the ways of the oracle

[robibiro]

starting to use the iching, and thinking over and over about its ways, i came up with a question. probably it is a question that every beginner have to deal with. would like to share with you and to listen to your opinions.

If a person believes in the capability of Iching to be 'tuned' with the order of all things, basically accepts the principle of sincronicity. Every event happing in the real world is connected and related. According to this principle, if i toss only one coin, expecting to receive either a Yin or a Yang, wouldnt this toss be also a very basic and simple question to the oracle, in the easiest formulation? for example if i want to ask an oracle a question that needs a YES/NO answer, wouldnt it be sufficient to toss a coin and then interpreting the answer according to the result (Yin or Yang)
I guess the next step of attributing the value of yes to yang and no to yin would be too simple, but still, in terms of principle, should be working....what do you think?

 

[nicky_p]

Hi Robibiro,

My answer to your question: yes....and no.

I haven't been acquainted with the iching as long as many of the people around here and I have been in the place relatively recently where you are now with the: 'hang on a minute, a straight answer - yes or no. That's what i need in this situation!'

The only thing I would ask you is how many purely black and white situations do you find yourself in?

 

[Trojina]

starting to use the iching, and thinking over and over about its ways, i came up with a question. probably it is a question that every beginner have to deal with. would like to share with you and to listen to your opinions.

If a person believes in the capability of Iching to be 'tuned' with the order of all things, basically accepts the principle of sincronicity. Every event happing in the real world is connected and related. According to this principle, if i toss only one coin, expecting to receive either a Yin or a Yang, wouldnt this toss be also a very basic and simple question to the oracle, in the easiest formulation? for example if i want to ask an oracle a question that needs a YES/NO answer, wouldnt it be sufficient to toss a coin and then interpreting the answer according to the result (Yin or Yang)
I guess the next step of attributing the value of yes to yang and no to yin would be too simple, but still, in terms of principle, should be working....what do you think?

I don't think one has to accept the principle of synchronicity to use the I Ching. i don't see the answers as to do with synchronicity, i see it as i consult an oracle, it answers me. Ideas of what the oracle is is a question people vary hugely on...synchronicity is just one 'explanation'. But I do see what you mean. if all things are connected then tossing a coin for a yes/no answer should work...yet i don't think I'd really be attracted to it as form of decision making, unless it were a very trivial decision. if you just toss a coin you aren't consulting the Yi, so what are you consulting ? For me theres a difference in consulting Yi and consulting thin air. However it might work for you. You could try it and see

I do find the Yi can give me yes/no answers it just gives more besides, like 'no because' or 'yes because' or 'no but/yes but'. If i get 33 for "shall i go to x" i take it broadly as a no but i see it as a no for certain reasons

 

[robibiro]

trojan: if a person does not accept the principle of sincronicity, yet consults the oracle using YiChing, which other principle is using?
I still see that reading the yiching can be at any moment fruitful, wise and inspiring, but in this way (ignoring the sincronicity) it would mean to use the toss of the coins as a random sistem to browse the book. I dont see anything wrong with that, but i also dont see anything to do with a question to the oracle, or a divination at all.
Tossing a coin without using ICHING is basically questioning the oracle looking for a direct dialogue with the oracle itself. The Yiching is not the oracle in my opinion, but more similar to a map built with thousand years of wiseness and perfection, that you can use to interface with the oracle.
I more agree with the point of view that things are never black or white. thus never yin or yang. yet...since the oracle is able to see the connections that we miss to see....asking a direct question should be still a possibility.
there are matters that are definitely black or white...

 

[Trojina]

trojan: if a person does not accept the principle of sincronicity, yet consults the oracle using YiChing, which other principle is using?
I still see that reading the yiching can be at any moment fruitful, wise and inspiring, but in this way (ignoring the sincronicity) it would mean to use the toss of the coins as a random sistem to browse the book. I dont see anything wrong with that, but i also dont see anything to do with a question to the oracle, or a divination at all.
Tossing a coin without using ICHING is basically questioning the oracle looking for a direct dialogue with the oracle itself. The Yiching is not the oracle in my opinion, but more similar to a map built with thousand years of wiseness and perfection, that you can use to interface with the oracle.
...

