The manifestation of God in Yi - 元 亨 利 貞

[yly2pg1]

Well, there you said it. Phenomena, not numina. Not fundamental, not elemental. Not in themselves existing without both a point of view and an organ of sense.

... I just don't go to that church. Most of what we talk about is formed in our heads, from our senses and our languages.

Metaphoric speaking, the God is embedded in our heads.
The traditional sense of God in the Chinese is translated and reduced into a simple and clear manifestation of 元 亨 利 貞 via the mandate of heaven.

To some, it is a contrast to the Abrahamic monotheistic group.
In Yi, it is a complimental dichotomy of Architect / Archetype.

 

[stevev]

Well, there you said it. Phenomena, not numina. Not fundamental, not elemental.
<snip>
Some believe that Yin and Yang are ontologically or metaphysically real and
prior to light and dark like some sort of Platonic form or ideal.
<snip>

That’s what I have been thinking. There is some sort of Platonic ideal or essence that is sprinkled into a virtual funnel attached to an evolving double helix slide where this essence is actualised or separated into the primary elements that we recognise as male & female, positive & negative, matter & energy, space & time. It would seem each primary element has an affinity with one side of the slide or the other.

I guess there is some other device at the bottom which combines these primary elements into the phenomena we know and love & hate so well. Maybe this version of the process aims at imperfect mixtures, maybe perfect mixtures aren’t possible.

For me Yin & Yang are just the labels on the slide, and the lines, trigrams & hexagrams just represent increasingly complex mixtures.

The IChing is like a multiple choice exam, with the bits you either answer A or B, the lines are either A, B, C or D. This is no none of the above or both and your not allowed out until you answer all the questions.

 

[hollis]

wilhelm, not zhoyi

Someone does indeed increase him;

Ten pairs of tortoises cannot oppose it.
Constant perseverance brings good fortune.

The king presents him before God.
Good fortune.


Experience with this line, has shown me, over time, that the good fortune in this line needs to be symbolized, or reciprocated, whathaveyou, in some way. A visualization when recieving the good fortune, SOMEthing, whatever, etc, for the good fortune, which is an unordinary kind of good fortune, but getting it, without some kind of visualization, appropriate appreciation, has kickback in the material world.

i dont know if that capiche or not. jumbleaya.

 

[bradford]

RE:
The king presents him before God.

More literally,
The king makes offerings to the divine

There's no him in there. Wilhelm adds lots of stuff
not in the original.

But you're right. There is a sense that the gratitude
need to go somewhere special. At the very least, the
king's people will need to see him make an offering
and grateful gesture to something greater than himself,
to consecrate or dedicate the gift.

 

[peacecat]

Experience with this line, has shown me, over time, that the good fortune in this line needs to be symbolized, or reciprocated, whathaveyou, in some way. A visualization when recieving the good fortune, SOMEthing, whatever, etc, for the good fortune, which is an unordinary kind of good fortune, but getting it, without some kind of visualization, appropriate appreciation, has kickback in the material world.

I think Hollis is right, whether you believe in a patriarchical God or not, all of us here believe in the supernatural and a certain amount of respect towards that intelligence and power is due. Without it I think we lose direction and meaning because we don't place ourselves beneath something greater than ourselves. And isn't so much about the I Ching about placement and correspondence?

Kate

 

[stevev]

<snip>
all of us here believe in the supernatural
<snip>
Without it I think we lose direction and meaning because we don't place ourselves beneath something greater than ourselves.
<snip>

I don't see any need for a belief in the supernatural, nor do I think you need any belief to understand both your signifcance and insignificance.

"The mysterious agencies working secretly" is a poetic & rythmic phrase, but I don't take it literally.

There just is mystic, like there just is logic !

 

[peacecat]

I don't see any need for a belief in the supernatural, nor do I think you need any belief to understand both your signifcance and insignificance.

There just is mystic, like there just is logic !

