the philosophy of the Yi

[heylise]

Great article Luis,

That explains a lot to me. I myself subscribe very much to history is the basis for predicting and knowing the future. Others think differently, they find that the future can be ‘told’, known by some magical act. Fortunetelling with the help of clairvoyance, Tarot, tea-leaves and crystal balls, things like that. They are the Wu. Of course their own experiences with life come into the mix as well, so some history is always part of it. The best Wu have a big knowledge about life, and the border between their knowledge and purely ‘seeing the future’ is usually vague.

What I like so much about the Yi is that the content of history is so big. The deposit of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of years and many intelligent minds. History not in a sense of battles and famines, the way you learn history in school, but as a vessel filled with everyday experiences, from cooking meals to sowing fields, and of course battles and hunts and famines as well, but all in the proportions in which they actually happened.

It is not at all difficult to translate it to circumstances of modern life. Or tangible things to mental ones. A famine has a mental counterpart. So do battles and travels and cooking pots.

First a compilation of experiences, from those comes a beginning of a philosophy, it happens in many places. But in this case it has been written down in the form of a system. IMO it is the combination of divination-cracks, and later the result of casting sticks or whatever, with experience. Combining something tangible with something mental: an ideal base for a system.

And that made the Yi into the very beginning of Chinese philosophy... the source of inspiration for the later developments of Chinese philosophy

LiSe

 

[meng]

Which statement is most true for you?

The Yijing has helped to shape my personal philosophy.

The Yijing’s philosophy has helped to shape me.

 

[rodaki]

hi Meng,

Nice question! that would be my take on it . .

how about 'The Yijing reminds me of the philososphy I impregnate'?
I feel that the Yi is homologous with my potential, which cannot be shaped, is my innate character, but it does shape my conscious adherence to that (I guess that sounds more like the 2nd statement, but with 'philosophy' as the seed or skeleton and 'me' as the actual fleshing out of potentials)

rodaki

 

[Sparhawk]

Which statement is most true for you?

The Yijing has helped to shape my personal philosophy.

The Yijing’s philosophy has helped to shape me.

IMO, one doesn't exclude the other, on the contrary. For me both are true.

 

[crystalline]

IMO, one doesn't exclude the other, on the contrary. For me both are true.

But Meng's question is which one is MOST true.

And, while they might not be mutually exclusive, they show a quite different picture.

In the first statement you make your own philosophy, it's a personal 'thing'.
In the second statement you imply that the Yi has a philosophy and that you 'follow' it.

I don't remember if we were also discussing ethics in this thread but I do suscribe to the notion that there are no ethics inherent in the Yi. The Yi is a mirror that simply reflects what it sees. It doesn't tell you what to do any more that it tells you what to think.

If you want it to be a philosophy and a code of ethics, it gets a bit too close to a religion for my taste.

 

[maremaria]

Thank you everybody for your kind words about my story. Rosada , to write 64x6 stories requires a deep understanding of Yi . and that is something I don’t possess . But I liked the box idea.

Which statement is most true for you?

The Yijing has helped to shape my personal philosophy.

The Yijing’s philosophy has helped to shape me.

Reading the first statements the first word comes to my mind is freedom. As for the second statements, the word is restriction. I feel like running away from it. So my answer is statement #1 just because I feel more comfortable in it.


history is the basis for predicting and knowing the future.
This reminds me a game we played with my little niece when she was younger (about 2years old). She was afraid of the sudden noise of thunders so I tell her when she sees a lighting in the sky then a thunder will come, so she excepted the noise and wasn’t afraid any more.

What I like so much about the Yi is that the content of history is so big. The deposit of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of years and many intelligent minds. History not in a sense of battles and famines, the way you learn history in school, but as a vessel filled with everyday experiences, from cooking meals to sowing fields, and of course battles and hunts and famines as well, but all in the proportions in which they actually happened.
LiSe

I like that ! I have heard people that never have been to schools, farmers, fishermans, that lived close to the nature and by observation they can talk about things one can read to the works of great philosophers. After all, what is a philosopher ? A lover of wisdom. the one how observes and tries to understand how things work.