Behind the Yi may be an entity, a spirit, an Oracle. Thats my view. Not one many share i don't think but it is how I sense it. If i talk to you why would we need to be employing any 'principle', we are just talking yes ? Same with the Yi, theres no principle I'm just communing with it. Not sure why you'd say this would mean answers were random ? I don't see answers as at all random. If i talk to you what we say to each other isn't random and neither does it rely on synchronicity, we are just communicating....same as with the Yi IMO

 

[Trojina]

I do find the Yi can give me yes/no answers it just gives more besides, like 'no because' or 'yes because' or 'no but/yes but'. If i get 33 for "shall i go to x" i take it broadly as a no but i see it as a no for certain reasons

I more agree with the point of view that things are never black or white. thus never yin or yang. yet...since the oracle is able to see the connections that we miss to see....asking a direct question should be still a possibility.
there are matters that are definitely black or white...

As I said above it is possible to get a yes or no its just you get alot more besides. Many answers will be black and white...depending on the questions. For example like asking "is store x a good place to search for this item" ? If your answer is 32.4 'no game in the field' then your answer is basically 'no' isn't it ?

I can't really understand the idea of just tossing one coin for yes or no and then saying you are consulting the I Ching...I mean you aren't consulting the Yi you are just tossing a coin. If you consult the I Ching you need to have a hexagram (or a trigram even) to get your answer/interpretation from.

However if you want to make a decision through just tossing a coin and kind of make your own oracle thats another thing...but its not like consulting the I Ching is it...its just tossing a coin as in heads for yes/tails for no ?

I guess what you are asking is can you consult the Yi without receiving a hexagram (or trigram) as an answer. Is that what you are asking ? Well no I don't think so

A hexagramless and trigramless Yi JIng ?

 

[nicky_p]

there are matters that are definitely black or white...

Oh, yes. No disputing that there are instances of black and white - there are extremes. But, for me, the majority of the time that I'm consulting the yi is when I'm in the grey area - when no imediate answer jumps out at me or shouts from deep within. I understand trojan's feeling of an entity or something that you're communicating with. For myself I'm not exactly sure what/who I'm communicating with; whether it is something external and telepathic, or whether it is the voice inside that often gets drowned out with white noise. Again, for myself, I know that part of the process of asking the question opens myself up to different possibities. If we look at the syntax of questions it's the difference between asking an open ended question like: 'How do you feel today?' and a closed question like: 'Did you feel good today?' Both have results - it depends on what you're looking for.

 

[robibiro]

sorry guys. maybe i was not clear enough with my explanation. thats probably because of two reasons..first i am not english motherlanguage, second the topic is very complex.

my question is not about the iching as a book, but rather the principles, the beliefs that see the iching as a sistem of divination.

When we toss the coins and we look for answers in the iching, we are not asking the book. the book is not an entity, nor there is an entity behind it.
the entity or the sincronicity or the tao or the oracle (all of these names point at the same concept) exists beyond the book, existed before the iching was written and will exist after there will be no man in the earth alive to open the book.

trojan...i didnt write about tossing a coin and asking iching for a yes no answer.
i said that wether u toss 3 coins and look for an hex in the iching book, or wether you toss 1 coin for a Y/N answer, you are still tossing coins, and attributing a certain value of meaning to the result of the toss.this process of attributing a value, either via iching either via any other way, is a dialogue with the oracle.

 

[Trojina]

my question is not about the iching as a book, but rather the principles, the beliefs that see the iching as a sistem of divination.

When we toss the coins and we look for answers in the iching, we are not asking the book. the book is not an entity, nor there is an entity behind it.
the entity or the sincronicity or the tao or the oracle (all of these names point at the same concept) exists beyond the book, existed before the iching was written and will exist after there will be no man in the earth alive to open the book.

well thats your opinion, I don't think they are all the same thing.

trojan...i didnt write about tossing a coin and asking iching for a yes no answer.
i said that wether u toss 3 coins and look for an hex in the iching book, or wether you toss 1 coin for a Y/N answer, you are still tossing coins, and attributing a certain value of meaning to the result of the toss.this process of attributing a value, either via iching either via any other way, is a dialogue with the oracle.

well then would you toss a coin to get an answer to an important life decision where heads =yes and tails=no ? And having done that would you then say you had consulted the I Ching ?

