The value of ritual?

[bruce]

Do you take bubble baths?
Do you lie in bed in a particular position when you're contemplative?
Do you touch a favorite object often, for good luck or a good vibe?
Do you pray?
Do you meditate?
Do you light incense or candles to create a mood?
Is everything you do practical?

Why have humans always practiced ritual? I?m not talking about mere traditions, ticks or habits, but about personal rituals that connect us to the unseen.

Any thoughts?

 

[luz]

Well, I actually liked what you said the other day about warm showers being also kind of cleansing... most of my attempts to meditate, etc. happen in the shower.. lol

But that's about it, from the above list.. well, it's not even in the above list.. but at the same time, NO, not everything I do is practical...

But, do all these things really connect us to the unseen? Everytime we zoom out either in a blissful state or just because we.. zoom out... is that a connection? I don't know..

I'm also interested in rituals people use to consult the I Ching or other forms of divination, rituals people use to achieve things, rituals that border on witchcraft, I think. Like I have scanned books on 'magic', or whatever, can't remember the name. And the spells in them look mostly like harmless rituals..

 

[bruce]

I was recently given an Anasazi pottery shard, estimated to be around 3,500-4,000 years old, by a near stranger (native american woman) who said ?I was supposed to have it?. I didn?t ask how she knew this, cuz that would be a stupid question.

I just learned something about Anasazi pottery finds. Each fall the women gathered their clay pots, brought them to a ceremonial breaking ground, where pots would be broken into shards.

The idea behind the ritual was to put asunder any ?hard feelings? within their community. As Silent Crow explained to me, these people had to live together. Quite a sacrifice too, considering each pot was carefully made and decorated by the same hands that broke them into shards.

 

[bruce]

 

[lightofdarkness]

ritual firmly sets a context to work in. Thus the ritual in yarrow stick use etc forces a focus on the question over an exaggerated time period to make the IC filter 'fit' the question well... it acts to GROUND.

Ritual extends into the collective in the form of traditions where it ties all members of the collective to the collective through traditions etc - hex 26 covers this in the context of general harmonising/balancing (and so pairs with 11). hex 62 covers this in the context of promotion of traditions, and so rituals, to maintain the structure of the collective - gets into issues of loyalty (and so pairs with 56).

The implication here, given that we can tie IC hexagram qualities to basic feelings in all of us as species-members, is that ritual is hard-coded with varying degrees of expression.

In sports this gets into issues of 'luck' where if I play well in some game I will ritualise, habituate, the steps PRIOR to that particular game into a GENERAL algorithm I believe will bring me luck - and 'run' that algorithm before each game from then on! - and make excuses if things dont work, the luck does not repeat ;-) .. habits are hard to change once set-down.

the interaction of text and context elicits a sense of 'wholeness' that is pleasing to one in that both the conscious and the unconscious are integrated, all is 'one' and we like to re-create that vibe if we can but often fail to recognise change at work - what is past is past ;-)

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

To take things further - focus on the phrase "tell me about ritual" and EVERY hexagram, the WHOLE of the IC is applicable since it covers 'all there is' and the 'fractal' nature means the SAME patterns are shown at all levels of analysis.

Whenever one asks a question of the IC so all hexagrams will elicit some aspect that is applicable to the question - the LOCAL context will sort the hexagrams into best-fit/worst-fit but they all apply.

Since we can map the QUALITIES of the IC into our emotions/feelings as a species so what we find in the IC is 'in' us. The UNIVERSALS give us the 'vague' and local context then PARTICULARISES. That said, local context can aid in fleshing out the universals.

So - hex 37 is about ritual as is hex 49, hex 02, hex 01, hex 35 etc etc etc ;-)

Rather than ask the IC a question, we can also use the IC as a filter for all questions, to show all of the aspects of that question and so its possible answers.

Chris.

 

[patty123]

I do pray,in a traditional way, when I call on IC. I always feel the connection to a higher level, I also light a traditional candle, like the ones, as children, lighted at church. With this, I feel the warmth of the connection to IC as well.

I found IC on 1980. A very dear friend gave me an old copy of The Book of Changes (the Wilhem translation) with two wonderful prologues by Jorge Luis Borges and Carl Jung, he also gave three chinese antique coins for my readings. My book is in Spanish and is dated 1956. I considered IC a treasure and my dearest friend, therefore everytime I call upon him, I observe reverence, respect and awe. I always observe my ritual.

 

[cguleff]

Ritual seems such a natural part of life to me, but of course I was raised in a culture (Greek Orthodox) that values ritual in everyday life, and I later married and converted into the Jewish faith/culture, which has traditionally valued ritual. I have included symbols and traditions of other cultures, such as Taoist/I Ching, into my life as well.

