...life can be translucent

Menu

What does it mean to see the Great Man and to Cross the Water

hmesker

Senior member
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
116
Reaction score
13
Dave, the topic of this thread is, "What does it mean to see the Great Man and to Cross the Water" and I suggested to search Donald Sturgeon's site www.ctext.org for instances of these terms so you can see what they mean within the context of the texts in which they occur. Have you done that?
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi iams girl

"If it's the truth, it doesn't matter who said it.

"How can one know the truth?" seems like a better question here to me. It's clear you have strong opinions about what is not the truth."

The first part of your statement is entirely dependent on the second and one part the question of the thread is about the "great man", so it does matter who said it, because even if it is the truth as humans we often dont recognise it until it comes from someone that we consider is capable of expressing the truth- such as the "great man" perhaps.

What is not the truth is rather more obvious to see. It doesnt stand up to examination, it is not rational or coherent or even logical, it is often inconsistent and contradictory.

The Greek for truth, literally "the state of not being hidden," so truth and reality as opposed to appearances.
The "truth" is always there it is not constructed. So though it may be true that I had eggs for breakfast it is not "the" truth".
Isnt that what I have been hinting at with references to underlying principles. They are the truth because they always exist, they are fundamental. I appreciate that even in the defintions of truth there are differernces. The truth of underlying principles, those of nature and heaven are not the same as the "truth" of the existence of a divinity.
If I may make reference to the Dao, which I think explains it very well and beautifully simply, the Dao gives rise to the one, the one to the two, two to three and three to the many rest of everything else. in that context the Dao, 1,2,3 are all fundamental underlying principles but the Dao is an "ultimate" and the truth of 1 is more profound than the truth of 3.
Even if things are not a fundamental as the Dao's example and are part of the myriad things that application of rational and coherent examination, the removal of contradictions and inconsistencies serves well to make things better understood and emminently more usable. To recognise that if things are fundamental, if they are based on or are representations of underlying principles that being all part of the same description of the universe, there will be coherent and resonant correlations between one "description " of life and another. So whether that is Chinese Medicine, the Yi, Neurology etc if they dont ahev coherence then either they are wrong or our understanding of what we think those things are is wrong.
That has been my experience with 5E.

5E is not part of any of the fundamentals the Dao references, but being 5 it is pretty fundamental, or should be and if that is the case then its imapct and benefit to a practical and usable thing such as Chinese Medicine shouldbe evident. But if it is not a part of any fundamental then it is not going to be usable inany real sense and may even be the opposite.

So a large part of what I am saying is lets cut out the dead wood, lets remove the debris and lets see if there is any truth in there to be observed. Lets apply the underlying principles as best we know them to guide us, lets apply the principles of rationality and coherence to guide us in our search for the truth.

All the beat

Dave
 

iams girl

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
1,312
Reaction score
8
So clarifying, although you asked a broad what does it mean to... question you meant what might be underlying principles behind see the great man and cross the water.

And, to you underlying principles are something related to the inner realm, that even a person who is isolated from the environment might understand.

So, for example, would you say an underlying principle for see the great man might be something like "one needs to seek further for answers"?

Likely being too simplistic, maybe you have a better example.
 

moss elk

Senior member
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
47
We cannot be sure that the imagery attached to the Hexagrams is an accurate representation of the meaning of the Hexagram.
1-Please learn to speak for yourself (use the word 'I' instead of 'we' otherwise you are making false statements) and
2-try to grasp that others know things (from direct experience) that exist outside of your head.
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
57
Context is everything when you want to find out the meaning of a certain character or phrase. Fortunately it has become relatively easy to find out what a phrase like daren 大人 means: go to www.ctext.org, search for 大人 and you will find numerous texts in which the phrase is used. Likewise you can search for (she) dachuan (涉)大川.

That the Chinese script is a pictorial language is only partly true - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters#Principles_of_formation
Good morning Harmen. Thanks for sharing this. When I was about 11-12 I tried to teach myself how to write Chinese (long story and not at all related to the Yi). One of the things I remember from the learning materials was that written Chinese was a picture-based, and the character for mountain (which looks like three peaks) was an often-used example.

So, reading the article you linked to is very interesting and informative to dispel that understanding - which I was more or less living with up until yesterday!

But today ... walking out to catch my bus this morning (to catch the ferry, to catch the train ...) I saw two deer crossing the road. Then on the train I saw an eagle chasing a duck, so perhaps today, for me 'there is no curse from the ancestors.' :bows:

Best, D.
 
Last edited:

hmesker

Senior member
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
116
Reaction score
13
But today ... walking out to catch my bus this morning (to catch the ferry, to catch the train ...) I saw two deer crossing the road. Then on the train I saw an eagle chasing a duck, so perhaps today, for me 'there is no curse from the ancestors.' :bows:
You live in a world of omens David. Maybe the Yijing makes it easier for you to see them.

But about the 'eagle chasing a duck': the eagle makes me think of the US (of course), and the duck is probably China (Peking Duck) so I am curious what will happen.

"When the eagle chases the duck
it means POTUS doesn't give a ..."

:bows:
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
57
You live in a world of omens David. Maybe the Yijing makes it easier for you to see them.
It sure seems that way sometimes.

But about the 'eagle chasing a duck': the eagle makes me think of the US (of course), and the duck is probably China (Peking Duck) so I am curious what will happen.
It was an awfully scared looking duck and a rather confident looking eagle, so I hope it was just bird chasing prey, and not a sign of a broader omen!

It reminds me of the film 'Little Big Man', where towards the end Old Lodge Skins - Dustin Hoffman's adopted Cheyenne father lies down to die, saying "It is a good day to die" but after a few minutes of lying there in the rain, he gets up and says, 'well, sometimes the magic works, sometimes it doesn't.'

Or as Groucho once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Best, d.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Moss Elk

"Please learn to speak for yourself (use the word 'I' instead of 'we' otherwise you are making false statements)

"we" is the correct pronoun. We cannot be sure that the imagery attached to the Hexagrams is accurate. We cannot be sure that much about the Yi is accurate. That is accepted scholastic viewpoint.

"try to grasp that others know things (from direct experience) that exist outside of your head."

That is rather insulting to suggest that it is only on my head. Are you actually reading the contents of my posts or just going through tem trying to find something that you think you might be able to criticize. Have you forgotten that of the consideration that one can ask the Yi about others. So I can say we and I must be able to grasp what others know, if that concept of the Yi's potential is correct.

It seems you may be misunderstanding what I mean by direct experience. Everything we experience is in one sense a direct experience. I am referring to the direct experience of the inner self and also that of any underlying principles. One may have a direct experience of casting 10,ooo readings but unless there is knowledge and understanding that dorect experience may not be of much value. In all sprts of ways we repeat the same bad habits year in an year our, people are bad drivers all of their lives, still direct experience but irrelevant when it comes to inner and underlying principles.