Maria

 

[Tohpol]

But Meng's question is which one is MOST true.

And, while they might not be mutually exclusive, they show a quite different picture.

In the first statement you make your own philosophy, it's a personal 'thing'.
In the second statement you imply that the Yi has a philosophy and that you 'follow' it.

I don't remember if we were also discussing ethics in this thread but I do suscribe to the notion that there are no ethics inherent in the Yi. The Yi is a mirror that simply reflects what it sees. It doesn't tell you what to do any more that it tells you what to think.

If you want it to be a philosophy and a code of ethics, it gets a bit too close to a religion for my taste.

I agree, but backing up a bit, that's like saying which is the most true: the sun or the moon? Yin or the Yang? They both play are part and the question may be which do we gravitate towards the most? For that we can see the personal philosophy and the Yi philosophy can meet in the middle or even become the same as we continue look more and more deeply into those reflections.

I guess my point is that philosophy may be an inadequate word to use. I do think the principles go beyond any one philosophy or code of ethics and thus do not lend themselves to either / or summaries.

Topal

 

[Tohpol]

Great article Luis,

That explains a lot to me. I myself subscribe very much to history is the basis for predicting and knowing the future.

Yes indeedy. The rich and many layers of myth and archetype embedded in the past must give life to the linear formations of historical record which only tell half the story. I only wish humans would learn from these patterns of the past instead of repeating the same cyclic mistakes...Around we go again...

Topal

 

[Sparhawk]

But Meng's question is which one is MOST true.

There are no degrees of 'truth' but 'truth'. The moment 'truth' is mentioned it immediately offers a dichotomy, an exclusion. There are only opposites of "truth," just as "is" has "isn't". When I say that for me both are true I simply mean that. I see no dichotomy in the two options. Both apply because both are true to what I feel the Yi is.

Since you mentioned "religion"--although "dogma" would be a better choice of words--, it is that, of any kind, which is fed by fabricated, so called "truths," offering only exclusion in return.

I don't remember if we were also discussing ethics in this thread but I do suscribe to the notion that there are no ethics inherent in the Yi. The Yi is a mirror that simply reflects what it sees. It doesn't tell you what to do any more that it tells you what to think.

So, in that mirror that is the Yi, you don't see a discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation? I do.

Ethics has nothing to do with religion. Religion has to do with "God(s, dess, etc.)", which isn't the case with the Yi nor it would ever be. On the other hand, unless one is a sociopath, what's good and bad, on a daily basis, is easily recognized and there shouldn't be a need to question oneself "what would (fill the blank with deity of choice) do?"

When I brought up the character of the Junzi is because I believe that, if any philosophy is to be found in the Yi, the most obvious place to find examples of it would be in its actions. If the Yijing is a mirror, it is in the archetypical image of the Junzi that we will most likely identify ourselves.

 

[crystalline]

There are no degrees of 'truth' but 'truth'. The moment 'truth' is mentioned it immediately offers a dichotomy, an exclusion. There are only opposites of "truth," just as "is" has "isn't". When I say that for me both are true I simply mean that. I see no dichotomy in the two options. Both apply because both are true to what I feel the Yi is.

Since you mentioned "religion"--although "dogma" would be a better choice of words--, it is that, of any kind, which is fed by fabricated, so called "truths," offering only exclusion in return.



So, in that mirror that is the Yi, you don't see a discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation? I do.

Ethics has nothing to do with religion. Religion has to do with "God(s, dess, etc.)", which isn't the case with the Yi nor it would ever be. On the other hand, unless one is a sociopath, what's good and bad, on a daily basis, is easily recognized and there shouldn't be a need to question oneself "what would (fill the blank with deity of choice) do?"