Currently, I light ritual candles for various intentions for friends who are sick or in distress. I burn incense. I have a number of mystical/sacred images in my home, one of them with a perpetual light in front of it. I play and listen to quite a bit of spiritual music in my home -- worldwide. All this means a lot to me.

 

[yly2pg1]

Cguleff, could you help me to understand this word - pikuah nefesh? What is its real meaning?

 

[cguleff]

Yly2pg1,

Nefesh is the root level of soul, the part of soul most closely linked to life as we live it in the physical plane of experience -- our bodies. It is the basis or foundation of all higher aspects of soul (ruach, neshama, chayah, and yehidah) and is identified with the physical body.

Pikuah nefesh pertains the the most important mitzvah (commandment, law, good deed) of honoring and preserving life -- even acting to save a life. According to pikuah nefesh, nearly any other Jewish law may be broken in order to save a life. Therefore, a medical practitioner would be absolved of abstaining from work in observance of the Sabbath if a life could be saved in the process. A Jew would also be allowed to alter kosher dietary laws in extreme cases if it were necessary to sustain life for a period of time.

Taken a step further, this concept shows a reverence for the physical plane of existence. We must live in, deal with and care for our bodies. Living in the world has spiritual meaning and can be an important part of soul development.

 

[yly2pg1]

Thanks Cguleff.
That is very helpful.

 

[jte]

I have a ritual - I "sacrifice" food and drink by offering it to God/the universe/"the spiritual beings" usually for at least a few minutes before I eat it.

I started doing this within the last few years, in conjunction with increased I Ching usage - it just "seems like a good thing to do." I'm aware that Buddists and some other religions (Hindus?) also do this.

I also pray - I pray most every day briefly (about 10 min) and for a longer period (1/2 hour - 1 hour) on Sunday mornings. I have a prayer that I recite aloud or by subvocalizing and then I try to maintain a meditative, reverential state for some time afterwards. On Sunday I start off with the vocal prayer, then "meditate", then end up with a "finishing" vocal prayer.

So, those are my rituals...

- Jeff

 

[bruce]

"seems like a good thing to do."

I like that reason, Jeff. Thanks. They sound like beautiful rituals.

 

[pakua]

Lightofdarkness,

"ritual firmly sets a context to work in. Thus the ritual in yarrow stick use etc forces a focus on the question over an exaggerated time period to make the IC filter 'fit' the question well... it acts to GROUND. "

Are you saying that the longer ritual of using yarrow sticks will yield a better/more applicable response than using a 1 click computer program?

 

[lightofdarkness]

Depends on the context. In the yarrow stick method there is a bias to yin states and as such reflects the REACTIVE bias in ancient times as well as the tie of, dependence of, the individual/collective to external context - IOW the method suits the period and so would elicit 'value'.

That period includes a recognition of some external 'force' and the use of ritual to 'attract' that force's attention to the particular (the overall focus on sensory exaggerations etc etc to open-up all aspects and so relate holistically to that 'force' - to let it 'in', to break all ego boundaries etc prior to the moment of collapsing it all into a particular hexagram being an answer to the question. It is a form of establishing 'connection' to then 'receive' the message - the connection is not crisp in an 'instant' and so ritual is required to open up a communications channel - this also gets into the 'housekeeping' properties of hex 23 - and into the whole area of the notion of 'channelling' etc)

In modern times we have become increasingly yang and self-focused, we assert the context more than adapt to the existing, such that the 'quick' methods of coin tossing etc 'fits' the times; the ritual has been sped-up into an intense moment of coin-toss -> result and XOR-ness and we can use the IC, or misuse it, quickly but in so doing can be flippant in our manner.

The issue here is that this quickness can make things too mechanistic rather than organic, partial rather than holistic. The current times focus on the immediate 'hit', on maximising bandwidth to get something "NOW", and in doing so excludes time elements where things need to 'mature' (hex 53). IOW the high bandwidth approach can be 'immature' (hex 54) at times and that will come out in coin toss etc etc (that said, 54 can also represent an over-exaggerated ritual, too much energy put in at the start that goes nowhere, does nothing, in the end - the relationship just 'fades away' after a passionate beginning)

Note that we are not talking the 'reality' of these methods for that is more suggestive of the whole IC applying to the moment with the hexagrams sorted into best-fit/worst-fit ordering and our consciousness being 'attracted' more to the single best fit and ignoring all of the rest that are in fact also applicable (but to lesser degrees)