Theres a billion ways to divine, from opening a book at random to reading the clouds but these aren't the same as consulting the I Ching..but perhaps you mean they are all the same in that they come from the same source ? Hmm yes but you could say you and I come from the same source..but it isn't satisfactory to say we are the same thing. when someone talks to you it isn't like talking to me. In the same way if i divine from cloud formations it isn't the same to me as divining with the Yi. I feel a difference in the nature of it and the kind of understanding it might give

The title of thread is "the ways of the Oracle". By "the oracle" i thought you meant the Yi Jing but it seems you mean something more like the 'all that is/tao' ? Maybe this is were the confusion arises.

 

[robibiro]

trojan: i found that we have two different points of view.
let me tell u more about mine:
me, you, the book iching and the clouds as you say 'come from the same source'
thus whatever are the results of any form of divination, they do come respond to the same 'order'.
you say "By "the oracle" i thought you meant the Yi Jing " . in this i feel that there is a very wrong assumption, as the Iching is not an oracle. the oracle is the source, the iching is a device.
now , i assume that wathever tool for questiong the oracle one can use, the source should always be the same (at least from the prespective of someone that uses iching) because the iching as an art of divination implies that everything is connected.
what i believe is that iching is the most refined and consistent (as far as i know) tool to be used for questioning the oracle.
if i toss a coin for a Y/N answer i basically use the most simple and not sophisticated way ever used in the history of civilization.
to give a metaphor tossing one coin its like using a piece of glass randomly collected somewhere and using it as a microscope: the result will be surely lame...the sight blurred and unclear, and for sure you wont be able to have a clear sight of what you were supposed to investigate.
on the other side using iching is like using the most advanced technological microscope that humanity was ever able to produce. in this case the sight will be clear .
but the object you are watching, and its nature doesnt change. you just have different layer of perception.

 

[Trojina]

trojan: i found that we have two different points of view.
let me tell u more about mine:
me, you, the book iching and the clouds as you say 'come from the same source'
thus whatever are the results of any form of divination, they do come respond to the same 'order'.
you say "By "the oracle" i thought you meant the Yi Jing " . in this i feel that there is a very wrong assumption, as the Iching is not an oracle. the oracle is the source, the iching is a device.

Er no its not an assumption...the I Ching is an oracle. An oracle is not the source, its a voice for the source perhaps, not the source itself. I don't agree all kinds of divination respond to the 'same order'...at least i think i don't, i may be misunderstanding you..'the source' is many faceted is it not.

now , i assume that wathever tool for questiong the oracle one can use, the source should always be the same (at least from the prespective of someone that uses iching) because the iching as an art of divination implies that everything is connected.
what i believe is that iching is the most refined and consistent (as far as i know) tool to be used for questioning the oracle.

i don't see why the source should always be the same. Some may believe an oracle is by itself an entity who chooses to help us out...what kind of entity is likley beyond our scope of imagining...but anyway for example i do not think consulting the Tarot is at all like consulting the I Ching.(the Yi has a far better sense of humour ) I think you get a very different perspective when you use the tarot. Different divinatory methods have a different quality...they don't all give the same answer either IMO.. a bit like people

if i toss a coin for a Y/N answer i basically use the most simple and not sophisticated way ever used in the history of civilization.
to give a metaphor tossing one coin its like using a piece of glass randomly collected somewhere and using it as a microscope: the result will be surely lame...the sight blurred and unclear, and for sure you wont be able to have a clear sight of what you were supposed to investigate.
on the other side using iching is like using the most advanced technological microscope that humanity was ever able to produce. in this case the sight will be clear .
but the object you are watching, and its nature doesnt change. you just have different layer of perception.

The question to you remains would you use a toss of a coin to make decisions of any importance in your life ? I'm guessing you wouldn't ? I wouldn't, not even as a piece of glass instead of a microscope.

Some people use pendulums to get yes/no answers but they have to purify the intention first because any passing entity/spirit/influence, call them what you will, can influence it.

Call me superstitious but i when i address the Yi i feel i address a being I trust. If i swing a pendulum I do not have that sense of connection..or am more wary of the sense of connection i do have. I'm not saying I'm right in this,(am quite possibly deluded and barking mad) i was only saying not everyone sees it the way you do as a matter of principles etc.

