was, random. To illustrate, he used white noise, a totally random series of impulses. Then he put forth the idea, that within this random effort, was actual physical existence. The random was likened (or so it appeared to me) to collective unconscious mind. Sum of everything. So long as it was random, it took no form of its own. No individuality. As soon as any kind of pattern began to emerge, there was order, form and individuality.

Naturally, the oracles came to mind. Out of chaos, comes order. Out of nothing, comes everything. (is this a major loop, or what?) Since the oracle?s answer came from everything, it was random. Its the application, which has form and order.

Random = everything (including answers)
Pattern = individuality (and separateness)

or put another way:

yang = everything
yin = individuality

yang is in profusion, is vast and expansive, its yet unformed, its potential.
yin is a pattern formed of its own life-force and will, its born of profusion but takes on form and order.

This helps me to understand why its so difficult to pray to God.
God = yang (everything)
I = yin (individuality)

God isn?t an individual, and I?m not everything. I point to Dharma?s explanation of the fusion of these two primal forces. The ?walking in the Spirit.? In phases of meditation and dreaming, we cross those lines in the bamboo shoot; the lines of Limitation. During the day, or as Christian vernacular says, in the nasty here and now, its a bit more difficult. During the day, we walk in darkness.

Learning the art of balancing these opposites in our lives, is to me, what the I Ching is all about.

Some people can manage to meditate, in some fashion or another. This brings the two together. Bringing them together is life?s purpose. If we could understand, we would choose our lives better. We might even choose a more evolved planet or plain. Maybe even one of the mansions of heaven, which Jesus spoke of. Maybe some would be gathered with the revered ancestors of ancient China?s mores. Maybe others with Ala. Or maybe.... one of our own creation? But then, that?s exactly where we are right now.

If we knew what we know, we?d have what we want.

Candid

 

[hilary]

I enjoyed this!

If you're interested in that pattern of everything vv individuality, you might like Chris Lofting's work, which takes this dichotomy or something very like it as its starting point. (Or you might find it completely dry and conclude life is too short.)

Part of me wants to swap over yin and yang in what you wrote. Yang is also the specific character that makes things what they are, isn't it? At all events, it does (in Hexagram 1) include the idea of law. And yin is the material that it uses to manifest this? But your version is also persuasive - maybe there isn't an easy mapping to be had here. Perhaps, Lofting-style, we need another 'level', with both primal yin and yang forming individuality, but individuality then forming the yin to the universal yang (unless, of course, it's vice versa...). At the limits of rational thought, things tend to slide round into their opposites.

Possibly the biggest lesson for me from the experience of using the I Ching (as much as any one thing it said to me) is the non-viability of those limits between mundane and spiritual. I thought this was just random, but God is speaking; I thought this question was about something wholly mundane, but it seems to lead to Truth. Sooner or later, those confident antitheses that subdivided the world for me dissolve away. In the real world, is there such a thing as random?

(You know, we are very much in the territory of 59-60-61 here! And bitter limits are, sure enough, not lasting.)

Speaking of antitheses - beware of any sentence that begins "God is not..." Their life-expectancy is not good, in my experience! Maybe Dharma will tell us that those beginning "I am not..." are also suspect.

God is surely an individual, and of course definitely not an individual. Ah, wait, I know what I want to post here. Sorry it's a long quote, but I think you'll enjoy it

. This is from Anna, as in 'Mister God, this is Anna' (though this is from 'Anna's Book'). She was about 5 or 6 at the time of writing.

'Mister God is like a pensil, but not like a pensil you can see, but like a pensil you can not see, so you not see what shape it is, but it can draw all the shapes ther is and this is like Mister God. When you grow up you get a bit funy becase you want Mister God to have a propre shape like an old man and wiskers and wrinkels on his face but Mister God do not look like that.

