What does the Yi Jing think of Epega's Sacred Ifa Oracle'?'

[Qiaozhi Yeats]

Renowned chemist and Nigerian babalayo (Ifa priest) produced a version of the sacred Ifa Oracle after many years of trying to fit the Yi Jing into it. According to his work, and I don't know if this is traditional, the Ifa Oracle is composed of 256 octograms or odus of yin and yang (don't know the Yoruba terms for these concepts). The Yi Jing's 64 hexagrams are supposed to fit into these 256 octograms somehow. Epega's work is in Yoruba, which I can barely read, but am told is very beautiful by native speakers, whereas the anthropologists translation is said to be "terrible" by the same speakers. Given how great a chemist he was, I'm sure it is a work of genius and a true embodiment of tradition, but what does the Yi Jing make of his efforts to insert it into a larger structure;?;

I divined and received 28, no changing lines which seems auspicious.

 

[mandarin_23]

This seems to be - big overstepping. Big load! Maybe a bit of a lot ...

 

[Freedda]

This seems to be - big overstepping. Big load!

I agree. Overlaying one system upon another can end up weighing down the whole thing. Even too much of a good thing can be too much.

D

 

[Changstein]

Something apparently rigid (a roofbeam, or an Ancient Classic) has been stretched, twisted and bent into a new and different shape. This is not an embodiment of tradition, and it isn't true to the original form. It's been repurposed as something else. But this is auspcious. The old beam turned out to be more malleable than anyone would have guessed.

 

[Freedda]

But this is auspcious. The old beam turned out to be more malleable than anyone would have guessed.

Hmm. I suppose. For me, without knowing what these writings actually say, it might be premature to say if this is an auspicious sign or a warning that things are too much. Perhaps then, it is suggesting that we should be ready, be prepared, or proceed with caution: that we might need to get out from under the roof beam that's about to break ... or, that we now have some excessive new thing which leads us to 'have somewhere to go.'

However ....

I saw one website where someone talks about some kind of blending or correspondence between the Yijng and Ifa, but it is piss-poor and confusing.

Also, I see these as being completely different traditions, from different parts of the world and vastly different cultures, using different methods, probably coming from different time periods, and with different uses and outomes. And while I have found some benefit in finding correspondences or commonalities between systems (e.g. the tarot and yi, or buddhism and yi), I find there is also too much of a new-age tendency to say that 'all things are one', but these blended 'mixed-drink' entities often end up being watered-down and diminished.

Also ... it seems to me that tipping the scales from this being too much = not a good thing, to too much = a new way of seeing things (because the ridgepool material has been magically transmutated) requires extensive knowledge of, and experience with, both systems - which I'm not at all seeing here - so I'm further suspect, and my SpidySense is tingling big-time! I have, for example, seen similar 'excesses' where people tried to blend Yi and Tarot or Yi and Qabalah and we end up with a big huge mess!

So with all that, I am leaning towards the 'this is just too much and it's bound to break' way of seeing 28.

Regards, D

 

[Changstein]

"while I have found some benefit in finding correspondences or commonalities between systems (e.g. the tarot and yi, or buddhism and yi"

I have absolutely no interest in this actually.
But the poster didn't ask for my view on this kind of cross-pollination in general, he asked the Yijing about a specific book. What difference do you think my own judgement of this book should make?

And why do you think it answered 28.0 and not 28.3 and/or 4? Or 9.3, etc?

 

[Changstein]

"Also, I see these as being completely different traditions, from different parts of the world and vastly different cultures, using different methods, probably coming from different time periods, and with different uses and outomes. And while I have found some benefit in finding correspondences or commonalities between systems (e.g. the tarot and yi, or buddhism and yi), I find there is also too much of a new-age tendency to say that 'all things are one', but these blended 'mixed-drink' entities often end up being watered-down and diminished."

You are already unavoidably doing this as a modern, Western person consulting the Yi Jing, adapting it to the needs and beliefs of your own vastly different culture and time. Compared to that, Ifa kinda seems like less of a stretch?

Even the "Jing" is full of reconciliations between two cultures, one Ancient Chinese and the other even more ancient.

 

[Freedda]

... the poster didn't ask for my view on this kind of cross-pollination in general, he asked the Yijing about a specific book ...

He was asking about 'efforts to insert (the Yi) into a larger structure' which I was responding to. And while the poster didn't ask specifically for my view on this, he did post his reading here, so - again - I responded, which I think is an important aspect of this website - to share ideas.

After all, isn't that exactly what you did when you said .... 'It's been repurposed as something else. But this is auspcious.' ? I don't read anywhere that 28uc is a repurposing of the support or that this is 'auspicious' - so in one way it seems that what you're doing here is adding in something extra - maybe your own ideas - and that that's not a part of the reading either.

I have no idea why this person didn't get another response, which could have included any of thousands of different responses - and not just the three you mention. That's not my job: to second-guess why someone got one answer and not another - I just responded to the reading.

That I might have a different view on this reading is not at all the point, only that I offered a thoughtful, reasoned response.

D

 

[Changstein]

You're right, it doesn't say "auspicious" at 28.0. My mistake, I thought it did! So I would strike "but this is auspicious" from what I wrote.

Unfortunately, I also think you're right that "repurposing it as something else" contains something of my own disapproval, in perhaps a less obvious way than what you wrote.

Unfortunately because this is something I have very little interest in sharing with the poster or website. Yet I'm not sure I would strike it from my interpretation because it does reconcile the question directly with the reading.

When I consider the image of a warped beam, I am usually inclined to suppose it has been weathered by the elements. You suppose it has been compromised due to an excess load. It doesn't say. In this case, I see that the 'bending' which has occurred has been deliberate: "made to fit in these 256 octograms somehow." So I envision something more like a sculpting process, with the beam as the raw material. In this way, I think what I wrote is grounded enough in both the question and the reading and that is something I miss in your interpretation.

