The NeverEnding Thread and Continuing Saga

[arabella]

I'm back with part three of my enquiry to do with a relationship central to my life since last year, that has progressed thus far to a friendship and I've been wondering if it ever goes any further. He's been grieving the loss of his spouse for a bit less than two years and that seems to occupy a lot of his attention, although we've enjoyed each other's company and, in moments that he is more relaxed, we seem to draw closer together. But mixed messages are rife, like our last get together when he was brave enough to invite me for dinner, but had a neighbor join us for dessert. On here, we all decided at the time he is just that gentlemanly and was afraid of overstepping the boundaries of our friendship.

Willow Fox, last time I posted, had projected I could expect progress this month or next. So far, the man in question has been away on a journey and just returned a few days ago, but we haven't yet spoken at all. I'm anxious to know whether he will be contacting me. I've determined at this point to just leave it to him what happens next.

Since I will be working quite near his home this weekend, and when I am over that way, he sometmes comes by, I asked, "Will he be coming to see me this weekend?" I cast Hexagram 45, unchanging. So I read various opinions on what this means and it seemed more a spiritual connection than a physical meeting? At any rate, not quite sure of the meaning, I asked "Will he be contacting me soon?" And in that instance I cast Hexagram 58 unchanging.

What I know of Hexgram 58 would indicate joy and celebration -- maybe an actual DATE? In any event, the fact that these are both judgment castings seems like the IChing is trying to get out a hammer and whap me on the head with the import of its wisdom. If only I were smart enough to get the message! Do I read correcctly here that he's definitely going to be in touch and this will be a joyous meeting? I've fooled myself on more than a few occasions and would like objective opinion, please.

 

[arabella]

Also, I do realise the predisposition against "Will this or that happen" questions. But I asked that because at the moment, this is all I really want to know. There's no deeper consideration going on, to be honest. I'm just trying to be prepared in my mind, which is a big thing with me. If taken off guard I tend to be very flustered, and I'm trying to keep my wits about me.

 

[willowfox]

I asked, "Will he be coming to see me this weekend?" I cast Hexagram 45, unchanging.

I asked "Will he be contacting me soon?" And in that instance I cast Hexagram 58 unchanging.

Lets hope the "hooligans" don't try and shout this thread down as well!

Hex 45 suggests yes.

Hex 58 is all about friends having a lovely chit chat, so the man wants to and will talk soon.

By the way "lucia", I am using the Wilhelm translation for reference.

 

[arabella]

Well friend Willow, just in case they do, I've asked a more properly accepted question too! By the way, many thanks for this reading of yours. It does sound hopeful I'll get a word in this weekend then, so I'll have to compose my face and be prepared. Thankx!

Asking in the other method, of probabilities on the current state of affairs, my enquiry was:
"What is the likelihood of hearing from this person soon?" And the answer to that one was
Hexagram 52, moving lines 3, and 6. Which becomes Hexagram 2. So I toddled off to the archives on here thinking this an odd answer and, lo and behold, others have decided this is something sexual?? Really? Well, if so, the plot thickens. Any thoughts on this?

 

[arabella]

And so it has transpired already. Sooner than I'd even expected. Met him in the grocery store a few hours ago [quite unusual, so rather synchronistic/serendipitous] and he waited outside for me to have that nice chit chat that Willow Fox has mentioned. And in the meanwhile, we seem to have hit a new more casual and relaxed type of conversation which was really refreshing.

Now,although it's a bit of a repeat I'm really intrigued by 52.3.6 changing to 2 -- because there seems to be another dimension there. Which would certainly bear out the idea that yes-no is a possible enquiry, with a certain type of answer and more open questions bring more open response from the IChing.

So I've been thinking about this on the way home. Can it be, if you ask a "yes" "no" question you DO in fact get a point blank answer; whereas, if you ask a "aspect of" or "probability" or "possibility" or "potential of" kind of question you get all the background; a whole variety of additional information? For instance, I have the first answer: yes. It's happened and that's a definite score for Willow Fox's approach to enquiry.

Now I also have this reading with changing lines, a whole different direction if I'm not mistaken to a similar, but differently worded enquiry.

I mean, IChing, as an "oracle" must have many aspects. Perhaps some quite literal, others with all sorts of background material. On the face of it, this is what was demonstrated when I asked similar question in different ways. What do you think?

 

[willowfox]

What do you think?

Don't over analyze, if it works, run with it. The trouble with the western mind is that people want to know how the clock works and in doing so, pull the clock to pieces to "see" how it "works" but the inevitable outcome is that they can never put the clock back together again, and they will never see how the clock works either. Some things, like "oracles" are best left as mysteries.

If people start pulling "oracles" to pieces then they will destroy them, if people start doubting that a question is "politely" correct or not then they will lack confidence in their answers. Therefore the simpler the question, the more straightforward the answer, and the more elaborate the question the more confusing the answer. I Ching is not a mathematical equation.

 

[hilary]

I'd suggest just asking, 'What will happen with this?' rather than 'Will x happen?' because a) it's simpler and b) it's how you are going to have to read the answer anyway. 'Gathering' and 'Joyful Communication' do not mean 'yes', they mean 'gathering' and 'joyful communication' - in this case, just as Willowfox said, meeting for a chat. And there's no relating hexagram because, as you said,

at the moment, this is all I really want to know. There's no deeper consideration going on, to be honest.