When Twink play tranes, he have a big wood box. Sumtimes the box is like a trane and sumtimes lik a house and sumtime like a ship and sumtime like a car and sumtime you put sum thing in it and sumtime you do not, but you take sumthing out. And the box is like Mister God. Sumtime it look like sum thing and sumtime it look like another thing. If you say Mister God is green then Mister God cannot be red, but he is. If you say Mister God is big, how can you say Mister God is litle, but he is. And if you say Mister God is fat, you can not say Mister God is thin, ha! ha! ha! but he is too so!

How can you say of Mister God, becase you can not. But I can becase I have a sekrit book Fin give to me. It is a pictur book all about snow flak and every snowflak is not the same. If you look at a snowflak shape it is not the same as another snow flak shape, so it has not got a propre snow flak shape. But you can only call it snow and you can not call it a shape and you see THAT IS LIKE MISTER GOD. You can not call Mister God a thing and you can not call Mister God a shape and you can only call Mister God Mister God.'

 

[candid]

Hello Hilary and thanks for sharing your reflections on the thoughts I've expressed.

Some of your thoughts contrast mine, greatly. But there is one expressed thought which resonates deeply in me. "...Perhaps, Lofting-style, we need another 'level'.." I believe you are right in this. The challenging thing about finding and expressing this other level, is that its not from our own individual view point. Its from the collective view point. Quoting Anna: "How can you say of Mister God, because you can not."

This is expressed in the first image of the I Ching, The Creative: "Its energy is represented as unrestricted by any fixed conditions in space and is therefore conceived of as motion. Time is regarded as the basis of this motion. Thus the hexagram includes also the power of time and the power of persisting in time, that is, duration." ~Wilhem. (active words in this case are, conceived and regarded) It doesn't say that the Creative (Yang) IS motion and time, but that its regarded as such. Who or what does the conceiving? Yin, of course. The individual. The Receptive #2 Yin: "The Receptive connotes spatial reality in contrast to the spiritual potentiality of the Creative. The potential becomes real and the spiritual becomes spatial through a specifically qualifying definition." (limits)

Our lives consist of both, Creative and Receptive, Heaven and Earth, Spiritual and Spatial. Jung called it, anima and animus.

How difficult can it be to "loose" our subjective and limited bias and see things purely from the eyes of God? I believe its impossible. As soon as we perceive, we've defined and limited what we think God is. (quoting Jerry Sienfeld: NOT that there's anything Wrong with that!)

But its not purely God's eyes we are seeing through. Its ours.

I believe there are some things which are perfectly safe to say, regarding what God isn't. (Blasphemous!!) But I ask you, does God have a need? Perhaps this question should be posted in a separate discussion, but I ask it here, as well. To stretch this thought further, if God has need, is it possible for this need to go unmet? If God's need goes unmet, God is insufficient. Can God be insufficient? If God is insufficient, God has failed. Can God fail? There are some things we can safely say, God is not.

This isn't any easy conversation to keep my head around. *smiles crossed eyed*

Let me end this post with what follows the union of 1 and 2, Difficulty at the Beginning: So too the superior man has to arrange and organise the inchoate profusion of such times of beginning, just as one sorts out silk threads from a knotted tangle and binds them into skeins. In order to find one's place in the infinity of being, one must be able both to separate and to unite.

Tai

 

[pocossin]

>"This helps me to understand why its so difficult to pray to God."

Sumtime when Twink play in sand, he make sum peeple out of sand, and Twink says to the peeple Please stand up this time and dont fall apart. But the pee)ple have sand in thier harts and dont hear what Twink says. So peeple dont need to pray to Mister God but just listen to Mister God praying to them to stand up and not fall apart.

Anna

(Tom)

 

[candid]

So, we are to listen but not speak?

 

[dharma]

Candid,

In your own words (though slightly out of context) you said, "This helps me to understand why its so difficult to pray to God."

I wanted to make a similar comment to your statement but Tom beat me to the punch in a much more creative, yet, succinct way by extracting this most apropos passage from the Anna's Book.

The point is not that we are NOT to speak but rather, when we are are having difficulty doing so, it may be a result of having too much of that 'soot' trapped within. And that it is at those times [when we are having such a tough time connecting with God] that we need God to intercede on our behalf and/or assist us in our efforts.