Hi Steve,

My parents and uncle are athiests and my brother is an agnostic and I know you don't need to believe in the supernatural in order to be intelligent, sensitive, moral and generally significant. What I don't understand is how someone who consults the I Ching can not believe in the supernatural. How do you explain the cogency of the I Ching responses? I'm just curious. And how do you define the word "mystic"--spiritual, symbolic or cryptic?

kate

 

[bradford]

I think I have to weigh in with Steve V on this issue, especially when folks are saying what I have to believe in before I can be interested in the Yijing.
I do have a keen sense of something much bigger than me, but it's not "above nature", or supernatural- it is nature. It's a wonder to me, and I respect it as though it were divine, and I'm grateful to be alive, but I see no purpose or plan in it all. The fact that it hints that it's all ultimately intelligible hardly means that it's intelligent. The fact thay we're conscious of nature does not imply to me that nature is conscious, except in us. Nature might know as much as all of us put together, with a little extra from all that synergy, but that's only because it IS all of us put together. There is also no need to explain or account for how the Yijing works - it's sufficient to me just to keep testing that as a working hypothesis.

 

[bruce_g]

Just because something can not be irrefutably explained doesn’t make it outside the realm of what is natural. It’s only outside of our linear understanding of nature. If it were possible to explain it all, we still have no way to know for certain if the explanation is correct. There’s no way to prove it except by theory or personal experience, and personal experience still does not factualize anything – though it can actualize a theory. Try to hold that in your hand and give it a name.

Two things disturb me. One is when something is defined as though cast in stone, and the other is when something not understood is automatically attributed to the Supernatural.

I do perceive there to be a collective intelligence, which is incomparably higher than each singular intelligence. For this reason, I’m as at ease using the word God as I am using the word gods. From force come forces, and they’re indistinguishable from each other. And so in that sense, indistinguishable from you or me.

What good is the bow without the arrow? Is it blaspheme to be equal with God? Frightening though it may be to ponder.

 

[lightofreason]

I think I have to weigh in with Steve V on this issue, especially when folks are saying what I have to believe in before I can be interested in the Yijing.
I do have a keen sense of something much bigger than me, but it's not "above nature", or supernatural- it is nature. It's a wonder to me, and I respect it as though it were divine, and I'm grateful to be alive, but I see no purpose or plan in it all.

The methodology of self-referencing DOES encode purpose in that due to each hexagram being describable by all hexagrams (as demonstrated with XOR) and that includes notions of 'begin' and 'end' etc - each hexagram contains all possible manifestations of the IC but filtered through that hexagram's unique aspect.

The point here is that the METHOD does all of this and that method is derived from the containtainment of noise (the chaos game).

BUT - the purpose operates at the level of a GROUP, not an indlvidual in that the singular nature of individual consciousness acts as a randomiser within the group. Gets into the million of sperm with the purpose of fertilising the single egg. The mass of sperm ensure one gets through.

At the level of the particular, what personality typologies identify, the particular category covers a group nature - thus in the MBTI there are, in the USA, 3 million of type INFJ but these are all unique individuals such that the whole group does not act as one other than in general, general traits, preferences etc

Thus over millenia the INFJ reaches its goals but not necessarly every member of that collective.

As such evolution, for social life forms like us, utilises development through numbers - this is manifest in the IC in the generic properties of Lake where there is a context replacement focus on self-replication and drowning out oppositions through numbers.

The IC is a metaphor that maps out the properties and methods of self-referencing. It is one of many. What is useful is its form of representation, it offers more precision and ease in manipulation.

For us as individual consciousness, and so singulars, we are in a position of being mutations and as such operating within the self-referencing system but capable of choices in our own life time of paths to follow/create. In so doing we add diversity to the group where the group moves in a highly determined, general, way and we add local variations - some leading to dead ends, others speeding up development etc.

Note that really innovative works come out of the singular in that one of us can get an insight not covered by group work - the randomising aspect allows us to do this. - so to undestand all of this there is no NEED for consideration of the 'god' hypothesis.