I may be missing what your question really was however

 

[robibiro]

hi trojan,
everybody should find the right explanation and dimension fitting to his her own scale.
altough i cannot help but sharing with you my strong feeling that approaching the iching in this way (identifying it with the oracle) is reductive. to believe that a book written by a person(or a group of person) can be an oracle is in some way dangerous.
it reduces the oracle, it misunderstands the wiseness that is contained in the book.
when u use the iching, the way u get the question, is by tossing 3 coins. Do you think the book speak trhough the coin? In which way can the book influence the coins? While it is necessary to acknowledge and accept that there is ONE 'principle' (whatever we call it) that orders everythign. that is the coins, the person that is tossing them, who wrote the iching and everything else.
what makes the difference between when you toss the 3 coins for reading the iching and when u simply toss 3 coins on the table to empty your pocket of the change left, from a phisical event prespective?that is...why should the coins speak the voice of the oracle when you are holding the iching in your hand and simply randomly fall on the table when you are not?
if I expect that the coins will speak ,then they will always speak, just like every single other event that happens in the world speak. in the sense that responds to the same order.

 

[rodaki]

hi robibiro,

I've been mulling over this thread, trying to understand what is that you're trying to capture with your question . . . are you trying to find the shortest route to accessing what you call 'the oracle' or 'source'? . . and why are you conflating the Yi Jing with tossing coins? there are other ways to access it too . .

there was also something else I was thinking re-reading your comments . . and that's the black/white, yes/no thing. I'm not sure myself that there are truly such categories in nature but even if we assume that there are and that they are not just grossly simplified tools to understand, codify or transcribe change, I still can find no reason to expect that they would be capable of being manifest in their state of pureness . . I mean, absolute yang or absolute yin cannot possibly manifest themselves as such because they would deny a background/foreground relation.

do you see what I'm trying to get to? you might want to consider the case of a static answer or an absolute yes or no as simply non-existent in reality, although they can exist in our theorizing of it, maybe because reality is never in a static or absolute state . . every moment we access the world around us we capture a state of transition -never complete darkness, never complete light but always a variation, a yes to existence and change, a no to inexistence and immobility . . it seems to me that the world around us is way too sophisticated to answer in simple yes/no terms, although it won't deny our human will to want to pose (or impose) such categories to it . .

 

[jesed]

Hi rodaki

When you asked "will I get the job", despite all the sophistication... at the end you did (yes) or you didn't (no) get the job.

I'm aware that much of the western use of the Yijing preach -like a dogma- "don't ask yes/no questions"

But what if the yijing actually answers yes/no questions?
What if, when someone ask "will I recieve the money" you say "you will" and it happens that he/she recieve the money
What if, someone asked "will X be fine with the surgery" and you say "he will be ok", and then the surgery is a success?

What if the statement "there is no reality in yes/no" contradicts reality?

Best wishes

 

[rodaki]

oh but I don't have any objections to asking yes/no questions, I ask then all the time myself
but I don't expect to get an answer of one syllable as in tossing one coin . . there must be a reason we throw more than once more than one coins, that this system is opening up a field of occurrences rather than a single option . . or at least this is what I got into thinking the question of whether one toss can capture an answer as accurately as a Yi throw . . ( . . scratches head . .)

 

[jesed]

but robibiro is not saying that tossing one coin is as accurate as the yijing

 

[rodaki]

. . I am just trying to say that maybe such a short caption as that of a single coin toss, which can only express black or white, can not capture any answer, due to the fact that purely yes/no answers can not manifest or show up in their purity as such . . as straight black or straight white . .

 

[fkegan]

Hi Robibiro,

You mix so many assumptions about divination with your very strong opinions of what must be the metaphysics behind it all. However there are a vast array of other opinions and details that you either ignore or deny out of hand.

Synchronicity was just Jung's way to try to bundle his I Ching experience into his Western views and beliefs, it has nothing fundamental to do with either divination or the I Ching.

The I Ching is a set of hexagram patterns, each given a specific meaning, and fitting into a literature of how to interpret these patterns in divination. Traditional views speak of an I Ching spirit that lives in the binding of the text, determines the outcome of whatever method used for divination and then speaks its wisdom to you through the available text of commentary. You may prefer different beliefs, but that is only your opinion not ultimate Source or even the whole I Ching.