At least, that's what I understand from the comment.

Tom, if you intended something else, I'd be curious to hear it.


Dharma

 

[pocossin]

Hello Candid and Dharma,

Thanks for the compliment, but I don't have Anna's book. That was me speaking with Anna's voice and hopefully her perspective.

Better we listen first and then speak, at least when persons are involved. Speaking for myself, after the fact I regret when I do not speak with a spirit of good will. If you speak with good will, there is no remorse -- no guilt -- even when you are factually wrong or have misunderstood.

We already have the standard for good speaking built in -- a capacity for good will, or the Law and the prophets, or inner wisdom, or prajna, as the Buddhists say. All traditions have this idea somewhere.

That was the idea I was trying to convey through Anna. When we're a bit sooty and speak without justice or mercy, we get even sootier. My opinion is that we don't need any special intervention by God. There really isn't anything to pray for. Like the figures in Twink's sandbox, we need only to recognize the Presence that is already here.

Tom

 

[candid]

Its interesting that you both picked up on the one question or point. I can only nod in agreement with the analogies you've each made.

I find that Tom's last comment resonates most with me. "There really isn't anything to pray for." Yet, the need to communicate with God is still present within me. Its really a question of how.

Last night, as I laid down to sleep, I skipped through a number of radio stations in the dark room. I happened upon a Roman Catholic station teaching apologetics, mixed with some really fine choral arrangements. Having been originally raised Catholic, my initial response was, get that thing off of there! *s* But I decided to withhold my judgment and listen. Then I realized that this form of communication with God, wasn't really different than any other. The dogmas were tighter, but there was also purity in the music and even in the liturgy. It became a pleasurable backdrop to be at peace with God.

At the heart of religious origins, God is. But the innocence, or, the way, is so easily lost. But in the center of it, God is. So long as it does no violence to self or others, its all good.

God is a word, a title and a way of seeing the universal mind. "Mr. God," is, even if you choose to call him something else.

I believe Mr. God hears as well as speaks. I believe that he knows what we pray for, before we pray it. But if we don't pray, he won't know. So that part is up to us.

Candid

 

[candid]

Hi Dharma,

I totally agree. Its not that we shouldn?t talk to God.

I?m curious what your thoughts are on this next illustration.

Using hexagram 11 and keeping with the original Yin/Yang, heaven/earth model, I?ll use this as an example of prayer in the sense of two way communion and communication with God. Heaven must place himself beneath earth. Earth can not rise up to heaven, its direction is downward. By this lowering of heaven beneath earth, earth continues downward (gravity) as heaven rises beneath her. Heaven rises, earth sinks. There, the two merge and there is peace and union.

The words, mercy and grace come to my mind in the above picture. When I was a devout practicing (Taoist) Christian, this image (11) was always present in my mind. It fits well into the image. Jesus, as an archetype, could be seen as Chen, electricity, the dragon, the eldest son of heaven and earth, comes to earth (heaven, lowered beneath the earth in a form of servitude) to lift earth (us) up toward heaven. Its been the image I?ve carried throughout my twenty year sojourn in the Christian faith.

For clarification, I had to give up my Christian beliefs for a variety of reasons. Another topic I?d like to engage at the proper time and place.

I welcome your reflection on this picture. Thanks.

Candid

 

[dharma]

Hello Tom and Candid,

To listen first and then to speak is a great concept and approach, however, if you are not resting within your center, where good-will itself rests, then you are, almost by necessity, required to speak first and listen later in order to fully understand what's going on inside you.

(Others in our environment are the mirrors that reflect us back to ourselves--and so we SEE from the feedback where we stand.)

Again, when we are NOT in that "center of eternity", we do not FEEL the balance that comes from it, we therefore oftentimes need to speak first in order to HEAR ourselves--to HEAR what's really going on inside--what keeps us from the center. Also by necessity, we end up bumping and tripping over others in our efforts to communicate with them from outside that center. And thus, awkwardly and in fits and starts we progress, not very elegantly, I agree, but neither are elephants yet they are magnificent all the same.