Of course if others "know" things I would have expected to have had some answers to all of the various points and questions I have raised. But seeing as those answers dont seem to be forthcoming it seems that perhaps no one "knows" things relevant to the points and questions being raised.

But of course if you want to actually contribute something instead of trying to find ways to criticize me personally then your contribution would be welcomed. I am sure that everyone would welcome so positivity in the contribution.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi iams girl

"that even a person who is isolated from the environment might understand"

I think the point I was trying to make was that even a person that is isolated from their environment is entitled to have readings from the Yi that are relevant and pertinent.
The Yi has to apply to all so the literal interpretations of going to see a wise person canno be applicable to a person isolated from thier environment, so the term "great man" must mean something else.

The quote "He who cultivates the inferior parts of his nature is an inferior man. He who cultivates the superior parts of his nature is a superior man."
and so he who cultivates the "great" parts of his nature is a great man.

And so what is it that is "great" within us.


"the great man might be something like "one needs to seek further for answers"?

Most certainly. The question would be where one would seek for further answers. For those that are isolated form their environment, where would they have to seek but inside themsleves. That is where one finds the underlying principles, that is where one finds understanding and knowledge.
As the Dao says, one can know the whole world without going outside.

All the best

Dave
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Hermen
I am aware of the site. It is very interesting.
But you are missing the point. The question is what do they "mean" in the context of Hexagrams, not what someone thinks it might possibly be interpreted as without context.

The context of great man, even if the translation is accurate, is not addressed by linguistics, it is addressed by knowing and understanding.

I have given the example of Hexagram 52 - keep still, stop. That is not the "meaning" in the context of what is being said. The terms used are those of meditation and have nothing to do with outward physical action. The meaning within the context and understanding is rather differernt from the meaning of the linguistics.

So while the site is a fantastic resource for all sorts of things if I had wanted a linguistic definition I would not have asked a YiJing Forum.

Dave
 

hmesker

Senior member
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
116
Reaction score
13
You spelled my name wrong. Again.

The texts in which the phrases occur give you contexts for these phrases, enabling you to find out what these phrases mean in other books and contexts, which in turn can help you to find out what they mean in the Yijing. That is 'knowing and understanding'. It has nothing to do with linguistics or linguistics definitions. It is simply looking at the occurrence of the phrases in texts other than the Yijing. That is why specialized dictionaries like the 漢語大詞典 will always give you the context of a certain meaning of a character or phrase. If you think that is not useful then you really don't know what you are talking about nor do you have any clue what you are dealing with and you are just looking for an argument. If you even reject a simple suggestion that can help you to find the answers to your question yourself, then there is no point in replying to any of your posts because anything that will be said will immediately be rejected by you. Because that is all you do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

moss elk

Senior member
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
47
...you are just looking for an argument.
Maybe just wants attention...
We all err when we assume a stranger on the internet is sane or has good intentions or is honest about anything whatsoever.


I see this pattern occurring:
Ask a simple question.
Dismiss all feedback.
Play semantics with a random word.
Repeat the broken record that says everyone else around him is irrational and illogical.
wash, rinse. repeat.

He keeps 'hooking' us all in.
Don't take the bait.
You won't be able to enlighten him.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
hmesker

Perhaps having had a serious brain injury that makes language tasks now very difficult and being dyslexic might explain it.
But you said it didnt matter

Dave
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,736
Reaction score
101
jukkodave


hmesker

Perhaps having had a serious brain injury that makes language tasks now very difficult and being dyslexic might explain it.
But you said it didnt matter

Dave



It has been bought to our attention before that you have brain damage. If that is so I am sorry to hear it but do consider if in having such a disadvantage it does you any good to post at length on a Yi discussion forum ?

The below makes me think in some ways you are having a bit of a laugh. At least your injury has not affected your sense of humour then. I don't believe these were all typos.




Compiling a list of amusing sign offs from you on this thread


All the blast

Dave
All the bleat

Dave
collecting more...


All the bent

Dave
Surely people noticed this wasn't just typos - there's more

All the boat

Dave
All the beat

Dave

If these aren't deliberate mistakes for fun I'll eat my hat. Nothing wrong with fun but it does make me wonder if you really are having trouble with names because if you make consistent jokes like these you are perfectly aware of what you are writing . In the above examples these aren't typos they are deliberate and they are 'language tasks' you appear to have no trouble with.


There's no moderation here [MENTION=252]hilary[/MENTION]


As for this endless repetition from the next post to Moss elk



The reality is if there are underlying principles that changes everything that we think about the Yi. If there arent underlying principles then the Yi is nothing special and most of what is thought about the "yi" becomes irrelevant.

How about contributing something to the discussions.

Dave

It's wearing thin and reached the point of utter absurdity a long time ago.
 
Last edited:

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Moss Elk

"Maybe just wants attention...
We all err when we assume a stranger on the internet is sane or has good intentions or is honest about anything whatsoever.


I see this pattern occurring:
Ask a simple question.
Dismiss all feedback.
Play semantics with a random word.
Repeat the broken record that says everyone else around him is irrational and illogical.
wash, rinse. repeat.

He keeps 'hooking' us all in.
Don't take the bait.
You won't be able to enlighten him.

Really!
Yes I have asked simple questions, or what should be simple questions to those knowledgable of the Yi. Yes I have raised various points.
No I have not had any feedbalck on the specifics of most of those questions.
No I am not playing semantics, I am trying to be precise and accurate.
Repeating the same things because no one is actually responding to them can hardly be a criticism.
Not saying everyone else is irrational and illogical, just pointing out the facts that unless we discriminate as to how, why and what we consider the Yi to be any comments are impossible to evaluate or understand.

If you dont want to join in dont bother, leave it for those that are interested, if no one is interested then I will know that no one has any answers and most of what is thought about the Yi is little more than a collection of beliefs. Nothing wrong with that and the Yi will "work " just fine in that context, but then that makes the Yi something entirely different to what is being claimed.
Simple.
Enlightenment doesnt come from others anyway. But getting rid of the deadwood and the debris sure can help with understanding.

But if you dont want to participate then why bother.

But why is all this bothering you at all. If it wasnt hitting a nerve of some sort you would just be ignoring all my posts.

The reality is if there are underlying principles that changes everything that we think about the Yi. If there arent underlying principles then the Yi is nothing special and most of what is thought about the "yi" becomes irrelevant.

How about contributing something to the discussions.

Dave

But I notice that you havent posited any thoughts on that actual rather important point.
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,080
Reaction score
89
General point:

If you are exasperated by someone's behaviour on this forum, please consider either

a) not interacting with them, or
b) hitting the 'report post' button (if you think their behaviour is actually doing damage).

Please try not to express your exasperation on the thread.