I do think it's often helpful to compare passages to others with very similar imagery to get at a more specific understanding, beyond this kind of identification. 28.3 says this is inauspicious IIRC. That is not in this reading. But because it is in a very similar reading, I might assume it is a deliberate omission. A third line moving might also suggest a tension that I perceive as less acute in a reading with no moving lines.

I also worry that all this discussion is not helpful to the poster. I am sorry for my part in that, and going forward would prefer to focus on the readings as much as possible.

 

[Freedda]

When I consider the image of a warped beam, I ... suppose it has been weathered by the elements. You suppose it has been compromised due to an excess load. It doesn't say. In this case, I see that the 'bending' which has occurred has been deliberate: "made to fit in these 256 octograms somehow."

Okay, thanks for that clarification, and I'll consider this idea of the rigdepole being weathered by the elements as possible way for me to look at 28.

The version that I'm working from says: '28 - Greatness in Excess. The ridgepole bends. Worthwhile to have somewhere to go. Fulfillment.' And the hexagram name is Da Guo, which in one gloss I have has Da as: greatness, importance, that which is great; and Guo as: excess, extreme, innundation. And so these together give me a sense of too much of something - even something great - causing the ridgepole, the support, to bend.

But regardless of the 'why' of the bending - if it's because there's too much weight, or because of a natural aging/maturing process of the ridgepole - it is still bending.

So I ask myself, how would I feel sitting under all this bending and weight? If nothing else, I would be concerned, cautious, wanting to keep an eye on it .... and not just say, 'wow, all of this (yi+ifa) stuff is good and is stable.' And I might be inclined to think that perhaps the most fulfilling thing is to have somewhere (else) to go before it breaks!

And yes, you are right, I often consider more than just the Yi's words and images when looking at a reading. I take into account my life experiences, and most importantly, I include the context of the reading and what I know (or think I know) about the situation:

Here we have someone who is asking about a divination system they are not familiar with, and have only 'heard' about from others, so there's a lot of may-bes and assumptions here; and we have far less facts to work with. And we also have the other cautions I mentioned.

And I have to say it made me cringe a bit when I read 'insert it into a larger structure', which might imply that this 'fitting into' is a one-way street because Ifa supposedly has more 'parts' than the Yi does, making it what? A more extensive or complete oracle system? That's like saying we can only 'fit' the Bible into Buddhist teachings (and not the other way around), because the writings of the Buddha are so much more extensive than those of the Bible. Or that we can only fit the Yi into Tarot because there are more tarot cards than there are hexagrams!

So, putting this altogether in my somewhat modern 20th-21st centrury way, I then came up with the answer I did.

That is not in this reading. But because it is in a very similar reading, I might assume it is a deliberate omission. A third line moving might also suggest a tension that I perceive as less acute in a reading with no moving lines.

I think I get what you're saying here - maybe? But don't all readings involve an 'omission' of all the other thousands of possible readings that they are not?

But, yes, in this particular case, some of the lines from 28 offer a bit more caution than the oracle text alone, but as I said, there are other things I took into account in saying what I did.

I also worry that all this discussion is not helpful to the poster.

Perhaps, but this is a free, open forum, and I don't think that either you or I have gone off into some other readings or hexagrams - we've just explored this one in more detail, which I have benefited from - and maybe QY will as well.

Regards, D

 

[rosada]

Consider that 28.Excess follows 27. Nourishment. To me this suggests that much has been taken in and now the Excess of Nourishment needs to be digested, the lessons need to be learned, before attempting to lead or teach others as described in 29. The Dangerous Abysess. ("If you are unfamiliar with the path, do not attempt to go further without a guide. If you know the way, then lead others. The superior man is untiring in his willingness to teach").

To apply this to the current question, 28. Excess unchanging, says to me the I Ching is cautioning that this new system can only offer more words. The important thing is how do you process them? Do they give more information and make things more clear to you or is it just more confusion?

The Judgement says it pays to have a destination. I think that means it's good to know what your goal is. If you're going to the beach you wouldn't take a suitcase full of clothes and if you're asking the oracle a simple question you don't need a long answer - Know you're goal and you won't take on an Excess.

 

[Qiaozhi Yeats]

Consider that 28.Excess follows 27. Nourishment. To me this suggests that much has been taken in and now the Excess of Nourishment needs to be digested, the lessons need to be learned, before attempting to lead or teach others as described in 29. The Dangerous Abysess. ("If you are unfamiliar with the path, do not attempt to go further without a guide. If you know the way, then lead others. The superior man is untiring in his willingness to teach").

To apply this to the current question, 28. Excess unchanging, says to me the I Ching is cautioning that this new system can only offer more words. The important thing is how do you process them? Do they give more information and make things more clear to you or is it just more confusion?

The Judgement says it pays to have a destination. I think that means it's good to know what your goal is. If you're going to the beach you wouldn't take a suitcase full of clothes and if you're asking the oracle a simple question you don't need a long answer - Know you're goal and you won't take on an Excess.

Thanks Rosada, I think I was just showing off to the community that I have some knowledge of Ifa, having studied with a Santero in Cuba amongst other experiences. He quite explicitly told me that he didn't like the male prostitutes that were making a living off of the tourists. There's a lot of concern about corruption entering into the sacred rituals as people strive to emulate the United States. I already carry a heavy load, whether it is worth me pursuing it here is another matter. Thank you.

 

[rosada]

This “shared readings” space is for I Ching readings only. For discussing other systems go to the “exploring divination” area.