Chris.

 

[Sparhawk]

I agree with Steve, Bradford and Bruce on this. Not being able to minimize and explain every aspect of a system like the Yi, that has a proven track record of a few millennia, does not mean that it works in a "supernatural" way. The "supernatural" bin is not a dumpster where the Yi would either fit or deserve to be tossed in.

Happy New Year.

Luis

 

[martin]

Hmm, please define 'nature'.
I think when we say 'everything is nature' we have watered down the meaning of the word 'nature' to such an extent that it doesn't mean anything anymore.

In other words, the statement 'everything is nature' is meaningless!

Philosopher

 

[bruce_g]

Hmm, please define 'nature'.
I think when we say 'everything is nature' we have watered down the meaning of the word 'nature' to such an extent that it doesn't mean anything anymore.

In other words, the statement 'everything is nature' is meaningless!

Philosopher

Hey, Philo.. happy new year!

As I see it, nature is what is, even if we perceive it incorrectly. Then it is our perception which errs, not nature.

Chögyam Trungpa Shambhala - The Sacred Path of the Warrior

Words are sounds that we've designed to represent experiences. Words are not the experience nor can they ever be the experience. Oneness that can be verbalized is not Oneness. "Be still and know." Sometimes when we perceive the world, we perceive without language. We perceive spontaneously....But sometimes when we view the world, first we think a word and then we perceive. In other words, the first instance is directly feeling or perceiving the universe; the second is talking ourselves into seeing the universe. So either you look or see beyond language - as first perception, or you see the world through the filter of your thoughts, by talking to yourself.

 

[bruce_g]

I really like this guy's way of teaching.

"One of the reasons that ordinary effort becomes so dreary and stagnant is that our intention always develops a verbalization. Any kind of sense of duty we might have is always verbalized, though the speed of conceptual mind is so great that we may not even notice the verbalization. Still, the contents of the verbalization are clearly felt. This verbalization pins the effort to a fixed frame of reference, which makes it extremely tiresome."

http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/vctr/fourfoundations.html

 

[stevev]

<snip>
What I don't understand is how someone who consults the I Ching can not believe in the supernatural.

How do you explain the cogency of the I Ching responses? I'm just curious.

And how do you define the word "mystic"--spiritual, symbolic or cryptic?

Hello Kate,

As far as I'm concerned all things or phenomina are part of the natural universe, even the mysterious agencies, and in response to Martin's post, I just think that in this sense nature is simply synomimous with universe, maybe just a wider nature.

The words move around in the book, no seriously I can't and I don't try, and it's not a question of faith either, along with god & the soul, I don't believe in that either. There are two things I am certain about, and that is that I know I don't know and I'm nearly as sure that nobody else does either.

I'm not even sure about mystic, but generally I just give it the loose meaning of mystery, or the unknown, but I wouldn't go so far as to say unknowable. I suppose gaining knowledge is the process of simply moving information from the unknown to the known. The question is, in our collective minds have we moved 1% or 99% ?

Wisdom might simply be knowing you don't know and the IChing is the perfect facility to practice this wisdom and reflect on it, because not even trying to use your intellect isn't very wise either.


Regards

 

[martin]

Hey, Philo.. happy new year!

As I see it, nature is what is, even if we perceive it incorrectly. Then it is our perception which errs, not nature.

Happy new year to you too!

Nature, what is - yes, I think I know what you mean.
When do we perceive correctly? When we look, listen, think with our heart?
I guess it needs a heart to recognize a heart. And the heart of what-is is miraculous, dazzling ... I would call it supernatural.

