Reading with I ching Oracle Cards

[Paula R]

I've been thinking of buying these Oracle cards, mainly because I collect decks and also because I'm a bit lazy about casting the coins and calculating the hexagram.
The system with this deck is: shuffle, pick randomly a card with an hexagram, put the card back in the deck, repeat for the complementary hexagram. If it happens to be the same, the resulting hexagram will be fixed.
Now, I do have a good I ching book, I just want to have your opinion on casting coins/using online I ching readings/using these cards. Do you consider a method more accurate than the other?
I will appreciate any input.

 

[Liselle]

If you get two different cards, do you figure out the moving lines yourself? So if you drew those top two cards in the picture, the reading would be 13.1.3.5.6 to 16?

If it was me, I think I'd try it for a while and see if I'd get helpful readings (or, at least, as helpful as readings done the more usual ways, since not every reading is going to be completely understandable no matter how you cast them). Maybe try some practice-type readings ("How will it go for X in the next chapter of this book?"), or open daily readings like "Guidance for today?" or something, because then it's easy to compare it to what happened. (In other words, questions like "How can I meet Mr. Right?" are probably not good for trying out a new casting method, as it might take a while...)

 

[moss elk]

I don't like the system.

Because the deck never leaves one's hands.
Which can allow for an unconcious intentional selection of the same or different card. Meaning it isn't offered up to be influenced by ... insert belief system here.

I think it is better to use, coins, sticks, dice, or a computer generator.

 

[Paula R]

If you get two different cards, do you figure out the moving lines yourself? So if you drew those top two cards in the picture, the reading would be 13.1.3.5.6 to 16?

If it was me, I think I'd try it for a while and see if I'd get helpful readings (or, at least, as helpful as readings done the more usual ways, since not every reading is going to be completely understandable no matter how you cast them). Maybe try some practice-type readings ("How will it go for X in the next chapter of this book?"), or open daily readings like "Guidance for today?" or something, because then it's easy to compare it to what happened. (In other words, questions like "How can I meet Mr. Right?" are probably not good for trying out a new casting method, as it might take a while...)

To your first question, I was wondering the same, I suppose I will find out when I buy it.

I think I will do as you say, experiment a little with unimportant questions and see what happens.
I like your suggestion, thank you!

 

[remod]

Hi Paula, while I do like I Ching decks (I own a couple of them), I don't like that method. I see those decks more suited for meditation.

The main reason is that the moving lines it produces are far, far away from those you obtain with the yarrow stalks or the three coins method.

With the traditional methods, once you get the primary hexagram you can obtain any other hexagram as secondary but each hexagram is more or less likely to appear. "Flattening" the probability of the secondary hexagram seems to deprive the oracle of a way to express his meanings. (just my opinion, of course).

There are methods to use the 64 cards to generate the secondary hexagram like the coins or the stalks do, but they are very complicated and would deny the simplicity embedded in the act of drawing one or more cards from a deck.

If you want to follow that route, I wrote down a method to use a 64 IChing deck to get lines one by one with a probability very close to the three coins method:

To get the lines one by one use the following procedure:​

1. Shuffle the deck and pick a card;
2. Draw the topmost line of the hexagram;
3. Get two other cards;
4. If the top-most lines of both cards are of the same type of the drawn line, then it is a moving line;
5. Reinsert the cards in the deck ;
6. Repeat steps 1 to 5 other five times drawing the resulting lines from the bottom to the top of the hexagram.

Also, some time ago I posted a set of cards that I devised and I'm currently using. I'll be very happy to share any details on them with you if you are interested. (I devised also "decks" with three or four cards but I refrained to post them here as I feared not many would be interested).

 

[remod]

or a computer generator.

If I may, I'm rather against those. While it is theoretically possible that you meet an online I Ching oracle with a good RNG, many of them are simply awful and will favor this or that line without you even knowing. Maybe it's just me, of course, but I'm firmly convinced that one should be aware of how much "randomness" there is in the method they're using.

 

[moss elk]

If I may, I'm rather against those. While it is theoretically possible that you meet an online I Ching oracle with a good RNG, many of them are simply awful and will favor this or that line without you even knowing. Maybe it's just me, of course, but I'm firmly convinced that one should be aware of how much "randomness" there is in the method they're using.

That's alright, I understand your concern.

That being said,
I can assure you that Clarity's generator works fine.

Maybe Hilary would explain a bit how it works.

 

[remod]

I can assure you that Clarity's generator works fine.