This is so that we continue to have a forum about the Yijing, instead of a forum about how people behave on the forum. (We have tried that in the past. Trust me, it's just not that interesting.)
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Thank you Hilary

I am always for intelligent discussions without any criticism of the person themselves.
We may have dofferent opinions and in expressing a different opinion and responding to an individuals post it may seem as though one is criticising another. I have always attempted to validate my words.

Yes Trojina, the endings were meant to be humerous, I noticed that I was frequently making mistakes and on a couple of occasions they actually came out as words. Fingers seem to have a life of their own when typing, was going to use the word spelling and it appeared on the screen as spelly. I though a bit of humour wouldnt go amiss in what is a rather challenging set of threads for all of us.

The Yi has advised that I persevere, that there is something to be learnt. Would rather do tht with rational, coherent and logical discussions about what are about very important considerations. I appreciate that they stike at the very heart of what we may consider and believe the Yi to be. But that is no different for me and the possibility that many things that I have held to be true for more than 40 years may not have as much or any validity at all is rather a difficult pill to swallow. But such are the trials in the search for truth.

Dave
 

iams girl

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
1,312
Reaction score
8
"He who cultivates the inferior parts of his nature is an inferior man. He who cultivates the superior parts of his nature is a superior man."
and so he who cultivates the "great" parts of his nature is a great man.

And so what is it that is "great" within us.


"the great man might be something like "one needs to seek further for answers"?

Most certainly. The question would be where one would seek for further answers. For those that are isolated form their environment, where would they have to seek but inside themsleves. That is where one finds the underlying principles, that is where one finds understanding and knowledge.
As the Dao says, one can know the whole world without going outside.
Ok, great, that helps. So, with great man, as you point out, the bigger question related to an inner journey would be where to seek for what is "great" within. Qualifying, this also rules out the possibility the answer actually meant one would be literally stuck if not able to connect with a great man resource without. With that not being the case, I imagine it goes without saying that one would also want this source within to be trustworthy like being able to trust the Yi Jing or Dao on the outside.

How to seek, then, might also be an important key to finding where to seek inwardly. Some people work with spiritual directors of some sort or another, but it sounds like you are talking about a person looking for a way to go it alone. Carl Jung wrote quite a bit about his meetings with knowledgeable individuals in the collective unconscious and I've heard of people going on astral travels to libraries or such places for information, but something tells me you're not looking for intermediaries like those either. I've heard stories about people waiting outside of monasteries for days until someone take pity on them and lets them in. Maybe a meditation practice or something like that would be helpful where one puts questions "out there" and waits for the answers to come to them. However, I've also known people who've given up on finding answers because they don't feel they've heard anything back. Or, I also know someone who sees the manifestations of what is "great" such as having been given life and gifts such as humility, compassion, and justice as being enough to work with regarding underlying principles and their source. The downside to that has been watching that person go through a lot of trial and much error finding their way to wisdom on that path.

It occurs to me to also consider what "great" actually does for a person? Do you have thoughts?

Changing topics back to what it means to cross the water, what do you think about "one's thoughts are moving in the right direction" (or not, if the line cautions against it)?.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi iams girl

"it goes without saying that one would also want this source within to be trustworthy like being able to trust the Yi Jing or Dao on the outside."

The problem being that the evaluation of if soemthing is able to be "trusted" depends on two things.
Firtsly that the text is accurate; in that I mean, rather than it being linguistically right, which may always be a debatable issue for all sorts of reason, but accurate for the reason that it needs to convey the essence and the true meaning of the texts, which may not be always overly obviousn to any scolars from the text itself, if taken literally without context and understanding.
Secondly even if the text is accurate and conveys the essence it is entirely dependent on our understanding and knowledge to be able to make proper sense of it.

Hexagram 52 is a good example. The linguistic words may possibly be accurate but in missing the essence of the word, with no understanding of the context, the literal translation, that appears to be the common one, and one that I myslef would have once been inclined to take, is rather different from that of the meditation which it references.

So I would say that we are essentaily unable to "trust" anything external. The nature of the external is one that always changes, it will be there and then it will go. There was a time when there was no written Yi and no written Dao. But the fundamental underlying principles, the essence of the Dao and the Yi, always were, they are not external. The only way that we can truly "know" the Yi and the Dao and be able to trust is from the inner experience, for the Dao to know what is beyond all definitions, ans the underly principle of the Dao can never be defined, for the Yi which is a part of what the Dao manifests as, it might be,for example, from the direct experience of what is "great". So one has to know what is "great" before one can "visit. Even if it was an external great man, one would still have to know what was great and wise either before or during the visit, the criteria that we use to determine and evaluate that both before and during are of course part of the underlying principles.

"How to seek, then, might also be an important key to finding where to seek inwardly. Some people work with spiritual directors of some sort or another, but it sounds like you are talking about a person looking for a way to go it alone."

Most definitely not. It is possible of course, one may have illumination and have ones understanding lit up by no interactions with anyone, but it is most unlikely for most. We have brains that are designed to focus both outward and inward, for very good reasons.
The inner part of the brain is where much understanding and knowing comes from, we lost it from our nature as children as we grew up into adults and much of what we term "spiritual" is nothing other than the re-realisation of how we were as children.
But here is also a "power" in the acceptance and trust of others that can spark the machine of self knowing.
As you point out many would go to monastries or spiritual teachers and wait and beg to be allowed to become disciples and devotees. That is a valid part of the process for most in their inner journey.
What that is "sparking" though is important to understand.
it is the rather bigger question of who and what we are as human beings, the reason we have life, the reason and purpose of our lives, it includes the both the search for ones inner Dao, (fill in any other descriptions, G.o.d, divine, that may mean the same thing to each), and the search for ones inner human nature. They may appear the same, the inner human nature has often been misassigned the quality of the divine, but the Dao and ones humanness are not the same. We cant describe the Dao or God or the divine, we can ony describe the effects, the manifestations of you like. But we can describe the human nature, it is coherrent, it is rational, it is harmony and resonance. If something is an expression of that innner nature, those fundamental underlying principles then it will make sense, there wont be obvious contradiction and discrepancies.
In terms of the Yi, 5E and Trigrams would "make sense" and there would be rational and reasonalbe arguments to explain them, the terms that are used would make sense, and the reason they would make sense, even if it was not always easy to put those "essences" into words, would be because the true "meaning" of those descriptions was understood.

"I've also known people who've given up on finding answers because they don't feel they've heard anything back. Or, I also know someone who sees the manifestations of what is "great" such as having been given life and gifts such as humility, compassion, and justice as being enough to work with"

It is always sad to see anyone giving up, the answers and the messages are constant, we just have to get out of the way and let them in. Belief structures and the like are some of the ways that we put things in the way so that we are unable to hear and see the answers and messages that persistenly remond us of the inner worlds.
They are great gifts aand many do not appreciate them and so that person is a lesson to us all, but they are the "gifts"that arise from the underlying principles and not the findamentals themselves. If a person is content and fulfilled with those giifts then that that would be fine for them.

