What makes a good diviner? : 9 >23

[maremaria]

Some days ago I asked Yi’s opinion of “ what makes a good divider ?”
and got 9.1,2,3,5 >23

I found it a very interesting answer that’s why I post it here.

What do you think?

Maria

 

[diamanda]

I've been thinking about this strange answer you got...
Initially it didn't make any sense to me at all, but
somehow suddenly, just now, it kind of shined, and
here's what i thought.

Once i read that when you get 4 changing lines, then
the 'first' line to change in the next hexagram holds
special significance as well. In this case, we have
changing lines 1,2,3,5, so in this sequence, 4 would
be the 'first' changing line to change in 23 - and thus
i'll take it into account too.

9 - a situation about which you can't do anything much. feeling trapped.
9:1 - this makes you return to the Way, to the I Ching perhaps. Introspect.
9:2 - you turn to your nearest (and the I Ching!) for consolation.
9:3 - more destruction comes about. no progress. immense obstacles.
9:5 - despite all this, you manage to remain "sincere". once more you turn to your nearest.
23:4 - total collapse that cannot be averted.
23 - collapse.

Well, speaking for myself here, i never studied the I Ching as much as
i did during times of total collapse. Not that i stop during more peaceful
times, i don't. But it was such a time of total collapse that made me
turn to it, and start studying it, and start respecting it and loving it so
much. Furthermore, exactly because people usually consult it during
difficult times, when they are in straits, you must have been through
difficult times yourself, othwerwise you won't understand either their
situation, or the answers. Perhaps something like 'survive to tell the story'.

 

[maremaria]

When I asked that questions I was looking for a objective answer trying to clean my mind from my personal belief. What I liked in the answer I got was initially the nature of those two hexagram. 9 and 23.

I good divider is something great in my mind but Yi talks about the small things one has to take care to Be one. The small details that can bring you closer or away from the core of the whole thing. And I really liked seen 23 in that answer. Cause in order to be a good divider it may has to do not with the things you add but the things you prune, all the unnecessary features you throw away.
This answer bring in my mind something Michelangelo said (if I recall correct) about sculpture. “Carving is easy, you just go down to the skin and stop”

At the begining ,Diamanda ,looked a strange answer to me too. I was expecting somethings like 14 or 35 maybe 61 or something like that . But if i have read it correctly , it is a beautiful answer,imo.

Maria

 

[diamanda]

I really like your notion of 'pruning' to get to the core!

 

[meng]

23 - collapse.

Well, speaking for myself here, i never studied the I Ching as much as
i did during times of total collapse. Not that i stop during more peaceful
times, i don't. But it was such a time of total collapse that made me
turn to it, and start studying it, and start respecting it and loving it so
much. Furthermore, exactly because people usually consult it during
difficult times, when they are in straits, you must have been through
difficult times yourself, othwerwise you won't understand either their
situation, or the answers. Perhaps something like 'survive to tell the story'.

Totally agree.

To me, 9 is "to be", not pushing or pulling, just being. The cognitive process of "a good diviner" is gentle/subtle wind, typically referred to as "spiritual". With these lines it leaves no stones unturned in the thought process, which merges with the creative (wind and heaven), in affect being the conduit for the creative. What comes out sounds and even feels like intuition, but intuition is only half of it. 23 is how to get to a state of 9, of just being. From this stripped impartial mind, cognition can work efficiently and precisely, without prejudice or bias.

 

[applegirl]

Collapse

Could 23 also be about the way the iChing functions? The process of collapse just reminded me of the quantum mechanical collapse of wave functions when an observer is present (yes I'm a nerd!). So while all possibilities exist in the iChing, once the observer, i.e. the diviner, puts their attention on the iChing, the thousands of possible answers 'collapse' into one.

I kinda like that thought because the question was about what makes a good diviner - well maybe knowledge of ones own quality of attention and consciousness in the process of 'collapse' of the (quantum mechanical) possibilities could be what the iChing is hinting at.

Hope that's not too nerdy

Applegirl

 

[meng]

Excellent thought, Applegirl! I think in essence we're saying the same thing, in part. If a wave collapses when being observed, then the diviner must lose (23) the subjective critically observing mind, and gain an impartial perspective. Not that a reading can't be "figured out" based on analyzing its parts, but this alone does not make a "good diviner", it only makes a good critical analyst.

