Who is this Sage anyway?

[dharmamom]

I hope the title of the thread doesn't sound disrespectful, but I have this huge doubt.
I mean, I don't actually believe in God, not at least as an almighty, anthropomorphic, macrocosmic superbeing.
The Chinese are rather vague about a God notion in their beliefs. They believe in spirits, in their ancestors, in life after death, in dragons, but a God like the one in our Christian-Jewish culture, no.
The Tao somehow fathoms this mystery of the concept of God but is not quite that.
Carol K. Anthony addresses the Sage as a more comfortable equivalent of the word God but her idea of the Sage is still very close to the Western God notion.
I don't feel at ease with the notion of God, but every time I use the I Ching, SOMETHING definitely addresses me in a personal way. The answers are pertinent to my questions 99.99% of the time, and this can't be a coincidence. Is it my higher nature? Is this the Sage? But then, do you look upon this Sage as God? WHO IS THE SAGE?
Sorry, I find the Western view of God so limited that I have always rebelled against that notion. I don't want to equate my relationship with the I Ching within those limited frames of reference.
And then, every time I read Carol K. Anthony's comments I cringe at this "Sage" word jumping at my face again and again.
I'd like to invite other opinions on how you view this Sage or this mysterious kindred spirit that speaks to us through the I Ching. Thank you.:bows:

 

[meng]

Sage: A mentor in spiritual and philosophical topics who is renowned for profound wisdom

You already know, I'm sure, the conventional definition(s) of the word, Sage. I think in terms specifically of use within the Yijing, Sage and Junzi (called Great Man in Wilhelm) are very closely related. A wise teacher is no teacher at all without a student with good character, and in h4, both sides of this being are equally engaged or available to engage, so long as the attitude of the student is correct. This doesn't need to be in a moral sphere, it can apply as well anatomically, such as the way neurotransmitters and receptors function in our brain and neurology: the key fits into the lock, they turn on.

There's the observer (whom some visualize as Creator, some as Destroyer, and some deities represent both, as well as being the Maintenance Man or Woman, until the world withdraws again. The world is created in 6 stages, the 7nth brings Return. (The Big Swoosh?) It sounds much nicer to hear, "and we all become One " Anyway, I digress. All of those can be found with h1. Calling it God is no sin. Some fair lady gave to me a banner, while in line at the store. It has the saying: With God, all things are possible. I got to think on that a bit, and then smiled at her in agreement. As I was leaving, she sat on a bench by the door. We smiled. Having been a wide-eyed Christian for 20 dedicated years, I already knew the impenetrable wall that I would have no chance in hell of getting past. Nevertheless, I bowed a bit and said, you know, there's another way to express God. How? she inquired. Namaste, I said. What does that mean, she inquired? The divine in me honors the divine in you, I said. Praise the Lord, she uttered, quietly and out of habit, as though her mind was busy, thinking.

If the reality behind this manifestation of reality (plutonian, also Christian theology, but vastly dumbed down) exists, then there is a spirit life, not only after we die but during the duration of our bodily form. That spirit life is fed from the Well: The Source of life. That source is connected through the noble blood of the Sage willing to be a young noble. Even the Dalai Lama says he is "just a monk."

It's debated whether Junzi means "young noble" or just Noble. The first implies inheritance, someone who comes from a noble and thereby privileged family; receiving, you might say, a special or advanced education. The other more suggests a potential, which everyone begins in possession of. To lose it is a disgrace. To perfect it is to become the Sage.

 

[rodaki]

I don't know who the Sage is . . my mother, when she talked to me of God, she said he had many names depending on culture and traditions - maybe she wanted to speak of energy but didn't have the jargon we use nowadays.

Today, round the end of my day at work, I had a small kid (the child of some colleague) run straight into me and shout BOO!! I was surrounded by a group of people who held a heated discussion on the best ways to organize students in classes etc etc but I was suddenly woken up and away of their argumentation by this boy . . 'BOO back at ya!!' I blurted and we burst out laughing silly - that was part of the Sage manifesting for me: the joyful kid in me, honoring the joyful kid in him.

Many years ago I read that Heraclitus said 'Time is a child playing dice; the kingly power is a child's' and it had struck me as important back then. Kids in their play become completely absorbed; they don't know of before or after, they get engrossed in the spirit of the present . . These days I'd like to think of that as a parallel to the JunZi: Time playing its hand like a young one does

 

[gene]

Dharmamom

The question you asked opens up a can of worms I am not sure I want to get too much involved with, so I may or may not respond to any responses.

The Sage in the I Ching can be described on different levels just as the lines in the text can have different meanings depending on its context. When the text, usually the image says, "Thus the Sage, or the Superior Man...does this or that, it can be referred to as a person who has developed themselves to such a degree that their conscious and their subconscious minds are in harmony, which gives them a wisdom beyond that of the common man. On another level, it can be talking about the I Ching itself, and thus giving us advice on how to better live our lives in harmony with the universe, with nature, with societies, and with our families.