"to also consider what "great" actually does for a person?"

That might be a little difficult to demonstrate or describe. An internal quality may have a large and obvious manifestation, it may have littel or it may have none. Human beings to like to have everything neatly in a box. So our view of what "greatness" does to a person may result in the expectation that a teacher or master, spritual, monastic or whatever, has to manifest and behave in a particular way and then we may turn our backs on the very person that might guide us to our true selves. So personally o would avoid any consideration of what great actuall deos for a person and consider how one can see the great in ones self and in others. If one can see the "great" in others then how it "does" for that person is how it does for that person. It may not "do" the same for another person.
Recognise the great in ourselves, even if we cannot put that into words, so that we may see the "great" in others.

The question, if I may bring it back to the specifics of the Yi, is that the Yi is obviously intended for all, we all use it, and so there must be a way of knowing the great in us, there must be a message of what "great " means. Perhaps ot is a particulr tupe of practice that was so well known thousands of years ago that there was no need to out it into words, perhaps the words are there but we dont understand them, and we cannot rul out the possibility that it was entirely to do with power and that one should defer to ones "superiors".
Given that there are to many mentions and references to the "inner" in the Yi I am less inclined to think it as the latter, but the texts may have been " altered" significantly to suit the times, the Hans were rather prone to that.
If I was to be pushed into an educated guess I would be inclined to go for that great might possibly mean, the inate intelligence of a harmonised brain, so that the "wisdom" of children is met and balanced by that of adult wisdom and the rationality and logic that comes with it, such that the subconscious is not as unconscious as it has become in adults and all parts of our brain are communicating in a way that we are consciously aware of.
I know, guess, inclined, possibly, not really very adamant. But if Iwas to say that was my understanding and knowing, that would change the face of what the Yi is and about and mean that most of what the Yi is used for has nothing to do with the original meaning and purpose of the Yi, and it might be taken that I am being judgemental on those that use the Yi for external divination purposes and I have been very careful to acknowledge that even if it is a complete delusion, in terms of fundamental underlying principles, if it helps the person then it has a value for them in their lives.

"to cross the water, what do you think about "one's thoughts are moving in the right direction" (or not, if the line cautions against it)?"

Absolutely, it is certainly a much better interpretation than that if relating to the wet stuff itself.
The question would have to still remain as to what the "water" is. If it was part fo the water of Trigrams then that would suggest certain types of thoughts, if it was the water that is more fundamental, as one of the 4 elements that then places a 5th at its centre then that would be rather more substantial and the question then would be what part of our brains might "water" relate to.

It is the confusions and contradictions in the contents of the texts and the concepts that accompany the Yi that create so many problems. "Water", is it a river, a sea, it cant be a lake or a stream as they are referenced separately, is it the water of the fundamantal elements, is it the water of the Trigrams, how can the same term be applied to something considerable less fundamental as in the Trigram as is applied to the findamentals of "elements".

That presents "layers" of possible interpretation. We could interpret water as the wet stuff, a sea or a river, we could ignore other references to streams and lakes and just take it literally as physical water. We could interpret it as aprt of the Trigrams, ignoring the many contradictions and inconsistencies in that possibility. We could take it as one of the findamental elements, ognoring the inconsistencies and contradictions inthe presences of a 5th at the centre and also not at the centre.

To me it is the latter, without the confusions of the 5th. That is where the rationality is, that is where the coherence, the harmony, the resonance is.

But it means that if that is the case then most of what we interpret as relevant to the Yi cannot be "correct".

All the best

Dave
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,080
Reaction score
89
It is the confusions and contradictions in the contents of the texts and the concepts that accompany the Yi that create so many problems. "Water", is it a river, a sea, it cant be a lake or a stream as they are referenced separately, is it the water of the fundamantal elements, is it the water of the Trigrams, how can the same term be applied to something considerable less fundamental as in the Trigram as is applied to the findamentals of "elements".
I can help with a couple of these apparent contradictions.

What's translated sometimes as 'cross the great water' and sometimes as 'cross the great stream' reads 'cross the great river' in the original.

There is no trigram named 'water'. There is kan, 'chasm', which is associated with running water.

You are seeing the 'same term' in English, but it's not the same in the original.

As for whether 'cross the great river' has anything to do with kan, a first step in exploring that might be to list its occurrences and the trigrams (and nuclear trigrams, if you like) of the hexagrams where it occurs.
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,080
Reaction score
89
General point:

If you are exasperated by someone's behaviour on this forum, please consider either

a) not interacting with them, or
b) hitting the 'report post' button (if you think their behaviour is actually doing damage).

Please try not to express your exasperation on the thread.

This is so that we continue to have a forum about the Yijing, instead of a forum about how people behave on the forum. (We have tried that in the past. Trust me, it's just not that interesting.)
One further note: I've suggested to JukkoDave that when he asks a question, he should also explain what kind of answer he is and isn't looking for, and start off by sharing some ideas and examples of his own. Hopefully this will help.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Hilary

"What's translated sometimes as 'cross the great water' and sometimes as 'cross the great stream' reads 'cross the great river' in the original."

That might elimininate a part of the contradiction, but why is everyone not using "river" as the term. Obviously not everyone agrees on that.
Great river would be crossable by boat so no great endeavour there, and it is still an "external factor, as opposed to an internal one, so that larger and significantly more important contradiction remains. It wouldnt be representative of any underlying principles unlees the underlying principles are explainable by the meaning of a river.

"There is no trigram named 'water'. There is kan, 'chasm', which is associated with running water."

That depends on your viewpoint. In other versions of the Trigrams it is "water".
Chasm wouldnt be associated with water unless the water was of prime significance, there are plenty of dry chasms.
This is a matter of understanding of what the original underlying principle might be. The assiciation, the interpretation of " water" with some sort of danger, just becuase we have to admit that the "water", as represented by the elemental stuff, is rather mysterious and hard to pin down, and so mkes it a danger or a chasm if one doesnt understand it, is really a poor interpretation of the original "meaning".

"You are seeing the 'same term' in English, but it's not the same in the original."

Then the same word shouldnt be used and only goes to validate that "translations" are not accurate.
If water means different things, use different words. But the question of what "water" is, regardless of if it translated as river or stream or lake or water, remains.

The problem of it being that the "original" has differernt meanings, then makes that the domain of the "scholars" that are doing any translations, and removes it from the domain of the reader. That would be an unacceptable exclucivity to anyone that consults the Yi. If only those scholars, that havent found a way of agreeing oon what the translations should be, "know" what a word should "mean" and havent made that obundantly clear to everyone at every step then shame on the scholarsfor not getting together and agreeing on the "meaning". Assuming that any scholars know what the meaning really is, as that is significantly different than a literal translation, in a lot of cases.