IOW the 'success' of the IC from the use of 'random' methods is more due to ALL hexagrams being applicable to the moment such that ANY hexagram will be found to be 'meaningful'. The trick is to then find the right sequence of those 64 hexagrams that give the 'true' best fit for the LOCAL conditions (thus 'random' methods could elicit the 'worst fit' hexagram BUT it will be found 'meaningful' if seemingly a bit out of left field - the ICPlus questioning approach allows for a more consistant acquiring of the 'best fit' but also requires one to have trust in onself in answering the questions 'honestly')

Computer programs based on pseudo-random number generators tied to the system clock can be too quick and so avoid the sense of 'opening up' that comes with ritual where the focus of attention, and so one's personal involvement in the question process, is hightened. (as you focus more so you work recursively, you focus the question on itself and in doing so set the ground out of which comes the qualities of the IC 'naturally' due to the IC being a metaphor for our 'full spectrum' of meanings derived from the neurology)

IOW for 'deep' questions some form of ritual method (or even my questions method that can take seconds or days as one thinks about the answers) recruits both NOW (high bandwidth) and PAST/FUTURE (time) and as such reflects the tools we use as a species to resolve a paradox (where the issue is of some A and some NOT-A existing in the same space and time, and so a paradox, such that mediation is required to 'resolve' the issue -when we ask questions we are not sure of the current situation, we are in 'two' minds about it or are in an 'indeterminate' state - and so a paradox condition of A/NOT-A expressed at the same time, even if 'vague' in the form of a superposition awaiting 'collapse' into an XOR of EITHER A OR NOT-A aka EITHER A or B)

If you want to use 'random' aka 'external force' methodologies (random and miracle share the same meaning space overall ;-)), ritual can aid in openning up oneself/collective and so to asking the appropriate question - IOW there is ritual to 'consult' and THEN once that context is set, a particular question is elicited, concentrated upon, and the hexagram elicitation process begun. - IOW we 'sense' we need to ask 'something'; set-up a 'ritual' context and then, once set, form the question and then, once formed, derive a hexagram. (note the movement from general to particular). We do not bring the particular question to the context, we set the context and let it 'push' to elicit the question.

The setting of the context brings out the IC as a filter in general in one's unconscious such that the formation of the question has already begun when you consciously, explicitly, choose what to ask; my questioning method works off the principle that you already have a vague idea what is going on in your unconscious but its needs to be expressed clearly, crisply, rather than a vague sense of 'something'. The general form of the questions is based on analysis of how the neurology works when dealing with the 'vague' - we move through a journey from general to particular for any analysis of some 'new' situation such that the general patterns are present before one particularises consciously and we can exploit that.

Chris.

 

[yly2pg1]

Quote:
<font size="-2">ritual firmly sets a context to work in. Thus the ritual in yarrow stick use etc forces a focus on the question over an exaggerated time period to make the IC filter 'fit' the question well... it acts to GROUND.</font>

An idea strikes me days ago when i first catch this exact phrase - simulation, be it in the computer or in the yallow sticks (which is only the medium).

What i can gather at this moment is that our mind, in order to process the data into useful information, does perform many loops of data refinement. The quality of the answer received in Yi depends on how complete the processing loops achieve!

That also explains why when one ask a "compounded" question, the iteration process may not reach the "bottom" information one is seeking.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Working from the perspective of accepting the main methodologies, yarrow or coin:

The use of yarrow sticks or some computer simulation, favours outcomes of a context that is energy conserving, reactive, protective. There is an overall integrating bias here and so consideration of AND dynamics, recognition of those dynamics operating in the context.

The use of coins or some computer simulation favours outcomes of a context that is energy expending, proactive, exploitive. - any position of asserting context etc comes with a more XOR perspective, self-contained, competitive etc and so the XOR nature of the coin toss will 'fit' better.

IOW the energy dynamic of the context needs to be considered prior to selecting the 'best fit' methodology in deriving hexagrams. Using coins in a situation that is energy-conserving will give an exaggerated response - recommend energy expending when it should perhaps be more energy conserving to 'fit' the context.

The same situation for yarrow sticks when applied to an energy-expending situation, the response will be under-exaggerated and so not necessarily 'fit' the energy dynamic specific to the context - there may be a bias to being reactive when the overall context dynamic favours more proactive perspectives in general.

The questions method gets passed this in that the user's bias of energy will be in their perspective overall and so come out in the answers they give that are used to build the hexagram (indicating that the more 'aspectual' individual will choose line change answers more times than the 'sure' individual)

That said, the individuals would then need to consider THEIR bias in energy in the context of the particular context's bias in energy. Thus answering the questions about an energy-conserving context in an energy-expending manner may elicit results that are not the 'best fit' overall but skewed by the in-built perspective of the questioner.