In truth, within the "center of eternity", there is no reason to pray, as you say Tom. BUT....most of us do not rest within the "center of eternity" and that's the reason why we need to pray. Prayer IS communication WITH that center and our attempts to REGAIN it. And so to trip or not to trip, what does it matter?

The way I see it, it isn't a matter of right of wrong. If we are ever to regain that "center of eternity" in any consistent way, and escape being tossed 'round and 'round by our thoughts and living on the outskirts of that peaceful center, we have to SPEAK even if it means tripping, and we have to PRAY even if God already knows what we want, mainly because WE need to know what we want.

Yes, when we speak without justice or mercy we risk getting even sootier, this is true Tom. However, when I am cleaning house (literally) I tend to make more of a mess in my efforts to get at everything, so making more of a mess may be a sign that progress is being made.

As far as Hexagram 11 goes, your imagery, Candid, is much like that "center of eternity". From my perspective, Heaven is always rising up and present [potentially available] within us. It's our insistent desire to classify and judge all things either one way or completely the other way (the extremes of yin and yang) that weigh us down (gravity) and make peace and union seem so distant.


with love,
Dharma

 

[pocossin]

Hello Candid and Dharma,

In my childhood I was compulsorily raised in a conservative Protestant fundamentalist church. I was compelled to hear thousands of mechanical, egocentric, mind-and-heart-numbing prayers. Although that was long ago and far away, the distaste for such prayer is still with me, but it has also given me an appreciation for silent communion -- not that that is for everyone. One needn't ask God to be present -- only to stop cutting oneself off.

Inner house cleaning does raise consciousness of the soot. I suppose that the brush and mop are treating oneself with justice and mercy. Time and circumstance put everyone into places where in afterthought we'd rather not be.

I used to enjoy listen to Mother Angelica (a sort of Catholic Dr. Laura) on short wave and to the Mass in French for its poetic sound, as I don't know French.

I am very fond of the world-at-peace 'clump of grass' image in hexagram 11. The blades of grass support and protect each other and are nourished by the same source at the root.

Tom

 

[candid]

Thanks Dharma and Pocossin.

Dharma, I love your description of the centering process and its affects. I'm really glad you left a bit of our human soot in the picture. It makes it sound actually attainable that way, and I know from personal experience, it is.

I'm tempted to contend with you on the matter that Yin and Yang, heaven and earth, 1 and 2, are indeed extreme opposites. But that may just be the mirrors that are reflecting back to myself. I'll have to give this possibility more thought. I guess this is one of the not so elegant stumblings you've referred to.

Tom, I feel the brush and mop is our own desire to clean ourselves of soot. I don't, however, see it as the grace of which I spoke of. Perhaps the word compassion may be more comfortable than the word grace, to you. To me, they're one and the same. But this again, is my experience and vision of the duality of which the I Ching teaches.

The definition of wholeness can be, on one hand, seen as the elimination of our worldly senses and the soot it blows in. However, since we are experiencing this life also as an individual, that would not really be whole.

Perhaps the corners of my thinking need to be softened. Perhaps they should be even more defined. I'll need to give this more thought.

Thank you both for joining in the thought process.

 

[dharma]

The way I see it, our wholeness, which is ever present, is not attained by the elimination of our worldly senses. Our worldly senses are REQUIRED for living in this particular dimension. And the soot isn't so much blown in from anywhere as the result of our [incomplete] life experiences. It represents the remnants of our past ordeals and the attachments to the said past trials and tribulations.

Our error is in believing that self-pity and revenge are the logical steps to the fires and purgings we've been through--whether real or imagined. We should be viewing everything we've undergone as our CONTRIBUTION to the expansion of the collective mind rather than wallowing in the remains [the soot] of our memories. We should be reaching for our bucket of compassion and mop of forgiveness and clearing away the debris of what we've endured rather than pointing fingers at others who, real or imagined, caused us to GROW.