 

[bradford]

then there's super duper natural

 

[mudpie]

all i have to do is remember that once as a girl i was looking at a fuzzy star in the sky and someone told me it wasn't a star at all, it was andromeda, another whole entire galaxy. another whole galaxy. as if the stars are not enough. can we actually be here on this whirling speck of a globe and dare to think the natural is not supernatural, mind-boggling, and superlatives there arent words for.

joseph murphy once said that when we talk to I Ching we are talking to ourselves. that didnt disillusion me one bit. I am just awed to be part of the fabric. maybe just consider the Yi a trolley car into wider consciousness, something like LSD a supersonic jet (few can maneuver safely) ...and lots of other modes of transportation are available, too. but heck, it's even fun right here. chocolate and hot baths. who needs intergalactic travel.

troublewith the word GOD is that it is too small. atheists miss the point. The idea that someone could actually venture a hypothesis that says: GOD would be all -powerful and could end suffering, but "he" doesnt, so there is no GOD. HELL-O? wake up. you are IT. thats the superduper natural secret.

 

[bruce_g]

HELL-O? wake up. you are IT. thats the superduper natural secret.

Now it's not a secret anymore.

 

[bruce_g]

When do we perceive correctly?

We perceive it correctly when we experience it. As soon as it is "pinned" to an end or an object, we lose it. As we make something of it, it ceases being what it is and becomes what we think.

 

[bradford]

I want to return to the main topic for a moment.
Suppose I make the simple statement:
Bob worships God
If I say this, does it mean that I'm not an atheist?
Does this statement in any way affirm the extistence of God?
Does it say anything about the nature of God?
Or is it simply talking about Bob and Bob's beliefs?
If so, does this fact imply that God lives only in Bob's beliefs?

I think that if you look carefully at the grammar of the Zhouyi,
this is the kind of statements it is making. It is speaking of or
describing the human side of the human conception of the divine
and how humanity resonds to its perceptions. It really doesn't
make any assertions about the nature of divinity, or even its
existence. In this it has some things in common with Buddhism.
You are suffering. As work your way out of this state of suffering
you will gradually develop perceptions that are more reliable and
founded less on your own hopes and fears, and so are less likely to
keep you rolling around that wheel. Then, as your head clears,
if you still perceive a God, maybe then you will be more worthy of
having some fun with Him, and be less of a pain in His Divine Ass
who does nothing but ask stupid petty favors.

 

[bruce_g]

LOL… pain in his divine ass.

Brad, I’m glad you brought that subtlety up. It affirms something I perceive of the Yi. It isn’t whether divinity is or isn’t, but the individual's associations with their perceptions of whether he/she/it is or isn’t. Very context oriented. In this light, the atheist is as divine as the believer, each fulfilling their dao.

 

[peacecat]

Hello Kate,

As far as I'm concerned all things or phenomina are part of the natural universe, even the mysterious agencies...

There are two things I am certain about, and that is that I know I don't know and I'm nearly as sure that nobody else does either...

I suppose gaining knowledge is the process of simply moving information from the unknown to the known. The question is, in our collective minds have we moved 1% or 99% ?

Wisdom might simply be knowing you don't know and the IChing is the perfect facility to practice this wisdom and reflect on it, because not even trying to use your intellect isn't very wise either.

Hi Steve,

I agree with you that all phenomena are part of the natural universe. What seems supernatural could just be an unknown (by human standards) extension of the natural which therefore seems mysterious and powerful. But this natural universe must include other sentient life forms. We can't be the only intelligent species in the universe and some of these others beings are quite possibly more advanced than we are, seemingly supernatural. People used to think the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Perceptions change over time as they should I think.

The concept of higher powers (God or gods and goddesses) has been around a long time. It still has some kind of resonance for a lot of people. But really I believe more in the I Ching's focus on the Superior Man (Person). To me, the most important thing is to try to aim for that. The means of acquiring I Ching knowledge seems supernatural to me (and I do believe in some kind of higher power) but the instruction is to be deeply moral rather than deeply religious. And I think this is right for the deeply religious can often try to press their version of the world on others, whereas the deeply moral allows people to be who they are regardless of orientation or so I hope.