I'm pretty sure of that myself
Actually, I visit this site for long before 2008 (which is the date of this account) and I know how much care Hilary puts on these things.
For example, I can clearly see that the online casting here on Clarity produces lines following the yarrow stalks method (rather than the three coins) which is a plus for me.
I wrote a short post quite some time ago on my site on the pros and cons (and caveats) to generate hexagrams with software.

 

[surnevs]

Somewhere years ago here on this forum, someone mentions what I do agree with, namely, to use the method You feel familiar with, simply as that. About computer programs, I ask myself: Who are the programmer ? As mentioned above the random function are limited which I realized when working with that years ago - But, again: if You feel good with it I'll not be the one to spoil your satisfaction

 

[IrfanK]

I don't like the idea of the cards. It means that, for example, it would be just as likely to get 1.1.2.3.4.5.6 > 2 as, say, 1.1 > 44. There's nothing sacred about the three-coins method, and it's fine to use systems with different odds of getting the same results -- but that strikes me as a bit extreme and chaotic.

Mind you, they are quite pretty to look at. I could imagine using them to do a reading for someone else, using the coins or a dice or whatever to produce the hexagram, and the cards just as an illustration.

I do have my own odd systems, including throwing a dice 7 times -- odd or even determines whether the line is solid or broken, and the seventh throw determines which line is moving (so you always get just one moving line). Even with that, I've had a few disapproving frowns when I've mentioned it. I like that system because I stop and look at the UC hexagram first, and consider how it applies to the question, before proceeding to determine which line is moving.

 

[Liselle]

People are making very good points about the odds and the moving lines, Paula. I hadn't thought about that. The time-tested odds (coins, yarrow stalks) keep moving lines to manageable levels while still allowing for the higher numbers of them often enough to be honest.

 

[Trojina]

I've been thinking of buying these Oracle cards, mainly because I collect decks and also because I'm a bit lazy about casting the coins and calculating the hexagram.
The system with this deck is: shuffle, pick randomly a card with an hexagram, put the card back in the deck, repeat for the complementary hexagram. If it happens to be the same, the resulting hexagram will be fixed.
Now, I do have a good I ching book, I just want to have your opinion on casting coins/using online I ching readings/using these cards. Do you consider a method more accurate than the other?
I will appreciate any input.

Change lines are of the utmost importance in a reading and so just picking 2 cards one for primary one relating means you then have to calculate the change lines anyway. Not sure what advantage there is in this method

For me it feels a much more direct (and clear) communication to use coins or marbles, coins always being my preferred method. I say 'direct' because cards would feel to me as if they were in the way, coming between me and the Oracle because they often have other's ideas on them and I want it to be just me and Yi. I guess I don't want a mediator suggesting what a cast is all about, I just want to do the cast with clear air between me and Yi and the table.

 

[Paula R]

Hi Paula, while I do like I Ching decks (I own a couple of them), I don't like that method. I see those decks more suited for meditation.

The main reason is that the moving lines it produces are far, far away from those you obtain with the yarrow stalks or the three coins method.

With the traditional methods, once you get the primary hexagram you can obtain any other hexagram as secondary but each hexagram is more or less likely to appear. "Flattening" the probability of the secondary hexagram seems to deprive the oracle of a way to express his meanings. (just my opinion, of course).

There are methods to use the 64 cards to generate the secondary hexagram like the coins or the stalks do, but they are very complicated and would deny the simplicity embedded in the act of drawing one or more cards from a deck.

If you want to follow that route, I wrote down a method to use a 64 IChing deck to get lines one by one with a probability very close to the three coins method:

To get the lines one by one use the following procedure:​

1. Shuffle the deck and pick a card;
2. Draw the topmost line of the hexagram;
3. Get two other cards;
4. If the top-most lines of both cards are of the same type of the drawn line, then it is a moving line;
5. Reinsert the cards in the deck ;
6. Repeat steps 1 to 5 other five times drawing the resulting lines from the bottom to the top of the hexagram.

Also, some time ago I posted a set of cards that I devised and I'm currently using. I'll be very happy to share any details on them with you if you are interested. (I devised also "decks" with three or four cards but I refrained to post them here as I feared not many would be interested).

I'm glad someone else love decks. I buy them mainly when I like the art on them. I also do meditation, so I could draw only one card for the purpose of meditation and then, I would use the method you deviced to obtain a second hexagram if I want a 'true' reading. I must say that your system with the cards is very clever!