 

[heylise]

BO: According to one theory, the left part Lù originates from a picture of a windlass or winch drawing water for irrigation, which would symbolize good luck (protection of the harvest). 'Altar' might have been added to emphasize the meaning 'good luck' . It can be found carved in good luck charms.
Other views:
According to Wieger it is a tree with chopped-off branches, with an axe. An old form of the character looks like that, but I found an older one which looks different. Li LéYi (p.205) and Wang HongYuan (p.116) both show a picture of a hanging sack, with drops falling from it. Wang: a sack for filtering wine. And according to Wu JingNuan there was an alternate old form (knife +) divine: to foretell by cutting away.

All over the world there was a practice to cut an animal open and 'read' the entrails. So I guess it is a sack or an animal (wine sacks were made of animals too) which was used to separate the essential from the appearance. The wine from the dregs, or the inside information from the outside looks. Together with the radical 'altar' it means good luck, together with 'water' clear. And here, together with 'knife' to peel or flay. My idea is, that the last one refers especially to the reading of omens by flaying an animal.

And now Yi also says it has to do with divining!

Could 23 also be about the way the iChing functions? The process of collapse just reminded me of the quantum mechanical collapse of wave functions when an observer is present (yes I'm a nerd!). So while all possibilities exist in the iChing, once the observer, i.e. the diviner, puts their attention on the iChing, the thousands of possible answers 'collapse' into one.

Really love this idea! Pruning away everything not applying, and getting the big fruit you need by focusing on it.

LiSe

 

[applegirl]

Thanks Meng . I agree - when doing the divination, I think mindfulness of the processes, (including quantum mechanical processes if that's one's bag) can help with a true communication with the iChing. The analytical strengths of the mind can certainly be employed when interpreting, but IMHO I believe that during the casting itself, one could become a better diviner by being mindful ... so yes, we're saying the same things .

Just as an aside (seeing that we're talking about parallel processes in physics and the personal), I didn't realise until very recently that Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli were acquainted. Here's a link to a book that I'd really like to get my hands on:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7042.html

Applegirl

 

[jesed]

Just a word about quantum and impartial perspective...

"Impartial perspective" and "objective observer" is the goal for the Modernity related to knowledge and epistemology. And it is based on Newton's model of the Universe.

Quantum's model of the Universe has severe implications and effects on knowledge and epistemology: there is never such a thing like "objective observer" nor "impartial perspective". That is a myth... the simple fact that someone "observe", has influence and affects (modify) the reality observed. The observer is always implicated in the situation observed, with all his/her subjetivity.

BTW.. this is also what the old chinese said about divination and Yijing.

Best

 

[meng]

Looks like an excellent meeting.

"..there is no point of observation outside the human psyche." - particle physicist Steven Weinberg

That's a huge leap to make, but it's where I park my thinker a lot lately: Is God's mind hiding in mine; and I have to strip mine before experiencing it? (awakened being) I think that's how it is. I experiment most every night with the in-between world of awake and asleep. I've been observing how rapidly complex scenarios arise, complete with actors, scripts, music - the works! And it's all going down beneath the awake conscious mind. When I nudge myself to wake more, I catch that crossover point, and usually I start laughing, because the scenario had no grounding in reality as I know it. It's another world with different rules, and different definitions of reality.

I think it is the fluid way of moving between those two realms, that enables a diviner to catch the answer. It doesn't come from one place, but two together.

 

[maremaria]

Everyone, I enjoyed reading your posts.
As I said in my previous post I really liked that Yi talks about the things you prune, all the unnecessary features you throw away. Or as Meng better phrased it “23 is how to get to a state of 9, of just being”

I’m not sure if I have grasp yours ideas about “objective” and “subjective” .To me there is not a thing like “objective reality” (not sure if Jesed means the same). On the other hand I have observe myself holding some times faulty perceptions biased from emotions or ideas .And no mater which is the source of bias (internal or external) after a pruning process the result perception could be an “objective” to me but at the same time “subjective” according an external observer.