- you haven't taken any position on where you might want to take this.

Anyway, I'd much rather work with 'what will happen?' than 'what's the likelihood of x happening?' On the understanding, of course, that you're asking about what will probably happen and these things are not set in stone. But really, wouldn't you rather interpret a description of events than a description of a likelihood?

As for interpreting 52.3.6... impossible to say for sure what Yi is answering. Partly because I have no idea how Yi might portray a probability, mostly because it had already answered on this, and isn't necessarily going to repeat itself. FWIW, this reading sounds as if it might be a comment on your inner state, trying to stay on guard (solid and non-reactive as the mountain), but with some danger (line 3) that this could mean stifling your natural response.

Willowfox, it's good to hear you talking a bit about your approach. Only thing I would add is that thinking more about the question asked tends to make life simpler (at least, that's the objective), and spending longer contemplating a reading does not diminish the mystery.

 

[Trojina]

I mean, IChing, as an "oracle" must have many aspects. Perhaps some quite literal, others with all sorts of background material. On the face of it, this is what was demonstrated when I asked similar question in different ways. What do you think?

i think you may be better off asking this sort of question in Exploring Divination section....?

 

[arabella]

Oh hello there, Hilary and Trojan! I didn't realise you'd picked up on the question I was asking. How wonderful. I don't know the Exploring Divination segment; I've only said a few comments on this one so far, but I'll head over there and ask my question again.

Hilary, it's going to take me a bit to absorb what you have written and think it through. I'll be back in a nonce.

 

[arabella]

Ok Hilary, I'm with you. You're saying it's important to ask a question that leaves room for the IChing to speak openly, but don't go so wide as probabilities and likelihoods, because the answer is so secondary as to be meaningless. Also, the querent will limit what the answer can be by asking "will this happen" rather than "what will happen." Which presents problems like, if you ask will this happen? and the IChing says, "no it won't" you're dead in the water and back to the drawing board. If you ask, "WHAT will happen," you're definitely going to get an answer that matters to you. I may be catching on here.

Back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I had first heard about the IChing and was trying to learn to ask questions at all, SOMEWHERE I got the information that you can't ask questions that beg "yes" or "no" answers and you HAD to ask questions that were peripheral to the situation. Like, "what is the possibility" "what is the potential" "what is the likelihood" or "please tell me the aspect for." So, basically, you are defunking all of this. WOW. Square ONE.

I have to say, I follow Willow Fox with fascination and have developed some thoughts on what she is doing, which may or may not be accurate. I had a friend some years back who took impressions from playing cards that were drawn "randomly" from the deck and handed to him. Something in his eyes would literally change shape, and he would instantly explain his interpretation of the cards to the person who drew them, out loud. Once he'd glanced at the cards, he couldn't really even prevent himself from forming an opinion and saying what his interpretation was. From this amazing method of his, I had the most in-depth readings of my life and circumstances imaginable. Oddly, once he'd given the reading he had no memory of what he'd said, nor could he explain or tell you why he'd made certain comments. You just had to see what played out over time. In the few times he did this with me, for fun really, I got so much future information from him, it still hasn't all transpired YET. And that was about fifteen years ago!

But this was quite natural, completely unschooled or studied. It was just part of him. I could be totally in the wrong here, but I have the sense this is Willow Fox's talent as well and that, in many cases, it isn't possible to dissect what she knows from glancing over the reading and she can't tell you why she thinks what she thinks. I'm not saying it's "right" or "wrong" in relation to what most must do to learn and read the IChing. I am saying I think it's uncharted and unique in relation to divination.

I'll give another example here of what I mean about skills like this. Years back, when I was about five or so years old, I gradually started to become aware that, in certain situations, I could do healing for people. I don't know why or where it came from and it took me years and years to believe it myself. This skill is not predictable and has something to do with increased electrical energy that I don't control. I imagine people have a lot of things like this going on in varied dimensions and sometimes it is strong enough to make you aware of it. Anyway, I decided I'd try to home it in, make it more "predictable" and maybe get a credential, put a name on it, that made what I did naturally "acceptable" and gave it a definition. So I tried a few different schools that taught alternative methods of healing that were credentialed. They all made me ill. Literally. One in particular, I built up so much static electricity around me I felt like my skin was crawling. So I decided wherever this came from, I was going to leave it alone. Use it when and where appropriate; give up on wanting to make it "presentable" or have a name for what it was. It just "IS." If I can use it to relieve health problems for anyone, I will. But I have no idea WHY it works, or doesn't. A bit frustrating not to completely understand, but I think this equates somewhat with Willow Fox's analogy of pulling the clock apart. Just be glad you HAVE the clock and that it tells you the time.

If Willow Fox can't explain her method by the book, I'm not really surprised. But I don't expect to be able to emulate that either. I have the sense this is quite anomalous and alchemic.

 

[arabella]

By the way, my joking with Willow Fox about "hooliganism" in this thread was questioned by someone whose feelings it hurt. I was really kidding around. I have respect for everyone on here and the variations on addressing the IChing. I haven't found my own bonafide method yet, having as I said started out with some apparently weird instructions on enquiry and learning a great deal on this forum since February of the ways questioning is perceived and pursued by IChing devotees. There's a wide range of methods, no doubt. I wouldn't want to be seen as judging any of those methods or those who employ any of them. I am learning.

I wouldn't want to be seen as taking sides in whatever controversies there may be. I count all as friends.