All the best

Dave
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Thanks Hilary

But a problem with that is that for many of the questions, which are also points that dont have a specific opinion or view point anyway, is that framiing the questions to specifically, for what is often about underlying principles and the connections to the Yi, would be to limit the discussion to severely.

But I will certainly try to eliminate other interpretations other than what I mean.
Though I did think I was doing that by being comprehensive in my posts.

Dave
 

Freedda

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
57
How to seek, then, might also be an important key to finding where to seek inwardly .... It occurs to me to also consider what "great" actually does for a person? Do you have thoughts?
Good morning Iams Girl: I often use the Buddha's teachings as a 'yardstick' of sorts. The Buddha taught about the nature of reality and how we might experience that (via meditation) - I think of that as an 'inward' journey. But he also gave guidance for how to be in the world: to use right speech, to not cause harm, to find honest or meaningful work and so forth - this we might call our 'outward' journey.

But he made no hierarchy or distinction of one being better, or more spiritual than the other; in fact he was once asked about the role of community - the sangha, or those on the same path - in spiritual life, and he said that community was the whole of the spiritual life, meaning that they carried more (or at least as much) weight as an inward journey or an activity such as meditation.

Taking this as a suggestion for how I might view or use the Yi, I feel that we get answers and guidance on different levels, both about our inward journey and 'looking within' and about how we are in the world - and maybe both at the same time. So, any advice about 'encountering a mature human being' might be about looking inward or about looking outward: if I had leaky pipes at my house, it makes sense to me that the 'mature human being' would come to me in the form of a plumber, and not as inner guidance (except if that 'inner guidance' was for me to call a plumber! :)).

And similarly, I think that to 'cross the great water' could be to make some inward passage (perhaps a difficult or challenging one), or - living on an island as I do - it could be advice to 'get your butt onto the ferry and go across to the mainland.'

And just like the teachings of the Buddha, I don't see any higher or lower, or better or worse, or more or less appropriate or correct in either what we're asking about or if the answer is about the inner or the outer - it is all good stuff. For me, there is no oracle Yi vs. divination Yi, there is just the Yi.

As to this 'great person,' or what 'great' actually does for us, I find it helpful for me to remember that 'great' is just one meaning among many; 'da' can also be: accomplished, complete, developed, enormous, entire, extreme, grand, great(er, est), mature, noble, noteworthy, realized, seasoned, serious, significant, strong, successful, wholesome, a master, vast, and vital among many others. (I think Harmen would have a good sense of which meanings were in use when the Yi was written.)

And finally, I find that keeping context in mind is vital: we have to read what a phrase is saying in the context of the entire line or oracle's text; and we have to consider it in light of what is actually being asked.

All the best, D.
 
Last edited:

legume

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jun 26, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
20
"but in both cases, crossing the water or seeing a great man would be difficult to generalise, it's easier understood in the context of a reading or one's own life. i can't know what these things mean to you or how would they manifest in your reality."

But then I am puzzled, if you consider they would be difficult to generalise and easier understood in a personal context, why have you attempted to do just what you consider that you say "i cant know what these things mean.."
I dont get why you think you cant say or know and then give an opinion of what you dont think you know.
i never attempted to explain what these things "really" mean and still stand by what i said, that is - i can't know what they would mean to you (and never tried to tell you what these phrases should mean to you either). i simply shared my own opinion or interpretation based on some experience, knowledge and imagination.

but what i also understood from your later posts is that these opinions or interpretations or even translations are of no use to you. which is fine, but in that case why rebuff some of the help offered here and not just let it be? that's why i asked why you're here and wanted to find out more about how do you use or consult the Yi, what's your method or process, to understand better where then is this thread's original question coming from.

btw, to me saying that modern translations is absolutely no use in understanding the "meaning" is like believing that etymology is of no use to cognitive sciences, which i find more than a little mind-boggling.

Are you actually reading my posts.
the ones i see addressed to me and the ones i quote from i do. i cannot read all of the posts you have written on this forum.

In the process, the contradictions, the inconsistencies, the lack of rational coherence, became more obvious and it became more apparent, that the thing that I had realised many years ago, that the Yi can be used in two fundamentally different ways, the way of a book of divination, which makes it no different to any other fortune telling tool and is often only the figment of our imaginations and delusions, or, the book of inner insight and wisdom, the reflection of fundamental underlying principles.
Realising that most of the "answers" I was getting back were focussed on the book of divination side, even though the responses may have purported to do otherwise and not wishing to waste my time, I asked the Yi what I should do, the response was to continue, there was something of importance to learn. So I continue.
i think most of us realise that there are at least two ways of using the I Ching. the inner-outer realms are at the beginning of the foundations course offered on this site and people often share their experiences here of how Yi simultaneously speaks on different levels.

it's slowly getting clearer what kind of answers you're after, but please note, the name of the forum is "exploring divination" so it's only natural of people who come here to discuss some real life examples of divination, to also assume you're looking for interpretations to broaden your understanding of a reading rather than for them to inherently know that you're asking in the context of Yi's universally ineffable principles (that can be only learned and applied on individual level).

while posing an assumption that some of us here are reading Yi only in one sense, and without reading it in the sense you're saying it, is absurd - simply comes across as condescending.

i noticed that when someone starts a thread here that's not to do with divination, they would specifically make a note of it, of using Yi for personal development, or spiritual growth, etc. or working with it in some other way. so when posting an open question on this forum, please don't expect that everyone will automatically know your background story. it's simply impossible, after all it's public.

I think that I have already made it clear that I dont use any methods that are skewed and dont make all of the Yi available for all readings. And that I try to understand the Yi in its fundamental underly principle form and not related to any external literal interpretations.
saying what you don't do unfortunately doesn't make things any clearer in terms of what you do, or how do you use Yi or (wish to) apply its principles in your life. such information could help understand where you're coming from and by giving some background possibly explain better what you meant with your original question.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,736
Reaction score
101
That might elimininate a part of the contradiction, but why is everyone not using "river" as the term. Obviously not everyone agrees on that.
So whilst on the one hand you perceive yourself to be someone who 'challenges' you actually want complete uniformity of meaning.

Yi is a poetry and if one was to insist that everyone understood poetry the same way, understanding the same word the same way with the same associations they'd kill it stone dead.

Great river would be crossable by boat so no great endeavour there,
That depends on the river, the season and other factors.


Crossing a river is clearly symbolic of making a big transition...I mean people use rivers as such in modern lyrics and poetry.