Do you speak about the observers inhabit within us or talk about something else ?


btw, I asked the complementary questions "what makes a *bad* diviner " 28.3.4 > 29

 

[meng]

Maria, who are you asking, me or Applegirl?

As for objective reality, I'd call it observable cyclic reality. I'm not sure either how reality can be defined as absolutely objective.

 

[meng]

btw, I asked the complementary questions "what makes a *bad* diviner " 28.3.4 > 29

What I see is an inordinate amount of effort, and even angst. Main problem I see there is inefficiency. There may be repetitive formality and a sense of the dramatic (28/29), seriousness or piousness, but answers are contrived, forced, and sure to be completed. By completed I mean, a "bad diviner" needs to bring to completion an answer that only the student can answer for him/herself. But the big problem I see is inefficiency, trying way to hard.

 

[applegirl]

I’m not sure if I have grasp yours ideas about “objective” and “subjective” .To me there is not a thing like “objective reality” (not sure if Jesed means the same). On the other hand I have observe myself holding some times faulty perceptions biased from emotions or ideas .And no mater which is the source of bias (internal or external) after a pruning process the result perception could be an “objective” to me but at the same time “subjective” according an external observer.

Do you speak about the observers inhabit within us or talk about something else ?

Hi Maria

I would agree with you in saying that there is no such thing as 'objective reality', and quantum theory really confirmed that. As Jesed was saying, for years science separated the scientific observer from the experiment, but quantum shows us that a conscious presence plays around with the experiment, so objectivity went out the window. It's fascinating stuff. Brian Greene's book The Fabric of the Cosmos is a good introduction to quantum/string theory, if you're interested.

In terms of the observer within us, well that's less well defined by quantum theory because there are widely different ideas about what constitutes an observer and consciousness. It's a really fascinating subject but unfortunately one in which the new-age movement have hitched their bandwagon to, in order to 'scientifically' back up all sorts of crackpot ideas. Another good book to read on the subject of 'the consciousness problem' in science is by Rosenblum and Kuttner called Quantum Enigma. It's written by scientists who are calling for science to engage in debate about consciousness, precisely because until science engages consciousness meaningfully, the madsers will interpret it any old way.

So when it comes to the spiritual understanding of observer and observed we're not going to get a conclusive answer from science. That's where ones own beliefs come in. I find a lot of sense in Vedic wisdom here, and also in Taoism. Both speak of the interconnectedness and oneness of the universe, something which is at least in principle backed up by quantum/string theories.

I don't know if this answers your question, or if it fits in with your experience of having 'faulty perceptions' that need to be pruned in order to achieve 'objectivity', which you so rightly point out is still subjective . I guess maybe what we're all looking for is a clarity of perception, so that our senses of perception are the best that they can be, and not coloured by biases and prejudices based on the scars of previous experience. All this science stuff has thrown objectivity out the window, so maybe the best we can achieve is 'clear subjectivity' or 'enlightened subjectivity'. How to achieve this is up to the individual, but I personally believe transcending the normal states of conscious experience by meditating could be a good place to start.

Of course I personally am a long way off 'enlightened subjectivity' in my life . It would be nice to aim for though .

Applegirl

 

[meng]

Of course I personally am a long way off 'enlightened subjectivity' in my life . It would be nice to aim for though .

If you were aware of your subjective enlightenment, it would be observed, and would therefore collapse. Oh, the irony!

 

[applegirl]

If you were aware of your subjective enlightenment, it would be observed, and would therefore collapse. Oh, the irony!

That's where I start to go cross-eyed Meng . Actually I think there's something about that in the Vedas, that if you can think of yourself as enlightened you're not, because enlightenment is just 'being' - the minute you start analysing it, you lose it.

Applegirl

 

[maremaria]

Thanks for clarifying. Initially I read as you were talking about something else.

 

[meng]

"A warrior must know first that his acts are useless, and yet, he must proceed as if he didn't know it." Don Juan

"The main thrust of don Juan's efforts to teach Castaneda was an "intentional attempt to pull (him) into what he said was another cognitive system" (p. 2). In this system you can perceive the energy in humans and the universe "as it flowed freely in the universe, energy free from the bindings of socialization and syntax, pure vibratory energy…(don Juan) called this act seeing" (pp. 3-4). Do you begin to see why physics and string theory seem to be reflective of these ideas? Wasn't Jesus trying to get us to tap into another way of seeing, a different cognitive system? Was that not one of the reasons he didn't talk directly about a lot of the things he had to say?" author unknown

 

[maremaria]

.... because "looking" and "seeing" are not the same thing...