In this sort of case, RITUAL, would include differentiating energy states to ensure the 'correct', particular, methodology is used.

Chris.

 

[byzantine]

Uhmm Chris..

I dun quite understand what you meant by yarrow sticks favouring outcomes of a context that is energy conserving, reactive n protective. While coins favour outcomes of a context that is energy expending, proactive and exploitive. Would it be too much trouble if u could give some examples to illustrate your point?

Irving

 

[lightofdarkness]

There is a bias when using yarrow sticks to eliciting more yin oriented hexagrams than yang. As such this favours interactions with a yin-oriented context in that the dynamics of that context will be reflected more in a yin-biased divination system.

In the dynamics of XOR/AND, differentiating/integrating, yang/yin, as the collective becomes more yang so it becomes less integrating, more differentiating, more XOR, more focused on the discrete/self-contained. Thus a coin-based divination system of XOR, 50/50, rather than the bias to yin, would 'fit' the XOR oriented context in that it would reflect better the dynamics of that particular context.

Thus in a yin-biased context with a yin-biased divination system I may elicit hex 02, but in a yang-biased context the preferred elicitation would be 24 - the only difference being the bottom line - the line that sets the ground, the general context within which all else is developed. IOW the methodology can under-value/over-value a state when used in the wrong context.

OTOH, the questions method allows for the energy issues to be built-in to the one asking the questions; the more yang the more 'yes/no', the more yin the more 'could be', changing etc - IOW the method does not need to know about the context, those issues are included in the actions of the questioner in answering the questions.

Since there is no such activity in yarrow or coin toss, so the state of the context is required to determine which derivation system is the 'best fit'.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Perhaps to FORCE the issue re yang bias where we move from 50/50 coin to a definite yang bias, one could take the yarrow stick method and reverse the associations to elicit a yang bias.

 

[byzantine]

Thanx for taking e time to explain things further Chris, much appreciated.

Irving

 

[yly2pg1]

How about I Ching PLUS?
Is it for energy-conserving or energy expending? or neutral?

 

[yly2pg1]

quote:
<font size="-2">OTOH, the questions method allows for the energy issues to be built-in to the one asking the questions; the more yang the more 'yes/no', the more yin the more 'could be', changing etc - IOW the method does not need to know about the context, those issues are included in the actions of the questioner in answering the questions.</font>

So we have the energy state of a question!

 

[lightofdarkness]

Through the use if IDM to analyse, so ICPlus is in the position of identifying the different methods and so a focus on different structures etc.. IOW its focus on parts, on structures within the whole structure, gives us the spectrum covering low to high energies and we can select which one to use of we choose to prefer to let randomness or the 'external force' derive meaning for us.

That said, the ICPlus "divination" element is on the use of general questions and so 'free' of the energy differences in that the user will introduce those in the manner in which they react to the questions:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/icplusProact.html

The focus is then on the user, and so a context-sensitive base, to determine the context bias and reflect that in the manner in which they answer the questions. Thus a more 'flow' focus rather than 'rigid' focus will favour selection of change terms (was this, now not so and so implying that etc) rather than IS this, NOT that.

The set of questions provided are but a sample of possible questions - the main focus being on general-to-particular development of 'yin/yang' - aka 'integrating/differentiating'. LOCAL context will give those qualities labels to fit that context. As such the proactive IC works on the individual but can be used for analysis of groups etc etc. .... THEN we can add-in the XOR material to give finer details re structure etc.

After a while of using this format so you start to get the general idea and can do it in your head... from there it can become 'habit' and so
reflective of ritual - which can be a problem in that habituation of ritual allows for the lose of what the ritual was supposed to do in the first place (like prayer where its intent was in changing mental states but it became habit and so for many has lost its roots - you can make a prayer from just humming if you like! it is the feel that elicits the mental change)

Chris.

 

[pakua]

Thanks Chris, it's very interesting to consider changing the method to suit the context.

Now I see why I seem to get more comfortable answers when I use a more yin-biased method, such as marbles in a bag, rather than the coins.

I'm not comfortable answering the questions in your method though... it's not just a question of honesty, it also has to do with issues of clarity - many times I just don't know the answers, and it feels like guessing or wishful thinking.

You said above "In this sort of case, RITUAL, would include differentiating energy states to ensure the 'correct', particular, methodology is used. "

I don't understand what you mean here by differentiating energy states, and how they ensure the correct methodology is used.