How can we ever hope to be TRULY happy if we do not even recognize that our ordeals are over and what we are doing now [as adults] is akin to flogging a dead horse. The horse will no more get up again, as die again--part one [childhood] of our journey is effectively OVER and if we are ever to commence part II we've got to recognize that life is [means] a CONTINUOUS process. Getting stuck in the stream causes all those who follow us (whether they be our children, our close ties, or our many other connections) to get stuck behind us and backing up the flow. In this way, we are no longer CONTRIBUTING to the collective mind by adding anything NEW to it but rather playing an old broken record that even WE can't tolerate anymore.

with love (as always),
Dharma

 

[candid]

Dharma,

That's awesome!

Its easier for me to let go of the distant past, regardless of the appearances of shortcomings. Its the current ones, stitched to the past, that I get bogged in. I mean, its one thing to look behind and say, that was then. But if I'm still paying (dearly) for circumstances which I've already paid for, its still troubling.

I, in theory, agree with your points. Its the practical paying for what seems like another's mistakes, that irritates me. I'm certainly not saying this is virtuous. I know its not. But its difficult and very sooty. Anger, feeling victimized, all of those unseemly emotions, are real. I can dissolve them (59) through gentleness and centering, but then wake up the following morning full of soot again.

Dharma, how do you stay centered and out of the rut? Or, are the periods of time in the rut, shorter and shorter? Seems this would be a pattern until one really gets zapped, real time. Then things can really fall apart.

I've been known for my self control and even calming affect on people. I've always been told that. Lately, I feel as though I'm at war with the world. Talking with certain friends has helped, as has the advice given here. I want patience and I want it now! *grin*

(I ask these questions, knowing full well, the answers. But its holding onto these answers, day to day, hour by hour that?s the challenge. Hearing another speak the same innate truth, sometimes liberates the mind, as Hilary?s recent reading pertaining to a specific situation has done for me.)

Thanks for the help.

Candid

 

[dharma]

Hello Candid,

Your FEELINGS about anything are not a new concept. You have been FEELING all your life. In that respect your feelings are of the PAST. ALL the feelings you have, ranging from sheer joy to abject misery, originated in your past somewhere. Though we may sometimes believe otherwise, trust me, none of them are new at this stage of the game. Your feelings and emotional reactions, then, stem from the past and are the accumulated residue of soot that you consistently look out at the world through.

Discovering WHEN and under WHAT conditions they each emerged is greatly important to understanding why certain people or things we are experiencing right NOW, mean so much to us or, conversely, why they mean so little. Making a conscious and rational connection is critical to the process, otherwise, the only things that can ever change over the years are the outer characters and environments we find ourselves in, while our habitual themes and responses repeat over-and-over again.

Until you trace the roots of all the feelings within you you are left with assessing yourself through other people's impressions of you, and for an ACCURATE assessment of your TRUE position they are not the right barometers to be using. Your outside mirrors can only reflect the silent agreements you have between you, about the nature of your relationship each other. If you are under illusion, you will attract others who will reflect your illusionary status back to you with amazing accuracy, therefore, you need to accept that the calm that you've come to believe as genuine is not always a genuine centeredness but merely the illusion of it.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
The Buddhists say there are eight winds. They are gain and loss, praise and ridicule, credit and blame, and suffering and joy. If you aren't aware of them, they will blow you away like dry leaves in an autumn breeze. For example, when someone praises you, and that tastes sweet, like candy in your mouth, you are being blown away by the wind of praise.

One day in ancient China a young man thought he had become enlightened. He wrote a poem to his master about how he was not blown by the eight winds. Then he sent it to his master who lived three hundred miles up the Yangtze River.

When his master read the poem, he wrote, "Fart, Fart" on the bottom and sent it back.

The more the young man read those words, the more upset he got. At last he decided to visit his master. In those days, a three-hundred-mile trip up the Yangtze River was a very difficult journey.