I'm willing to know about the deck of cards you deviced if you feel like sharing it with me. I will 'listen' attentively There is almost nothing I'm not interested in!

Thanks for your input on this. Looking fwd to your sharing your method!

 

[Paula R]

I don't like the idea of the cards. It means that, for example, it would be just as likely to get 1.1.2.3.4.5.6 > 2 as, say, 1.1 > 44. There's nothing sacred about the three-coins method, and it's fine to use systems with different odds of getting the same results -- but that strikes me as a bit extreme and chaotic.

Mind you, they are quite pretty to look at. I could imagine using them to do a reading for someone else, using the coins or a dice or whatever to produce the hexagram, and the cards just as an illustration.

I do have my own odd systems, including throwing a dice 7 times -- odd or even determines whether the line is solid or broken, and the seventh throw determines which line is moving (so you always get just one moving line). Even with that, I've had a few disapproving frowns when I've mentioned it. I like that system because I stop and look at the UC hexagram first, and consider how it applies to the question, before proceeding to determine which line is moving.

I like your system with the dice!

 

[moss elk]

People are making very good points about the odds and the moving lines,

Odds Schmodds. :]

Just to remind everyone who has forgotten or not noticed it:

That the 'odds part' must apply to our readings only exists in our minds.
As in, "Well statistically, math says....blah blah blah"
But I've found it to be untrue in the reality that is not dependant on our thoughts.

How can I confidently say this?
I once asked a specific question on how to do something and immediately received an intelligible answer.
A year later, having been busy doing other things, and some factors changed,
I asked the same exact question and received same answer.
One year after that, I asked if the thing were still applicable and got same reading again. (I am currently working on that thing in case anyone is interested:
You don't have to hit m.e. in the face with a wet mop four times.)

Now, Please ponder if 'odds' were really in play at all:
The chance of getting any specific reading would be: 1 out of 4096 possible readings.
The Chance of getting the same answer for same question 2 x: 1 out of 16,777,216
Three times? Astronomical 1 out of 68,719,476,736
That is like winning a lottery 3 times in a row.
All that matters is the method must be able to generate any reading without a built in weighting towards any certain kind of reading.

Yi is connected to something much more vast than 'odds'
Our readings are not really dependant to 'odds' , but to the reality of the inner and outer cosmos,
And I venture to say, what is sometimes called the divine... which has influence,
And is not completely seperate from us,
Us being children of the cosmos.

 

[Liselle]

Odds Schmodds. :]

But actually, I both agree and not. In previous odds discussions, if I remember correctly, a person or two looked at their whole collection of readings and found that overall they hewed to the correct expected statistical odds for the method they were using. And yet, things like you describe absolutely happen. Therein lies the miracle or as you say the divine, I think - Yi somehow makes the points it wants to make while still being statistically predictable overall.

 

[Liselle]

(It might have been me who did that, actually, and maybe someone else. Either exporting from Resonance Journal to Excel, or someone who keeps their readings in Excel to start with. Unfortunately I don't have time to hunt for the thread now.)

 

[rosada]

For me the problem with commercial I Ching decks is that the art work isn't particularly inspirational or informative. Like the sample posted above for 13. Friendship doesn't remind me of anything to do with the hexagram, plus the monocromatic coloring quickly makes all the images look the same. I've created my own deck on 3 x 5 cards where I've drawn my own pictures along with Hilary's words, which are very useful to have right there on the card. I'm also putting together a deck using pictures from the internet. You can see samples on Hilary's facebook page.

 

[surnevs]

I don't like the idea of the cards. It means that, for example, it would be just as likely to get 1.1.2.3.4.5.6 > 2 as, say, 1.1 > 44. There's nothing sacred about the three-coins method, and it's fine to use systems with different odds of getting the same results -- but that strikes me as a bit extreme and chaotic.

Mind you, they are quite pretty to look at. I could imagine using them to do a reading for someone else, using the coins or a dice or whatever to produce the hexagram, and the cards just as an illustration.

I do have my own odd systems, including throwing a dice 7 times -- odd or even determines whether the line is solid or broken, and the seventh throw determines which line is moving (so you always get just one moving line). Even with that, I've had a few disapproving frowns when I've mentioned it. I like that system because I stop and look at the UC hexagram first, and consider how it applies to the question, before proceeding to determine which line is moving.

