Secret hexagram

[Zimbali]

The requirement for secrecy is that if I attempt to explain myself, I know that I will be misunderstood. Invariably, so why bother?

Let's have a go, and see where that takes us. I agree with you, but I am interested in your view as to the mechanics of the secrecy.

 

[sooo]

Nietzsche said regarding Homer something like "No greater a lofty crown was placed on the heads of the masses, as to suggest that the works of Homer, really were taken literally from song of peasant people".

An old friend named David Peel used to say "the masses are the asses." I tended to agree with that assessment, but inclusive of his contextual satire, and it was the roaring early 70's after all. Ah, those were the days, when I was 25 and knew it all.

I'm sure there are several here who would agree with your view of superior people who have superior understanding, and they, no doubt, would count themselves among the select enlightened few.

The sons of nobles you speak of were privileged to receive greater personal (private) attention, and the same is true today. But that doesn't make them any brighter or able to process secret knowledge, it just means they receive more attention. Someone who receives greater attention from more qualified teachers are naturally going to acquire better learning skills. There's nothing secretive about that. It just takes more money, and influential parents always helps.

I maintain, and have repeatedly said to those who view themselves in a lessor capacity, there are different kinds of smart. It just depends on ones aptitude and special gift, as well as whom they choose to learn from, who they allow themselves to be influenced by. Me? I learn from what is most obvious in nature, and I listen attentively to the average 10 year old. 4 year old even more so. They haven't yet lost the secrets.

 

[anemos]

In ancient Greek, there are certainly higher levels of understanding, that seem sometimes well guarded. Similarly with Kabbalah, only higher level Jewish scholars are passed on the information, or at least in the past that was the case. that is quite well documented. [Hebrew University of Jerusalem, European Mysticism course for example].

we were classmates !!

I recall he said when referring to Cycles that it was the nature of the work took place there that needed to be that close and he draw some parallels with psychology- the other half of the subject of this course- and the work done with psychoanalysis.

Who was that shoemaker or something like that that now consider a great contributor to mysticism? there were many of "inferior" individuals whose personal quest has been the basis for "grand ideas" as we see them nowadays.

Ancient Greeks says" half-knowing is worst than not-knowing". What is worth noticing in that saying is that we are all "half-knowing" and that is what keeps us open and curious. That's what drive us to "learn" more, to seek for truths. Curiosity is the main drive , imo.
"It is not I who seek the young fool; The young fool seeks me.", Yi says

My question is, is there a similar situation with the complete understanding of Yijing.

.

I don't think its possible to completely understand Yi. It is vast. Neither i think enlightenment is about knowing everything - a super power. Did Buddha manage to stop those factors cause suffering? nope. So why the fuss ?
Maybe this very failure was his achievement. We are small and this 'smallness' is the avenue to greatness

I read about vision those days. A question popped out when taking notes about optical illusions. Would an enlighten person fall to the "trap" our otherwise normal vision sets for us. My guess is yes- at least to some of them. They will see what a no-enlighten simple person sees. That is our smallness and knowing we are small, knowing that those two squares , for instance might look different but they are actually the same - question our own "knowledge", iow, its big.

Do you believe that there is a living person that claims they understand completely Yi ?

 

[Zimbali]

No I don't think there is anyone who understands the Yi completelty. Nor do the teaching staff at Tsinghau University who included Yijing on their Cultural China course on edx.

Whoever the role of the Yijing in government is significant I think. Knowledge of it was a requirement in Chinese government exams. I think it was used in those times as a schematic for standard procedures in open ended situations, and worked well throughout the Chinese empire.

During the Zhou dynasty the classics were passed on to outside barbarians [the leadership] in an attempt at intellectual colonization. I think from there it many have become part of a diplomatic code.

 

[Zimbali]

I also think that within the Chinese government, at times the Yijing was used as a means of secret communication, and the compund symbolism used as a means of transmitting communications, was possible.