When I brought up the character of the Junzi is because I believe that, if any philosophy is to be found in the Yi, the most obvious place to find examples of it would be in its actions. If the Yijing is a mirror, it is in the archetypical image of the Junzi that we will most likely identify ourselves.

No, I don't see a discipline that deals with what is 'good' and 'bad'.
Good and Bad are terribly subjective idea, IMO. If the Yi reflects what "is" it doesn't mean it needs to pass judgement on it.
I think I saw a list in this thread earlier and I was a bit puzzled. Where exactly does it say that one should 'stay away from inferior people'? Or "prefer good over evil"?? or even "good will always triumph"?!

I think we read these things in the Yi because we are so used to there being good and evil and there being a right way and a wrong way and a 'path', some of us spend our lives looking for the darn path so hard that we forget to walk. But that's just us. Our projection. Nature, which is kind of how I see the Yi, just *is*.

But anyway, as to whether there is a dichotomy or not in those two alternatives that Meng posted, I think it's not clear. From the purely logical pov, they are not mutually exclusive but I think that the spirit in which he posted them they are meant to be alternatives.

If both are equally true for you, questions for you and topal (and anybody for whom they are both equally true): how does your personal philosophy differ from that of the Yi?

 

[Sparhawk]

No, I don't see a discipline that deals with what is 'good' and 'bad'.
Good and Bad are terribly subjective idea, IMO. If the Yi reflects what "is" it doesn't mean it needs to pass judgement on it.
I think I saw a list in this thread earlier and I was a bit puzzled. Where exactly does it say that one should 'stay away from inferior people'? Or "prefer good over evil"?? or even "good will always triumph"?

I must question, what kind of mirror are you holding? Of course there are no explicit instances in the text of such things. However, they can be inferred.

I think we read these things in the Yi because we are so used to there being good and evil and there being a right way and a wrong way and a 'path', some of us spend our lives looking for the darn path so hard that we forget to walk. But that's just us. Our projection. Nature, which is kind of how I see the Yi, just *is*.

Hmmm, paralysis by analysis? Either you resonate with the text--contextually, situationally, or otherwise--or you don't. If you don't find images of correct and incorrect paths to follow (good and bad by any other name) in the Yi, then I can't help you.

From the purely logical pov, they are not mutually exclusive but I think that the spirit in which he posted them they are meant to be alternatives.

Please, give Bruce (Meng) and me some credit. I know what he meant in the question and what he offered as challenging alternatives. More important, he knows I understood the question and the alternatives. No need to "translate" or "explicate" his intention. Still, I answered the way I see it. No more, no less.

If both are equally true for you, questions for you and topal (and anybody for whom they are both equally true): how does your personal philosophy differ from that of the Yi?

For all the effort we all try to keep "objectivity," in the study and interpretation of the Yi, on the table, there's no such thing as an objective approach to it. Unless, of course, you are only interested in the history and philology of the classic as a scholar in the field of academia. Still, serious historians will agree that even with the best available hard facts about any subject, they still have to use personal interpretation in the account of those facts. Even Richard Smith, one of the most knowleadgeble contemporary scholars in the study of the Yijing, says in the introduction of his latest book: "I might mention in closing that my interest in the Yijing rest entirely on its significance as a cultural artifact. I am not a true believer in any sense. I do take the Changes seriously, but primarily because every thinker of any consequence in traditional China did so, and it is important, I believe, to understand why."

Being that as it is, I cannot give you an objective answer to the question of where "my philosophy" may differ from that of the Yi. I've been very careful, in my contributions to this thread, not to say and/or name what the supposed philosophy of the Yi is. I will not repeat myself. I do strive though to keep on track with what "I" see reflected in the Yi, which is demanding enough. Obviously, that is something different from what you see or anybody else. Even those that may agree with my POV. And "that" is the beauty of the Yijing.

 

[crystalline]

I do strive though to keep on track with what "I" see reflected in the Yi, which is demanding enough. Obviously, that is something different from what you see or anybody else. Even those that may agree with my POV. And "that" is the beauty of the Yijing.