 

[meng]

Someone asked “are you a seer?” If I answer yes, then I become blind. If I answer no, then I’m a liar, and I also become blind. What is there then to be? Dumb as a rock - Not a whole day! (16.2)

 

[martin]

Very interesting answer of the Yi. One thing that caught my eye is that 23 and 9 both emphasize one line, the line of the sage in 23 and the line of the minister in 9.
The sage may be in contemplation all day and somewhat otherwordly but the minister is basically a practical doer, he has to make decisions.
So I think one meaning of 9>23 could be that a good diviner is able to bring understanding down to a practical level and that he is "in the world (line 4) but not of it (line 6)".

In QM-speak , a good diviner is not only a sage that is at home in the world of infinite possibilities, where reality didn't collapse yet. He is also at home in the world of choices, where reality has collapsed and needs to collapse - fortunately or unfortunately - into "either this or that but not both".
And he acts as a bridge between these two worlds.

Yet another way to look at it (there are many if you are in an uncollapsed state of mind ): the trigrams wind and mountain represent thinking, while earth and heaven are intuitive.
So we have in both hexagrams - 23 and 9 - a combination of intellect and intuition.
23 combines 'female' intuition (in the family arrangement the trigram earth is female) with 'male' thinking. In 9 it's the other way around, 'male' intuition is paired with 'female' thinking.
Interesting?

 

[Tohpol]

Oh interesting thread!

I think Hex 9 is very much linked with seeings things as objectively as we can and learning to read the signs, although we use the medium of subjectivity in order to become more objective/with more clarity. We can use discernment and discrimination in life in order to achieve a more objective state of awareness. It doesn't stop there of course but I do think there is an incrementally more objective awareness that can be achieved. Stripping away the subjective casing that surrounds us all is one of the key things for self-knowledge.

I think a person that is making progress in expanding his/her awareness is someone who is willing to address those subjective patterns within himself that resist change and which are detrimental to increasing awareness and thus creative choices; someone whose mind can observe, process, store, and function objectively. I don't think that means dry, intellectual analysis but encompasses emotions and intellect, feeling and intuition together to arrive at the truth which can then be known and applied.

We can look at it this way: I think our brain - the instrument of cognition in this reality - is perfect for attaining a form of objective truth. We know that the mind via the brain can hold on to long forgotten events all with a precise emotional power and with perfect clarity. Hypnotic regression can take us there and we can live it as absolute reality. But due to all the pain and suppressed emotion and programming we have lost the ability to process, store and function more objectively regarding what we can remember and what we can perceive. Seeking the truth - although truth is an infinite spiral of discovery - does have a direct connection to evaluating, feeling and thinking, together as a consciousness unit - to be objective. But we have been taught that if we used the "pure" objective thought processes that are natural to us, that is our "full awareness" of things as they are, we will suffer horrible pain so it became "subconscious." The natural became shunned. Seeing reality became linear and bound to concepts and beliefs in turn tied to fear.

So, objective observation is systematically replaced with disordered subjective observation; objective memory gets replaced with subjective memory where the initial pure memory, although stored in the brain, becomes disordered and the truth jumbled in order to avoid pain. Then of course the objective processing of our reality becomes distorted and "off." But usually we aren't even aware of it. So, then we come to that common situation where we cannot speak clearly or truthfully because it means suffering and we have learned very early on as infants that to be natural and true brings great pain.

The upshot of that lack of objectivity is that we learn to lie and everything is based on those lies careers, marriages and our perception of ourselves. We can neither give or receive a love - a pure love - i.e. an objective love without fantasy and wishful thinking because we are merely running bad software - copies of the original that are fake. We are habituated to keeping ourselves emotionally safe and suppressing more and more of what is authentic and objectively true. The price of seeking validation.