Hi IrfanK,
I used that method too but realized that the secondary hexagram will always be limited to only one line changing and I don't think it's Logic.
Today I use this method (attached) but with the difference that, after having found the six changing or unchanging or none changing lines, if there are more changing lines I throw the die until it hit a changing line and this will be the Oracle.

1-4-1-6-5-5 = 9-8-7-8-9-7 and then throwing the die until it hits a 1'er or a 5'er

 

[Liselle]

Sven, I think I understand what's on your pdf, but I don't understand this:

Today I use this method (attached) but with the difference that, after having found the six changing or unchanging or none changing lines, if there are more changing lines I throw the die until it hit a changing line and this will be the Oracle.

Would your example be this?

1-4-1-6-5-5 = 9-8-7-8-9-7

line 6 - yang
line 5 - moving yang
line 4 - yin
line 3 - yang
line 2 - yin
line 1 - moving yang

37.1.5 to 52 if I haven't made mistakes.

That's what's on the pdf, but it sounds like you've changed it and you don't stop at that anymore, you do an extra step?

 

[Trojina]

For me the problem with commercial I Ching decks is that the art work isn't particularly inspirational or informative. Like the sample posted above for 13. Friendship doesn't remind me of anything to do with the hexagram, plus the monocromatic coloring quickly makes all the images look the same. I've created my own deck on 3 x 5 cards where I've drawn my own pictures along with Hilary's words, which are very useful to have right there on the card. I'm also putting together a deck using pictures from the internet. You can see samples on Hilary's facebook page.

The problem with all art or photography as a depiction of a hexagram is it will always severely limit the meaning of the hexagram. Which is not to say there's no point, it can be a fascinating project with beautiful images and so on. But one image can never ever sum the meaning of a hexagram.

 

[Liselle]

That the 'odds part' must apply to our readings only exists in our minds.
As in, "Well statistically, math says....blah blah blah"
But I've found it to be untrue in the reality that is not dependant on our thoughts.

Well having taken time to ask Sven questions I couldn't not try to find the thread I guess. Here it is - haven't read the entire thing again but here is the post where I (it was me) checked in Excel.

 

[surnevs]

Sven, I think I understand what's on your pdf, but I don't understand this:


Would your example be this?


line 6 - yang
line 5 - moving yang
line 4 - yin
line 3 - yang
line 2 - yin
line 1 - moving yang

37.1.5 to 52 if I haven't made mistakes.

That's what's on the pdf, but it sounds like you've changed it and you don't stop at that anymore, you do an extra step?

Hi Liselle,
You're right about this. The extra step is to find ONE line which will be the Oracle and in this process I make an extra step being to throw the die until, if more than one moving line occurs (if only one line's changing this is the Oracle), the Die shows one of these, 2,3,4,5 or six changing lines on its surface ie one to six dots.
I belong to those who believe that only one or none changing lines can be the Oracle, but this said I do appreciate HeyLise's point of view (LINK) and now and then read the changing lines "as a story" from bottom to top...
We can hope that someday the method used by the ancients, and especially concerning the right yarrow-oracle-procedure, will be unearthed.

 

[Liselle]

Oh, okay - a way to reduce multiple moving lines to one, sort of like the Master Yin rules. Is that right?

 

[Paula R]

For me the problem with commercial I Ching decks is that the art work isn't particularly inspirational or informative. Like the sample posted above for 13. Friendship doesn't remind me of anything to do with the hexagram, plus the monocromatic coloring quickly makes all the images look the same. I've created my own deck on 3 x 5 cards where I've drawn my own pictures along with Hilary's words, which are very useful to have right there on the card. I'm also putting together a deck using pictures from the internet. You can see samples on Hilary's facebook page.

As they say, there's no accounting for tastes, and in this case I like the monochromatic style. It doesn't bother me that the text of the hexagram doesn't match the image...it is just illustrative art...

 

[moss elk]

Hi Liselle,
You're right about this. The extra step is to find ONE line which will be the Oracle

Hi Sven,
This system handicaps the user,
By limiting what can be learned.

Sometimes we do get 'stories'
Here is one of mine from a few months ago:

28.2.5.6 (56) reading & events

Sharing a daily reading to teach, not needing help with the reading. It is interesting for a few reasons, one of which is how all individual lines were present, but all line auguries did not apply (though one did!) You'll see. Whenever I wake up feeling any odd sensations in my body, I do a...

www.onlineclarity.co.uk

All three lines and both hex's are visible.