That seems a bit odd to me. That it has a philosophy but it's not the same for everybody.

I'd say it sounds like it doesn't have a philosophy.

So, who are 'inferior people'? The noisy neighbor, the loveless lover, the evil stepmother???

Harsh.

 

[diamanda]

When i wrote that list in the beginning, i sort of (perhaps naively)
thought that i didn't need to ponder tons on my choice of words;
because i thought that people who love the Yi are on the side of
the Good, and would instinctively know what i meant. Well, i was
wrong to think people would know what i meant, and so be it.

what's good and bad, on a daily basis, is easily recognized

One would indeed think it should be easily recognised. And i'd like to
believe it is indeed, despite the philosophical (yes philosophical! i've
mentioned the 'Ph' word again) debate here.

I am still baffled by the comments of questioning where does the I Ching
deal with what's good and bad; there are so many references to evil, bad,
to weak people, inferior people, darkness, as opposed to light, what is
right, decency, and so on, that i really can't see how one can miss them.

I was trying to find words to define 'good'; that's the best i can do:
'Good' is what promotes and furthers life.
In our selves, and in those around us.
The more we further life in our selves, and in others, the better.
'Bad' is what hurts life.
It's all a matter of nature economy.
Further life the best way you can, while avoiding hurting life.
That's not subjective at all; it's a natural law.
And very easy to recognise.
We can debate it all we want, it still won't change.

To do the maximum to further/promote life, with minimum damage/hurt.
If one does not understand what this means, then there's no point trying
to explain it any further.

I would like to believe that everyone in this forum, and everyone who
loves the Yi, despite all discussion and disagreement on semantics, are
indeed people who are on the side of life at large.

 

[crystalline]

To do the maximum to further/promote life, with minimum damage/hurt.

This good/bad thing is, to me, an overly simplistic way of looking at, not only the Yi, but the world.

It's really hard to define good and bad without immediately, implicitly, passing judgement on meat eaters, pro choice people, pest killers and many others.

If you feel you can tell who the 'inferior' people are and what is good and what is bad, then good for you! You probably sleep very well at night.

I guess at this point we should just agree to disagree.

 

[diamanda]

I understand it may sound over-simplistic to you. It has actually taken
me very many years of tying myself up in knots with all sorts, on these
issues. This is how i see it at this stage of my life, and so far i have
found this 'simple' rule to hold true. I'll change my mind if i ever see
solid and real evidence to the contrary.

The 'rule' may sound 'simple', but its application in life and situations
can become very complicated, when one tries to 'calculate' and balance
benefit & disadvantage on highly complicated issues such as meat eating
etc, so i can see your point there.

 

[Sparhawk]

That seems a bit odd to me. That it has a philosophy but it's not the same for everybody.

I'd say it sounds like it doesn't have a philosophy.

So, who are 'inferior people'? The noisy neighbor, the loveless lover, the evil stepmother???

Harsh.

Iulian K. Shchutskii, a long time ago, in his "Researches on the I Ching" said something that, in hindsight, seems both obvious and to make a lot of sense. He emphasized the importance of reading the Yijing metaphorically. Metaphors ring different bells in different people. Hence my comment about subjectivity. If you keep reading the Yi literally you will never find good answers, or anything for that matter.

 

[martin]

Not sure if this is already ethics or 'philosophy' (whatever that means), perhaps it's pre-ethical and pre-philosophical, but there are a few things that I can say about the junzi, I think.

- The junzi has a 'thoughtful' approach to life. He thinks and observes before he acts. He doesn't run blindly after every whim or impulse.
- The junzi strives to do what is best.
- The junzi understands that what is best depends on circumstances. He understands that what is good or wise in one situation may be not so good or unwise in another situation.
- The junzi does not only strive to do what is best for himself. He has a wider view and takes the needs of others into consideration.

Agree?

 

[Sparhawk]

Careful, Martin, the discussion as degenerated into a minimalist debate of what is "good" and "bad," which appears that shall remain undefined.