So, in terms of what Bruce said about 9 as Being - I completely agree. Pure Being. Pure objectivity. Pure Seeing. Learning to read the signs in reality / ourselves. The real property of BEing is the idea that we have reached a state of confidence that we know, that it a state of Objective Being. (As far as I can summize!) And the worse thing possible for that person who wishes to make a bridge to Spirit is to build that bridge from a foundation of self-deception.

I guess being a good diviner means that learning to See objectively (in the esoteric sense) i.e. stripping away the bullshit in yourself and the external world is a prerequisite for creating strong reality bridges for not just ourselves but for all. For "the thousands of possible answers [to] 'collapse' into one" we must train ourselves to recognise what is true and what is false so that the correct "branch" is taken for our highest good. And frequent total collapses of our "false self" is often the painful route to those realisations and the waiting for the clouds of rain to give growth and energy we need to continue the ascent.

I'm definitely in a state of 5, 9 and 33 right now and very far from a state of Grace....

Topal

 

[Tohpol]

I find it interesting that people are interpreting this extremely ominous oracle as a general answer to a general question, rather than a personal oracle for a personal question. As long as that is ignored, there is no 'divining' going on here.

This oracle resolves to 23.4. This means you cannot be a good diviner if you are deceiving yourself.

"What makes a good diviner?"

Seems like the Yi gave a perfect answer to a general question. Not sure I understand where "...this extremely ominous oracle" comes from.

But then maybe I'm missing something.

Topal

 

[maremaria]

I find it interesting that people are interpreting this extremely ominous oracle as a general answer to a general question, rather than a personal oracle for a personal question. As long as that is ignored, there is no 'divining' going on here.

This oracle resolves to 23.4. This means you cannot be a good diviner if you are deceiving yourself.

Twilight, by which method you say that 9.1,2,3,5 resolves to 23.4 ? Diamanda mention also 23.4 but I don't know how you reach there.

As for the question, when I asked Yi I asked for a objective answer and not what I think. I was not exploring my thoughts.

But from here, 23.4 fits too to what has been discussed here. You say that the one who deceived ownself cannot be a good diviner. I perceive that everyone here says the same, just viewing it from the other side. All this strip and collapse, if i'm not wrong has to do with pruning the illussions inhabit within or the things are unneccessary.

Lise's 23.4 : "Living restless, without depth or meaning, life is insignificant and one is prone to irreversible mistakes and faults, and even destruction. Search beyond the outer skin for only there the heart's rest can be found."

 

[maremaria]

9.1,2,3,5 resolves to 23.4 by Zhu Xi's rules, the standard way of interpreting line changes since the Song dynasty.

Thanks ....

Do you think, when asking an 'objective' question, there is no 'subjective' element to it?

As I said before, here, I don't believe that there is such a thing as "objective". If subjective can be called "folly" (for example), objective is "controlled folly".

Do you think the oracle always answers the question you think you are asking?

No, I don't .

Of course you were exploring your thoughts. Who else's thoughts were you exploring in asking this question? The cat's?

How nice !!!!!

And yes I believe a "good diviner" can miss something or everything. When s/he can't see anymore....

 

[maremaria]

Is this a discussion ?

are we exchange opinions ?

To me , subjectively and objectively it isn't .

Enjoyed our talk

 

[Tohpol]

Does a good diviner miss anything?

Yes. It's called fallibility. i.e. human.

Topal

 

[martin]

Are you saying that an oracle will not give impersonal answers to questions that are intended to be objective, Twilight?
I think an oracle will probably take the mindset and soulcolour of the questioner into account. Much like we do. If A asks me an impersonal question and B asks me the same question I will probably give somewhat different answers because I adapt to what I know about the background, ideas, feelings, understanding, expectations, beliefs, and so on, of the two questioners. But the answers are still general and for the most part objective.
Would it not be the same with oracles? An answer that is adapted to the subjectivity of the questioner can still have objective validity ..

 

[martin]

There is no such thing as 'an impersonal answer' from an oracle.

I don't know. I sometimes ask the Yi scientific questions and the last time I did that the answer (I posted it on this forum some time ago) helped me to find a new solution to a mathematical problem. I think the answer was adapted to how my mind works (otherwise I wouldn't have understood it) but I use the solution in a computerprogram now and it works, objectively!