 

[surnevs]

Hi Liselle, Yes, or like the method very similar given by Zhu Xi *)
"
1 line changes
this is your answer, take it to be the answer in preference to a contradictory judgment (the lines always take precedence over the judgment if there is contradiction)

2 lines change​

uppermost line of the two is most important

3 change​

middle most important (for Zhu Xi's original method for three changing lines, see below)

4 change​

go over to the second hexagram and take the lowermost of the two lines that have not changed from the first hexagram (example below)

5 change​

in the second hexagram take the line that hasn't come from a change in the first hexagram (example below)

6 change​

the first hexagram's situation is entirely past or on the brink of change, the second hexagram is more important, take the judgment (hexagrams 1 and 2 have an extra line statement that is intended to be read when all six lines change)" **)

2-5-6-2-2-1 = 8-7-8-8-8-7
3-6-3-4-1-6 = 7-8-9-6-7-6 Throwing then the Die until 3, 4 or 6 dots shows up
etc. etc. etc.



____________________________
*) On sect. III pg. 47 in this pdf: Explaining the Milfoil Stalks
**) From https://www.biroco.com/yijing/basics.htm

 

[surnevs]

Hi Paula R,
Sorry for interfering here, I just couldn't resist mentioning my take on the dice method as a reply to IrfanK's post. But yes, this thread is about decks of Cards. I think that for us westerners divining with cards is familiar to us. I think the deck of the Tarot appeared first in Italy around the 14th century AD (?) and later became our kind of amusement and also thereby we became familiar with it. Not to say that divining with cards equals divining with three coins because with the coins You achieve the numbers required to decide the behaviour of each line. Personally, I can't see how this should be possible with cards. But, as more than one method shows up with cards....? I really can't deny such possibilities.
And You are so right in "As they say, there's no accounting for tastes, and in this case I like the monochromatic style. It doesn't bother me that the text of the hexagram doesn't match the image...it is just illustrative art..." (#25)

 

[remod]

Not to say that divining with cards equals divining with three coins because with the coins You achieve the numbers required to decide the behaviour of each line. Personally, I can't see how this should be possible with cards. But, as more than one method shows up with cards....? I really can't deny such possibilities.

Hi surnevs. The post I made some time ago shows two card decks that do exactly what you say: they produce IChing lines exactly as you would do with the three coins or the yarrow stalks methods.
On my site there is a method that uses the ace of hearts and the ace of spades, and others using other playing or tarot cards combination.
So I would say there are plenty of methods to use cards for I Ching divination.
For example, below is one of the methods I devised. It's a set of four cards that anyone can create very easily using a marker and some cardboard. Below, on the left the front and the back of each card, on the right the way you spread them to cast a single line:


Instead of 4 double-sided cards, one can create 4 single-sided cards, two of a type and two of the other type. An easy way would be to use 4 playing cards, glue some white paper on their front, and draw the dots and lines on them. Even easier to use blank business cards.

To cast a line, you shuffle, rotate, and flip (if double-sided) the four cards at will and then spread them as shown in the picture.
The line on the card tells you if it's yin or yang. If the number of the black dots on left top is the same as the number of the red dots on the card, it's a moving line (odds are the same as the yarrow stalks method).
In the picture above, the result would be a 9 as there are two black dots on the top left.

Those artistically gifted could decorate them to personalize them.

 

[remod]

I'm willing to know about the deck of cards you deviced if you feel like sharing it with me. I will 'listen' attentively There is almost nothing I'm not interested in!

I'll be happy to share, below the list of the methods I feel worth trying. If you want to try any of them let me know, I will dig my hard disk to find the hi-res images and will post them here.

• The seven identical cards that keep track of the forming hexagram (no need to have pen and paper at hand). I posted them here on Clarity but you can also see them on my site. Those are the ones that I like the most and regularly use. I had the design printed as business cards for very cheap.
• The eight cards that produce one trigram at the time. I don't have them on my site but you can find them in my older post here on Clarity.
• The four cards I just described in the previous message in this thread.
• The three cards single-sided method I'm about to describe now.

Three cards method:



To cast a line, you shuffle and rotate them at will then you spread them as shown below:


If the two black ideograms on the top left are the same as the two red ideograms close to a line, you got that line, otherwise you got the other one. (in the example above you got a 9 because the ideograms are different).
This method produce lines with the yarrow stalks odds.

Just let me know if you want them, I'm sure I have the files somewhere on my HD.

Anyways, those cards can also be easily drawn with a marker, as the four cards in the previous message. Any four different symbols will work as long as they are placed as shown in the pictures.