Bob Marley


'How many rivers do we have to cross
Before we can talk to the boss ? Eh !
All that we got, it seems we have lost
We must have really paid the cost.'

and it is still an "external factor, as opposed to an internal one, so that larger and significantly more important contradiction remains. It wouldnt be representative of any underlying principles unlees the underlying principles are explainable by the meaning of a river.
What are your 'underlying principles' you go on about them a lot but nowhere, as far as I can see, have you made a clear exposition of what these mean to you.


The problem of it being that the "original" has differernt meanings, then makes that the domain of the "scholars" that are doing any translations, and removes it from the domain of the reader.
One could say anyone doing any kind of translation makes it their 'domain' and removes it from the domain of the reader. Someone has to do the translating in order to make it accessible to the reader at all ! This is just contradiction for the sake of it, as ever, even when you have to resort to ridiculous statements to do so. Doing a translation of something doesn't remove it from readers given they wouldn't have had it in the first place if the translations had not been done !

Translation of the I Ching is still an ongoing project that won't be coming to a dead end anytime soon. If you want it all wrapped up in a box now that's your own limitation.

Plus if you look around the site you can see evidence of a large community of I Ching readers who don't 100% rely on any one translation because their own experience of casts does count for quite a lot in their understanding. There's creative interplay happening all the time between old and new translations and the way readers find casts to play out in their own experience.

That would be an unacceptable exclucivity to anyone that consults the Yi. If only those scholars, that havent found a way of agreeing oon what the translations should be, "know" what a word should "mean" and havent made that obundantly clear to everyone at every step then shame on the scholarsfor not getting together and agreeing on the "meaning". Assuming that any scholars know what the meaning really is, as that is significantly different than a literal translation, in a lot of cases.
I think again if you actually look around the whole site you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence of scholars hugging onto their translations because they want exclusive knowledge. You say 'shame on the scholars for not getting together and agreeing on a meaning' ? Well it would be a huge absurdity would it not for scholars to close all possibility down in favour of one meaning. As absurd as taking a long and ancient poem and trying to make all scholars of that poetical form agree on one meaning.

Sounds like meanings fascism to me and there's you posturing as a free thinking radical :rolleyes:

These are the kinds of knots of absurdity you will continue to tie yourself in if your only way to participate in a discussion is to simply refute every thing your respondent says. You end up making no sense, losing any orientation about your own position whilst being unavailable for discussion in any real sense.
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Trojina

"someone who 'challenges' you actually want complete uniformity of meaning."

Isnt that part of the process of challenging, to get to the roots so that the possibility of uniformity of meaning can shine through. Otherwise, without uniformity, though I have used the terms coherence and rationality, there is no measure or framework and it becomes possible to create whatever one pleases, regardless of any truth that might be inherent in the Yi.
Which of course is fine if one is unconcerned with any inner or fundamental underlying principles, in which case I dont think anyone would be responding to me except on matters of belief, as as they belong to each person alone and have no commonality other than what we choose to believe we share with someone else, but as belief is not the matter in question it cannot be that anyone is responding in that way.

"Yi is a poetry and if one was to insist that everyone understood poetry the same way, understanding the same word the same way with the same associations they'd kill it stone dead."

Where would you begin to get the notion that "understanding", that which illuminates us, would kill anything stone dead.
Of course if you wish to consider that "Yi is a poetry" them by all means do so, but that is not the point of discussions about the commonality of underlying principles.
If it is just a poem then the significance disappears.

"That depends on the river, the season and other factors"

But then the Yi would references any other factors, if they were relevant.

"Crossing a river is clearly symbolic of making a big transition"

If it was clear, then that would be the only possible interpretation, the word would be consistenly translated as river, rather than water. It would be translated as transition.
So it isnt clear at all that is what the Yi really means.

Just because it "can" be used in that way does not mean that is the way the Yi means it.

"What are your 'underlying principles' you go on about them a lot but nowhere, as far as I can see, have you made a clear exposition of what these mean to you."

Of course if I knew exactly what they were I wouldnt be asking anyone else, I would be writing my own contributions to the world of the Yi.
I know that the rationality and coherence that demonstrate resonance means that the underlying principles are the same for all things, so Tarot, Astrology, Chinese Medicine, Dao, and so on for anything that tries to describe something fundamental that deals with internal processes of one manifestation or another. So there should be clear correlations between all if all are represenataions of fundamentals and underlying principles.
That does present a problem as the Yi is based, apparently, around 8 and results in 64, which have no obvious correlations with the 12's of Astrology and Chinese Medicine.
So while I have notions as to how Astrology and Chinese Medicine and the Tarot are connected in a fundamental way, I couldnt explain that without considerable exposition and detail. All of them are filled with a lot of deadwood, which the underlying principles evident in those others methods reveals. But it is not clear or evident how that connects with the Yi and that is compounded by the fact that 5 and 8 dont go into 12 or much else and make it difficult to see how there are fundamental underlying principles in the Yi.
But the commentaries say there are. And of there arent then the Yi is just a product of imagination and would be nothing special and would be just as any form of divination might be that allows us humans to tap into our subconscious selves, or to imagine that we do, as it is always possible if there are no measures or frameworks that underlying principles establish, that everything in that form of divination is nothing other than fabrication by our own beliefs and imagination. Which is fine if that is what it is, but then it wouldnt matter if this or that, or anything at all was correct or right, non of the scholars work would mean anything whatsoever, it wouldnt matter how we used the Yi, or didnt, there wouldnt be any tuition, no courses or anything to learn. As it would be completely arbitrary, which would be absolutely fone if we thought that helped us in some way or the other, but without the existence of fundamental underlying principles that is all there would be.
Whether we know exactly what they are, the recognition and the knowing that they exist is fundamental as to how, why and what we use the Yi for. We dont have to "know" them completely, just recognising that they exist changes everything, including our opinions as it moves us firmly away from personal belief into areas of commonality, to rationality, to coherence, to resonance, to where the contradiction dont stand out like sore thumbs that reveal that we are not talking anything fundamental but talking about beliefs and as beliefs, at the end of the day, are just ours, there wouldnt be much point in that other than wanting to be in the Yi club.
Which would be fine but for those that do consider there are underlying principles, even if we are unable to carify what they are in terms of the Yi and have to ask others, the differentiation of whether we consider the Yi to be based on something fundamental, such as underlying principles, or consider the Yi to be just another means of what would be little more than fortune telling, some of which can be very good, so no derogation on that front, but it wouldnt be what the Yi is suppoesed to be, a book of vaqlue, a book that means something, a book that has been passed down through the centuries because it has importance.

"Doing a translation of something doesn't remove it from readers given they wouldn't have had it in the first place if the translations had not been done !"