Please forgive me for being presumptuous in saying that everyone here believes in the supernatural. I made a false assumption. To me, it seemed an obvious connection, it still does really but at least this forum gives me the chance to encounter other positions and be respectful. My knowledge is very limited and some of what I believe to be true I will never be able to prove. That's something for me to live with and not rail against.

Kate : )

 

[stevev]

Instead of contemplating god ...

and aliens, here's a couple of facts about humans that might be worth considering.

It has only taken 12 years for our population to increase from 5.5 to 6.5 billion,

and 2% of the population owns 90% of the wealth.

I guess that also means that no other species owns anything !

 

[bruce_g]

and aliens, here's a couple of facts about humans that might be worth considering.

It has only taken 12 years for our population to increase from 5.5 to 6.5 billion,

and 2% of the population owns 90% of the wealth.

I guess that also means that no other species owns anything !

We all, animals and people, take the same with us when we leave.

 

[martin]

I think that if you look carefully at the grammar of the Zhouyi,this is the kind of statements it is making. It is speaking of or describing the human side of the human conception of the divine and how humanity resonds to its perceptions. It really doesn't make any assertions about the nature of divinity, or even its existence.

Is it not possible that such assertions are rarely made because the existence of something divine or supernatural was taken for granted in ancient China?
Rituals that could be termed 'religious' were common, they believed apparently that it was possible to communicate with deceased ancestors, they believed that oracles 'speak' the truth ..

If nearly everybody believed in such things there would be no need to assert the existence of something supernatural in a book like the Yi that focuses mainly on practical (mundane) issues.
But that doesn't mean that the authors thought that these things are irrelevant for the Yi or its use as an oracle. I think ..

Advocatus Dei (well, the ancient Chinese version of 'Dei')

 

[bradford]

Is it not possible that such assertions are rarely made because the existence of something divine or supernatural was taken for granted in ancient China?

It's taken for granted here too. In the US some 85% profess a belief in christianity, maybe 65% in eternal damnation, and a majority claim that they do not believe in evolution. 55% of the adult population also does not know that the Earth orbits the Sun once a year.
The disbelief in evolution goes a long way towards explaining why they are not in fact evolving. In this they are correct.
But the bottom line is that the writers who are writing at the cutting edge of their culture, and not pandering to the masses, are not catering to the broader cultural beliefs. We can't forget that the Yijing was not written for the folk population. But it was written for a class that had to act to some extent according to the cultural expectations of the masses.

 

[yly2pg1]

I want to return to the main topic for a moment.
Suppose I make the simple statement:
Bob worships God
If I say this, does it mean that I'm not an atheist?
Does this statement in any way affirm the extistence of God?
Does it say anything about the nature of God?
Or is it simply talking about Bob and Bob's beliefs?
If so, does this fact imply that God lives only in Bob's beliefs?

I think that if you look carefully at the grammar of the Zhouyi,
this is the kind of statements it is making. It is speaking of or
describing the human side of the human conception of the divine
and how humanity resonds to its perceptions. It really doesn't
make any assertions about the nature of divinity, or even its
existence. In this it has some things in common with Buddhism.
You are suffering. As work your way out of this state of suffering
you will gradually develop perceptions that are more reliable and
founded less on your own hopes and fears, and so are less likely to
keep you rolling around that wheel. Then, as your head clears,
if you still perceive a God, maybe then you will be more worthy of
having some fun with Him, and be less of a pain in His Divine Ass
who does nothing but ask stupid petty favors.

元 亨 利 貞

 

[yly2pg1]

...
But the bottom line is that the writers who are writing at the cutting edge of their culture, and not pandering to the masses, are not catering to the broader cultural beliefs. We can't forget that the Yijing was not written for the folk population. But it was written for a class that had to act to some extent according to the cultural expectations of the masses.

It is a compilation and selection of chronicle of each hexagram by a class of social elite. This process lasts for years ...