The method of three coins is based upon a number property of coins with two sides that tossing three of them at a time can only result in 4 possible results (taking Yang as 3 and Yin as 2) 6,7,8 or 9. The divination Oracle with moving lines is built upon that.

Just flipping a coin has no metaphysical basis to result in anything. If you wish to recreate something out of I Ching history, then the older Oracle Bone technique would be your route. That would require asking your question twice, once in the positive and again in the negative. A result of heads for one and tails for the other would be a valid Oracle. A really true oracle would require 10 such pairs which would be definitively NOT just chance.

I would suggest you try reading the I Ching literature a bit to find out what is involved before assuming every coin toss must be magic from Source OR anything related to the millennia of I Ching history and metaphysics. Good luck in your research.

Frank

 

[robibiro]

thank you for sharing your opinion.
actually jesed got to the core of my question.
probably tossing one coin for a black/white result is a very primitive sistem of divination thus lacks of accuracy, in the sense that it is unable to represent the complexity of reality, and is not able to represent the process of transition from black to white.
my question is just theorical, not that i am interested in tossing coins to predict the future.
frank, you are right about my strong believes come out clearly, but surely i did not mean to impose these to the other, assuming my opinions are right.
your comment is very interesting.
put aside the sincronicity, i still believe that if one person uses the iching as a way to divination, the conscious methapisical attitude of that person should asssume that the iching methapisical basis should be tuned to all the other beings and things in the world.
otherwise how could the iching be able to give you consistent answers about other issues that do not share the same methapisic basis?

 

[meng]

I've asked myself the same question on many occasions, Robibiro. Whatever one wishes to call the principle which makes the Yi oracle function as an oracle, or any other oracle function as an oracle, it would seem to reason that a simple single coin toss could answer those questions which could be answered with a simple yes or no with the same reliability.

Maybe the answer has to do with confidence. That is, if one acts upon yes or no as though it is certain, then perhaps the single toss of a single coin can operate reliably. I don't have that confidence, for whatever reason. Yet, logically, it seems I should.

 

[maremaria]

I'm aware that much of the western use of the Yijing preach -like a dogma- "don't ask yes/no questions"

But what if the yijing actually answers yes/no questions?
What if, when someone ask "will I recieve the money" you say "you will" and it happens that he/she recieve the money
What if, someone asked "will X be fine with the surgery" and you say "he will be ok", and then the surgery is a success?

What if the statement "there is no reality in yes/no" contradicts reality?

Best wishes

Those question are clear a yes/no , but i was thinking most questions we ask, at least I ask have somewhere a need to hear a kind of yes/no. I see a yes/no situation as something very common, happens every second. Perhaps I exaggerate but I see time as a continius yes/ no flow chart.

When I ask "what i need to know about this x thing" I ask if i'm missing somethg , I need to hear a yes or no. Yes it what you think it is or no its not its something else.

 

[robibiro]

Hi Meng,
i also do not have that confidence, and for the reason that rodaki pointed out so well, that is, in nature things do not manifest as purely yang or yin, but rather as processes of transition from one state to the other.
yet, i have the feeling that interpreting the result of a single coin might , as a principle, respond to a state of 'fully yang' and 'fully yin' state, which is also contemplated within the iching sistem.
if you have six 8 or six 7 doesnt iching give you a yes / no reply?

 

[robibiro]

maremaria, maybe just because we are human, not perfect creatures, the perfection of a yes / no doesnt belong to our dimension.
maybe that kind of answer is so simple that becomes too complicated for us.
maybe is so useful that we actually dont need it.

 

[meng]

Will it rain today? is a simple yes or no question.
Will I be offered the job? is also a yes or no question.

Many yes/no questions without gray or shades of possibilities and potentials.

I too agree with Dora's reasoning, but also with Jesed's comments.

 

[fkegan]

I've asked myself the same question on many occasions, Robibiro. Whatever one wishes to call the principle which makes the Yi oracle function as an oracle, or any other oracle function as an oracle, it would seem to reason that a simple single coin toss could answer those questions which could be answered with a simple yes or no with the same reliability.

Maybe the answer has to do with confidence. That is, if one acts upon yes or no as though it is certain, then perhaps the single toss of a single coin can operate reliably. I don't have that confidence, for whatever reason. Yet, logically, it seems I should.

i still believe that if one person uses the iching as a way to divination, the conscious methapisical attitude of that person should asssume that the iching methapisical basis should be tuned to all the other beings and things in the world.
otherwise how could the iching be able to give you consistent answers about other issues that do not share the same methapisic basis?