Which is of course a valid point, and I am most grateful to those that did the initial work to bring it to my attention. But it does not mean that the translation is of any real use. Just being aware of it to some degree does not a valid tool make.
The NeiJing of Chinese Medicine has been translated and there are those that swear by its contents, but for those of us that have perhaps had direct experience of what Chinese Medicine is it becomes clear that we dont need the books and the translations are often way off, for many reasons to extensive to go into in a Yi Forum. But one interesting point, which resonates with how Neuropsycholgy fits in with understanding and knowledge is that almost everyone, when presented with the possibility that their precious books and the translations of them that they hold such store by, either goes into a rage and starts accusing the person presenting such possiblities as the devil themsleves or resrts to reiterations of various beliefs, the very beliefs that are in question, so no rational argument or validation of the ancient texts or the translations at all.

"you can see evidence of a large community of I Ching readers who don't 100% rely on any one translation because their own experience of casts does count for quite a lot in their understanding."

There is the question of what understanding really is. It cannot be ofrgotten that unless there is some measure of what is real that there is no way of discerning if the thinking is a belief or a knowing. Both would be thought by the individual as understanding but one would be transient and a personal belief, the other would be the understanding of a rational person of inner experience of the commonality od fundamental underlying principles.

"Well it would be a huge absurdity would it not for scholars to close all possibility down in favour of one meaning. As absurd as taking a long and ancient poem and trying to make all scholars of that poetical form agree on one meaning."

But a poem makes no claims to be anything. And what is wrong about one meaning. The Earth revolves around the Sun, one meaning, for every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction, one meaning.
If water means water then just say that, if it means river say that. If it does mean a challenge the Yi would say challenge, the water, whatever form it is, is significant, because it is what it is and just as importantly it is not something else, like a mountain . A lake is water but the Yi does not refer to a lake. If it is a river then why was that not seen as obvious, and if it is a river that is still significant and the question then would be, what does the great river mean. Remembering that it has to be applicable and meaningful to everyone, including those that had never seen a great river. It has to have commonality to everyone.

But I think you are missing my point. If we, those that are ignorant non scholars of the lexical semantics, have not been informed by those that apparently known more than we do then it is shame on them. Unless of course that they dont agree on the lexical semantics in which case no one can say that the "word" itself means anything particular.

Free thinking, yes, belief structure thinking, not in terms of the questions. Questions and discussions, yes. How is that fascism. Meanings mean what they do, if a meaning means many things then it is not a meaning, it is a belief, and a construction, only a meaning that remains throughout the ages because its fundamental underlying principles do not change, is a meaning of merit, all other "meanings" are what human beings have made up nad inviented and like castles made of sand will melt away, to be reaplaced by something else no doubt as thehuman mind struggle to deal with what it considers a vacuum. But it is not a vacuum, we have just forgotten the inner language of what the silence that we call a vacuum is telling us.
A word, a label, os only a label and it does not matter what label we attach to any particular, the underlying quality of that will remain the same. Getting to caught up in the labels often misses the point of what the meaning is, so river, stream, water makes no differerence, the "meaning" remains unaltered, it may not even be ascribable to a single word, the "intention" of the original script amy be capable of represented ny an image that may be difficult to put into single words.
In the tread about layer cake imagery I raised that only if the symbols of broken and unbroken lines was of significant importance would any imagery be possible. if that is the case and the "symbol" of the broken and unboken lines is significant then whatever we call those symbols, be that Yin and Yang or anything else we care to, they would be so fundamental that no single words could convey their meaning. Words such as "great man" "water" obviously mean something significant or they would be rendered as understandable and common words and the simple fact that we dont "know" their meaning and there are many possible interpretations, even of the words themselves decalres them to be more fundamental and significant than just rivers or streams. If they meant something other than underlying principles we would know as the translations would be realtivly easy. But how does anyone translate fundamental principles, especially when they have little or no knowledge or understanding of what they are.

"These are the kinds of knots of absurdity you will continue to tie yourself in if your only way to participate in a discussion is to simply refute every thing your respondent says. You end up making no sense, losing any orientation about your own position whilst being unavailable for discussion in any real sense."

But that simply isnt true. I have emphasie dteh imprtance of rational coherence and you will se in my posts, apart from the some lexical constraints, that I have been consistent. I know some things, I do not know others, I know what neuropsychology tells us, I know what historians have discovered, I know how parts of the human mind works. Putting that all together and there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the Yi, amainly because the differernces inherent in whether there are underlying principles and if there are not are crucial to anything that anyone says about the Yi. If someone uses the Yi in the context of underlying principles and the journey of knowledge and understanding of inner self, then the using of the Yi, the methodology and the interpretations and understanding if the readings will be significantly differernt from someone that uses the Yi as a means of oracle of external matters. In the first the great man and water will likely have inner significance, in the second they willlikely have outer significance. That is rather a large difference. In the first the methodology is of importance, in the second it doesnt. Rather a large difference. In the first the real meanings of what is meant within the Hexagram is of importance, in the second it is whatever the reader wants it to mean. Rather a large difference.
Without the differentiation of how we think and use the Yi nothing makes sense of what anyone says as without that declaration what a person says could be only significant to them. If there is no differentiation the works of the scolars mean nothing, they could be just the imaginations attached to amethod of fortune telling, or they could be extremely significant, but if they dont know what the Yi is and we dont know what the Yi is in terms if that basic differentiation then they can have no idea if what they say is of any use or value or has any accuracy, and we have no way of knowing if we are even compreheinding their words correctly, let alone understanding them. If we have no knowledge and understanding of the underlying principles then we have no measure to guide us.
It matters not one jot if we have a thousand bricks of knowledge, if we have no "plans" to guide us the bricks themsleves are never going to make sense. But we seem to be obsessed with the bricks at the expense of the plan. Both are needed but only the plans makes sense of it all. If we dont decalre what we know about the plan and only keep coming back to descriptions of bricks no wonder that to would appear to be "knots of absurdity" to someone.

But it is really rather simple. Underlying principles or not.

I am perfectly clear about my "position", I have been consistent in that in my posts.
It only would seem to make no sense if there was no understanding and knowledge of underlying principles.
If someone says something about their knowledge, their experience, their understanding of underlying principles, I would have nothing to refute.
If responses are rational, coherent and logical, there would be nothing to "refute".
Of course I am "available" for"discussions" but that is not what I get back. I have been party to the scientific world of the most intense "discussions" about the meanings of the Universe. Those discussions are always based on evidence and any contradictions or discrepancies would be seen straight away as pointing out that any "theory" must be flawed. Even when one person is defending their particular view they still examine the details of the other persons presentations and dont resort to , just that they believe it to be true.

But where are the discussions of the detail of anything that I have raised. Where is the mitigation of what I have raised, where is the evidence that what anyone is saying is not a belief structure.

If I was not open to discussion I would be ignoring the contents of what any responses are and generalising at every opportunity, but I take great care to respond to the detail of what others are posting. Thereby demonstrating my willingness and intent to discuss.