 

[lightofdarkness]

I left of 'the'! sorry - In random/external-force divination we need to identify (differentiate) the energy states and select the 'best fit' method for the context as part of the ritual. Once identified so that state will automatically determine the methodology we need to use.

As for your comments on the proactive IC questions and wishful thinking etc, THAT is what I am getting at re honesty. I have said before that when using the ICPlus questions method one can (a) go through the process and then (b) get someone else to go through the same process interpreting the context from THEIR perspective of YOUR situation. THEN compare the results to 'flesh out' the common elements that reflect what both of you 'see' and so indicate the 'objective' element and go on to cover the differences, the subjective element.

The issue with the ICPlus questions is that one is clearly connected with the process and so can feel as if the result is sourced 'in them' rather than tossing coins etc that elicits a sense of it all being 'out there', independent of them.

BUT, there is no 'independence' - it is all connected. However the connection is IMPLICIT, and so HIDDEN, and we need some mechanism to make it all EXPLICIT - and that includes recognising our connectedness with things etc. and so trusting our unconscious in the form of 'vague' feelings - where the vagueness is in the form of the vague/general questions posed by the system.

Note that these questions are not about the POINT of concern but about the QUALITIES making-up the point; we focus on the context in which/from which your question is 'born'.

IOW a question such as 'what about X' is a 'coin toss' question. IN ICPlus we do not focus on 'what about X' we focus on the qualities making-up that question where one's particular, surface-structure, question is 'a situation', WHATEVER that may be, and we then focus on ASPECTS of that situation, the deep structure, as in -

(1) does the situation, for you, concern facts/values;

(2) is it about what was/is/will-be or about what could-have-been/is-not/could-be;

(3) are you proactively involved (instigating things) or reactively involved (responding to things).

We then ask the same questions about the other side, what you are up against etc.

There is nothing here about your particular question itself, it is all about the underlying elements that source your question regardless of its particular nature. This area of 'vagueness' is the realm of unconscious processes performed by the neurology before you even think about things (as the words come pre-formed into consciousness so it is evident that some part of us has structured all of that - our species-nature already 'knows' but needs to recruit our consciousness to resolve some particular 'issues').

The overall focus is on analogy/metaphor, to identify the core qualities influencing you as a whole and so outside of your immediate focus and derive the particular, communicatable terms, through analogy/metaphor (and so a hexagram etc that says 'this is LIKE the characteristics expressed in hex 23' etc)

If one is concerned about a relationship, that concern will take-on species-wide characteristics that elicit emotional patterns regardless of YOUR particular nature as a conscious individual; you may contribute LOCAL variations on those patterns as part of your local training etc but those rely on deeper, more universal, patterns - and identifying THOSE patterns can aid consciousness is understanding a situation in general and quickly.

These patterns can push us to move into mediation mode, and that means to seek some form of assistance in 'dealing' with the situation, predicting its outcome etc., and so out pops 'consciousness' - we focus our attention, reflect hard on the issue etc - come up with some particular, one's "question". The ICPlus approach gives you the ground for the question, from which it has emerged, and in so doing identifies the current context, what is pushing it, and where it may be going etc.

In one context there can be MANY texts but all to do with understanding that one context! ALL of those texts, regardless of their particular expressions, will share common themes and those are identified in the ICPlus material.

GIVEN the resulting hexagram etc so one can then make finer distinctions, choose what to do etc (as in (a) Select the 'best fit' response to the situation, adopt it immediately or (b) try to assert one's own position (the derived hexagram without changing lines) or (c) move on - change location.)

The more traditional methods are derived from times where we were more reactive. Now we are in times that include us being more proactive - and so any divination process is not 'passive' in that we CAN do something locally, we have choices even if limited and they include not wasting time struggling with the context, we can adapt to it immediately, OR we can assert energy to fight the context and assert our own 'over' it, OR we move on. (if you look at the small world network dynamics in the context of history - events are 'inevitable' but that inevitability is part of the structure and so 'ideal' - it does not recognise time as such. Exposure to time, and to 'randomness' etc does not appear to alter the inevitability - it just delays it or speeds it up! see my page:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/history.html

As such, much will transcend our personal lifetimes in that the inevitability covers the GENERAL not so much the PARTICULAR.

Chris.

 

[pakua]

(1) does the situation, for you, concern facts/values;

sometimes don't know, sometimes both

(2) is it about what was/is/will-be or about what could-have-been/is-not/could-be;

sometimes don't know, sometimes a mixture

(3) are you proactively involved (instigating things) or reactively involved (responding to things).

don't know, often both

(obviously don't know much)

but really, that's the truth

I would rather not taint the outcome with my own biases.