Hi Bruce and Robibiro,

I would suggest life is easier without expecting to pierce the veil of mystery and demanding that divination must follow your own assumptions. Perhaps casting the Oracle without being confused by sticks or coins would help to get beyond the notion that the coin toss must somehow have Divine power--it doesn't. Timing may, that is anything one might do at a particular time may be meaningful to whatever technique one chooses. Thus seminar leaders can have a room full of folks think of their own individual questions and then show them how they can all be answered by the same horoscope for that time in the session.

I have no doubt the same could be done with a group by the leader tossing coins or breaking a bundle of yarrow stalks. I have found folks with no interest in flipping coins or divination in any form still find meaningful insight in the Yi Oracle interpreted from just two natural numbers ( 1-64 inclusive) that they state.

Divination is a mystery. We can explore that mystery in any way we wish. However, there are no required principles or metaphysical prerequisites before divination can work. Flipping a coin is not of itself divination. It only becomes divination within a meaningful context. The interaction of a coin and gravity is nothing special in itself.

Frank

 

[fkegan]

The question isn't CAN the Oracle do Yes/No but why limit to just that...

Will it rain today? is a simple yes or no question.
Will I be offered the job? is also a yes or no question.

Many yes/no questions without gray or shades of possibilities and potentials.

I too agree with Dora's reasoning, but also with Jesed's comments.

Hi Bruce,

The problem with Yes/No questions is that they can only affirm or deny what you have proposed without any independent input in terms of what is the entire scenario and development process going on.

The examples you cite, especially 'will it rain today (or tomorrow)?" was a typical question of the double question tortoise shell oracle technique over many centuries leaving vast pits chock full of inscribed tortoise shell artifacts. That these all stopped by 1000 BCE, within a single century of the introduction of the Chou Yi indicates that folks found a better answer.

There is no hexagram, trigram, line pair or line value for either Yes or No. The only problem with asking Yes/No questions is that there isn't a simple hexagram oracle that clearly says Yes, No or Yes, But. In general folks ask simple questions like will it rain tomorrow? and get Oracle answers suggesting they may well find taking their planned outing indoors will be more successful. Who would want just a flat Yes/No when they can have a fully developed narrative response?

Frank

 

[nicky_p]

There is no hexagram, trigram, line pair or line value for either Yes or No. The only problem with asking Yes/No questions is that there isn't a simple hexagram oracle that clearly says Yes, No or Yes, But.

Sorry to be devil's advocate but... couldn't there be? You do have the extremes of 1 being yang and 2 being yin. (Robibiro, is that what you meant by six 8 or six 7?)

I do agree with the narrative part though. It's like the reading with hex's and moving lines and relating hex's and fan yao etc.. is like a snapshot in time. You can see the rain - whether it will be a light shower or torrential, whether there won't be rain BUT there will be snow and as this is also some kind of precipitation you might be interested to know etc..

 

[jesed]

There is no hexagram, trigram, line pair or line value for either Yes or No.

Talking about assumptions. The above statement is true only when you use the text added to the hexagrams.
But there is a whole other way to read the hexagrams without the text. In that other way, there are 10 hexagrams for NO, and 8 hexagrams for YES when the question is a yes/no question.
Best wishes

 

[jesed]

p.s.
remember the Wings... the hexagrams are diagrams; only latter, in order to make easier the interpretation, the text was added.

 

[fkegan]

Talking about assumptions. The above statement is true only when you use the text added to the hexagrams.
But there is a whole other way to read the hexagrams without the text. In that other way, there are 10 hexagrams for NO, and 8 hexagrams for YES when the question is a yes/no question.
Best wishes

Hi Jessed,

And what are these 18 hexagrams that indicate yes and no rather than the full range of their meaning?

I am particularly interested as I have decades of work deriving the meaning of the hexagrams from their line structure and number in the King Wen Sequence. So saying I must be assuming only the text of the commentary which I have never done mystifies me.

Further, your assumption it is obvious so many hexagrams by line structure mean only Yes and No totally eludes me.

Please elucidate, which hexagrams and what assumptions you are making to collapse their complete meaning into just yes and no.

Frank