As soon as he arrived, he went straight to his master's temple. "Why did you write this?" he asked, bowing. "Doesn't this poem show that I am no longer blown about by the eight winds?"

"You say that you are no longer blown by the eight winds," replied the master, "but two little farts blew you all the way up here."
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

"How do you stay centered and out of the rut," you ask? My answer is quite simple.

I simply see EVERY person as myself.

I see every person I connect with as an important aspect of myself telling me something important I need to know.

For example, if I encounter meanness in another person, I direct my energy towards first discovering how I am mean to myself. I then connect with these inner feelings and validate them and, in doing so, I validate myself. Having done that, I am in a position to actually change this attitude or behavior if I decide it does not serve me.

Now I can redirect my attention to the person who led me to my enlightenment. In every case, without exception, I bless them--I am grateful for the teaching. Often, this is enough to change the nature of the relationship between us and allow us to develop a deeper connection with each other. However, this doesn't work in every case and so sometimes I will walk away from the relationship because of it's destructive nature but at least I am walking away in peace, not anger.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Grasshopper can far surpass the Master if he can practice seeing God in everyone. Does this help a little more?

with love,
Dharma

 

[candid]

Sounds Zenish. I'm not sure if it helps or not. I see myself in everything and everyone. Got that part, but its pretty limited as far as satisfying the practical need. As an old song lyric says: "and I see my reflection on every rain drop, and I think its all a reason that I don't understand."

 

[candid]

Dear Dharma,

Trying hard to put to concept into a tangible form I could get hold of, I threw a Ching. This is from #63:

?..all selfish separatist tendencies are excluded..?

If that statement can be unconditional, I think my question is answered, the goal to understand is reached. Its also notewrothy that the hexagram changed to, #24 Return (to the way). Makes sense, yes?

Thank Daharma. Perhaps I can return the favor one of these days.

Candid

 

[dharma]

Candid,

I'm glad that you've found your own personal understanding and answers to the question that was of concern to you (at least that's what I understood from your last response).

You have already helped me more than you realize. Answering your questions and responding to your ideas has been a welcome challenge. It's allowed me to sort through my personal bank of concepts and see how well they all fit together as a whole. It's important to me that all the parts of my philosophy fit together neatly like a puzzle, and so knowing what pieces are missing, if any, allows me to focus on those areas and discover how to fill them in.

Over the years, I have tried to convey my point of view to different people with vastly differing perspectives, and with completely different results every time. I used to think that my inability to reach some people had something to do with a poor 'performance' on my part, however, I've come to the conclusion that, although that MAY be the case sometimes, often the difficulty lies in attempting to express something that the other person is simply not ready to hear or accept and that it isn't necessarily my approach or choice of words. Also, and maybe more importantly, TRUST plays a significant role in being able to convey information. If the information is coming from a trusted source, we are more likely to get the 'a-ha' experience than not. Which explains why we sometimes fail in getting someone else to grasp something that is quite clear to us (and perhaps everyone else) but them.

Feel free to pick my brain anytime.

with love,
Dharma

 

[candid]

Hi Dharma,

I agree, trust is Huge issue, especially where matters of the heart are concerned. Those things which are closest to us are not easily compromised, and even less easily changed.

Another active word here is, pride. We win our lessons mostly through hard won (or lost) personal struggles. These victories, won at such cost, are not easily challenged with great effectiveness. I for one, have dug my heels in on certain issues discussed here at Clarity. Certain that my hard won precepts are correct (in theory), I've tended to view other's views as not quite right. (Dogma and pride rears its stiff neck again.)

I think we (you and I) have managed to dissolve any obstructions which may have hindered our effective communication. That, in and of itself, is something of an achievement and serves to further each in our personal growth.

Our views still differ in primary focus. You, viewing the whole and me, the ironic duality in all things. We are two diiferent people with a different map of experiences. With a proper approach, one sharpens the other just a iron sharpens iron. Truly, there is duality and yet, there is only one.

Your friend,
Candid