Of course accussing me of the opposite would be a rather good way of deflecting away from the content not actually responding to the detail of what I am posting. But only you would know if that applied or not. Only you would know if you found my posts "knots of absurdity" because you didnt understand my content or if you found my posts, knots of absurdity, for particular and specific rational, coherent and logical reasons. But then I would have expected you to say in detail what you rational, coherent and logical reasons were to each specific point. I would have expected you to have filled in the answers to the questions and demonstrated an inequivocal knowledge and understanding of underlying principles.

All the best

Dave
 

jukkodave

Senior member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi legume

"i can't know what they would mean to you (and never tried to tell you what these phrases should mean to you either). i simply shared my own opinion or interpretation based on some experience, knowledge and imagination."

This central to what I am trying to communicate.
If you dont think you can know what they mean to anyone else thne that simply declares you use the Yi not in a way of underlying principles, as that is the commonality that means that what we communicate is "known" to everyone.
Opinions and imagination are perfectly fine and no criticism of them at all, but they are not the world of underlying principles and are there fore only pertinent to the individual and os could never be a response to the questions of the thread, what do they mena, not what they mean to each individual. The question is what are the underlying meanings. I think we are all perfectly capable of making up our own meanings from our imagination."

"i also understood from your later posts is that these opinions or interpretations or even translations are of no use to you."

Absolutely not, if I put those words somewhere that would have been a lexical error. and I think the content of my posts should have made that obvious.

They might be of use or they might not, entirely dependent on the context and whether there is knowing and understanding of the underlying principles. The words themselves do not convey the "meaning" or there would be no questions or discussions about them. The intepretations of the words only make sense if there is understanding by those doing any translations of the underlying principles that created the original characters, which may not even be translatable into single words anyway. In many ares of Chinese Medicine, despite the attempts of translators many terms are simply not translateable nad often, or really should retain the original term without translation. If it is fundamental then it may have no direct translatable terms and it wouldnt matter what words we used, so we might as well use the original, or seomthing representing it, rather than try to say ot means a specific thing.
It isnot that the translation are of no use but that unless we "know" the principles and context we have no way of knowing if they are of use or not. Once we work out what the principles and context is the words of the translations will become clearer and we will know if the translations are correct or not or even if they can be properly translated.

"the inner-outer realms are at the beginning of the foundations course offered on this site and people often share their experiences here of how Yi simultaneously speaks on different levels."

If that was the case then I would be getting many more "answers", there would be no confusions, the apparent contradictions and discrepancies would evaporate with rational, coherent and logical answers.
Even if the Yi speaks simultaneously on different levels and speaks to the inner and the outer, the "languages" of each are so constratingly different that the understanding od them would be impossible. It would be like simultaneuosly to be interpreting a Hexagram such as 52 as both meditating and ceasing action. The external action is to not act, the inner act is a specific action. The outer interpretation is no action, the inner interpretation is act in a specific way. It is mutually incompatible that one can have a simultaneous interpretation where one is devoid of any belief and the "meaning" of the Hexagram is as singlular as possible and the interpretation of a Hexagram where any possible interpretation is possible and available to the questioner.
It is of course the same with every Hexagram.

"modern translations is absolutely no use in understanding the "meaning" is like believing that etymology is of no use to cognitive sciences,"

Context is important here. Modern translations that have little or no understanding or knowledge of the underlying principles are of absolutely no use. If they are based on knowledge and understanding of underlying principles then they are of use. There is little evidence to suggest that any translators have the knowing, understanding or knowledge of the underlying principles, or theur translations and commentaries would be significantly differerent.
As far as etymology is concerned it is only of use when the understanding of why we need to communicate and what and why we are trying to communicate is understood. The realisation that most of what humans "communicate" is the maintenance of individual belief structures and the maintenance of our "picture of the world" rather than the communicationf of what lies in common to us all and any underlying principles, which is why we struggle to find the words and ways of describing and communicating them.
We dont just learn language as children because that is what others do, we learn because there is an inner need to do so and the manintenance of the illusion and delusion that we all live in is an important part of why we have language and how we use it.

"the name of the forum is "exploring divination"

But the site is about clarity, the Forum whatever its name is about the Yi. Divination is but one aspect of that Yi, the questions about meanings then would have no place in the Forum if it was confined to "divination" as the divination of the Yi, as opposed to the wisdom of the Yi has little or no commonality and is different for each individual and all we would be doing is sharing our stories and being part of the same club.

"Yi's universally ineffable principles (that can be only learned and applied on individual level)."

If they are ineffable principles then they go beyond the individual, they cant be taught in the learning sense and are applicable on more than an individual level.
But if you think that you have declared your alignment with the divinitory side of using the Yi and that it only confising as to what you are actually trying to say and contirbute to a discussion about underlying principles that are universally to all.

"saying what you don't do unfortunately doesn't make things any clearer in terms of what you do, or how do you use Yi or (wish to) apply its principles in your life. such information could help understand where you're coming from and by giving some background possibly explain better what you meant with your original question."

But I have proveded that information. I use the methodology that is not skewed in any way. I use the Yi from as much as I can based on the underlying principles that I know and understand. I try to always learn more and the contradictions and inconsistencies serve to reveal and eliminate the possibility of beleif structures that have no correlatioins with underlying principles. I have used the Yi for more than 40 years. I have asked questions for all of those 40 years and looked for evidence rather than belief. And all of the other things that I have stated in my other posts.

The original question is clear, though with hindsight I might have been more explicit to avoid misunderstandings. The question is what do the terms "mean" in regard to the inner world of self discovery, the world of fundamantal underlying principles.

Dave
 

iams girl

Senior member
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
1,312
Reaction score
8
the evaluation of if soemthing is able to be "trusted" depends on two things.
Firtsly that the text is accurate; in that I mean, rather than it being linguistically right, which may always be a debatable issue for all sorts of reason, but accurate for the reason that it needs to convey the essence and the true meaning of the texts, which may not be always overly obviousn to any scolars from the text itself, if taken literally without context and understanding.
Secondly even if the text is accurate and conveys the essence it is entirely dependent on our understanding and knowledge to be able to make proper sense of it.
I appreciate your reply on all counts in addition to the one above.

Keeping in mind underlying principles and how to connect with them, then, one might have an accurate text, but not the understanding. On the other hand, one might have a faulty text, but still be able to come up with an accurate understanding. Possibly a letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law situation?

David brings up a good point here though as well:
The Buddha taught about the nature of reality and how we might experience that (via meditation) - I think of that as an 'inward' journey. But he also gave guidance for how to be in the world: to use right speech, to not cause harm, to find honest or meaningful work and so forth - this we might call our 'outward' journey. .
It makes sense to me that if yin manifests accurately in accord with yang energy, it is reflected both inwardly and outwardly. So, as a reverse process, "great" actions might also be a way of prompting or training oneself in the direction of "great" thoughts.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top