 

[meng]

One thing I know: two good hearted Yi folk can hold two very different ethical values on the same matter. And, if each of them inquired the Yi of the right or ethical thing to do, their advise could only be interpreted personally.

Perhaps this has more to do with natural principles than with human ethics, in that the uniting (I think Listener mentioned Uniting?) principle would be working in each of their readings - even if neither was called upon to change their own ethics.

So, again I come to the picture of ethics as individual character traits, as well as collective traits of the species, What still remains lacking in this picture is the sort of heaven's mandate which is scripted out, note for bloody note. But, then again, maybe for someone else, that is a very nice picture! I remain pretty convinced, there is no "almighty" ethical value, only different philosophical views, based on ones own experience of it.

 

[Sparhawk]

So, again I come to the picture of ethics as individual character traits, as well as collective traits of the species, What still remains lacking in this picture is the sort of heaven's mandate which is scripted out, note for bloody note. But, then again, maybe for someone else, that is a very nice picture! I remain pretty convinced, there is no "almighty" ethical value, only different philosophical views, based on ones own experience of it.

Actually, I agree with most of what you said above. And no, there is no Mandate of Heaven or Almighty's word in the Yi. I still sustain though that there is a recognizable behavioral pattern that can well be called ethics or, at the very least, a precursor of what can unmistakable be called as such. And "ethics," by definition of the word, is a branch of philosophy. I only pointed to where in the Yi examples of such behavior can be found.

 

[meng]

Actually, I agree with most of what you said above. And no, there is no Mandate of Heaven or Almighty's word in the Yi. I still sustain though that there is a recognizable behavioral pattern that can well be called ethics or, at the very least, a precursor of what can unmistakable be called as such. And "ethics," by definition of the word, is a branch of philosophy. I only pointed to where in the Yi examples of such behavior can be found.

Well, I think there most certainly is the mandate of heaven in the Yi, but it always requires the magical ingredient before it can be known: context! It's like trying to hold water in your hand. Once you let it go, there it went!

 

[Sparhawk]

That almost sounded religious to me... LOL! I agree with your premise about context being everything in divination though.

 

[meng]

Hey, maybe now we can indulge the meaning of religious. *snickers*

 

[rodaki]

Not sure if this is already ethics or 'philosophy' (whatever that means), perhaps it's pre-ethical and pre-philosophical, but there are a few things that I can say about the junzi, I think.

- The junzi has a 'thoughtful' approach to life. He thinks and observes before he acts. He doesn't run blindly after every whim or impulse.
- The junzi strives to do what is best.
- The junzi understands that what is best depends on circumstances. He understands that what is good or wise in one situation may be not so good or unwise in another situation.
- The junzi does not only strive to do what is best for himself. He has a wider view and takes the needs of others into consideration.

Agree?

agree agree!!
with this and many other things said here, thoroughly enjoying this thread ompom: (closest to a dancing emoticon I could find! )

rodaki

 

[lienshan]

Is all and everything contained in 64 hexagrams?

YES ... exactly 64 different hexagrams are needed to explain everything

The philosophy of the Yi is the King Wen order of the 64 hexagrams needed to explain everything :bows:

 

[Sparhawk]

Hey, maybe now we can indulge the meaning of religious. *snickers*

Perhaps. Let's just make sure we include lovemaking in it. For what I gather, it is quite religious: there are lots of "oh God!" and "you Devil!" in it...

 

[rodaki]

Luis!!

rodaki

 

[martin]

'Shall we do Yi tonight, my cute little dragon? '

 

[Sparhawk]

'Shall we do Yi tonight, my cute little dragon? '

Ahem, I'll throw the coins but you'll pick them up from the floor...

 

[martin]

Darn, one coin rolled under the bed! Oh, look who is there, under the bed. Wow!
Now what? Ah, we will tell Luis that the coins said 'retire!', 33.
And Luis is very polite, so ..

See Luis, that's what you get when you are too lazy to pick up the coins!