But there is another level I will touch on briefly here, as I know many people will not accept this, and when I talk about it I get a lot of sharp, or even angry responses. And that is the fact that the universe itself is alive, and creates life on a constant basis. This has become more and more scientifically verified over the last few years, even though mainstream science does all they can do deny it. It still is being proven true. But...

As you said, when you contact the I Ching you get an answer that seems to show an intelligence, and that is because there is one, and in fact it is your own, and the universe's own, subconscious awareness. That which the Sages attempt to get in touch with through meditation. I doubt you have much interest in Biblical stories, but bear with me for a minute, leaving the theology out of it, that the story of the marriage of Cana in the gospel of John is just that, an allegory of the marriage between the conscious and subconscious mind, and when that happens, voila, the water, (daily consciousness) is turned into the wine, (the deeper consciousness). The is a marriage per se of the two halves of the individual, and he or she is no longer dualistic, but sees the true nature of everything. The yin and the yang are now in harmony, and do not combat each other. When yin and yang are in harmony, we have the situation described in hexagram eleven. Note that the "Marrying Maiden" is also the eleventh from the last book. And that is not by accident. It too is an allegory of the relationship between the conscious and subconscious mind.

Now, the ancient people all knew this. In the modern era, we don't, because, one, we have forgotten, and two, there are forces and people in the world who do not want us to know the truth. Not only to keep us in the dark, but also because they know that we are not ready to be able to handle such knowledge. Therefore the ancient knowledge is all written in allegory, so that those who see might see, and those who do not cannot see. It all depends on how ready the mind is and nothing to do with a God out in the heavens somewhere. The Taoists had no concept of that kind of God. They only understood the "natural way," which is based on an intelligence that infuses matter.

Now, I need to shut up, as this is getting too long, except to say, any books by the physicist Amit Goswami will continue the discussion, as will David Wilcock's latest book, "The Source Field Investigations." There are many others too.

We are on the verge of a golden age, with a new science, (See the book "The New Science and Spirituality Reader" by a number of scientists. There is an element of society that is bound and determined to keep this knowledge secret and will go to any lengths to do so.

But you are right, there is an intelligence behind it, although it is not the intelligence of some "God" out there somewhere.

Gene

 

[bradford]

I'd like to invite other opinions on how you view this Sage or this mysterious kindred spirit that speaks to us through the I Ching. Thank you.:bows:

The Yi's word for sage is "sheng ren" meaning a wise or reverent person. Neither wisdom nor reverence require a deity. The Yi itself describes human religious activity, sacrifice, setting up temples, etc., but it is far more concerned with the attitudes of the worshipers and, conspicuously, never sets forth any religious doctrine.

 

[meng]

The Yi's word for sage is "sheng ren" meaning a wise or reverent person.

Couldn't that also be literally translated as "soul man"?

 

[bradford]

Couldn't that also be literally translated as "soul man"?

A soul man wo;ld be a "po" man.
Then a blues man would be a Po, Po man

 

[meng]

LOL!

For some reason I thought I recall sheng meaning soul.

 

[bradford]

For some reason I thought I recall sheng meaning soul.

You were probably thinking of Shen. There's a Sheng that means life.
This is from my notes on "parts of the Chineses soul":

魄 Po4, 4988, Sentient Animal Soul
魂 Hun2, 2365, Soul-Wits, "Immortal" Soul
神 Shen2, 5716, Spirit
鬼 Gui3, 3634, Soul or Ghost
命 Ming4, 4737, Destiny, Fate
性 Xing, 2771, Nature, Disposition
精 Jing1, 1149, Essence
氣 Qi4 0554, Breath, Vital Force
靈 Ling2, 4071, Numinousness, Efficaciousness
生 Sheng1, 5738, Life, Living
聖 Sheng4, 5753, Wise, Reverent, Sacred
​

 

[meng]

Ah, yes, Shen. Thanks.

I find it personally interesting, that Ming4 means Destiny or Fate, as it fits perfectly with my word play of Ti Ming. It's more than just a cute way to say timing, it is a far reaching meaning, like being where you're supposed to be, when you're supposed to be. Plus, its anthropomorphic, it is as a being, as Deity.

Also Sheng as Sacred, interesting.

 

[bradford]

For folks who read Pinyin in their heads, ti ming sounds like tea ming.
So I missed the gag first time around. Tai ming sounds right, and also
means great destiny, but then the spelling is wrong.

 

[meng]

Is there a word Ti?

 

[bradford]

Is there a word Ti?

Many. Take your pick:
http://www.mdbg.net/chindict/chindict.php?page=worddict&wdrst=1&wdqb=ti

 

[meng]

Wow.

 

[gene]

In further discussion on this topic it is well to be reminded that all "sacred" literature, for want of a better word, has first a literal meaning, then a symbolic meaning, then an allegorical meaning, then a sacred meaning, and so on. When we do our readings for our daily lives, often the literal meaning is all we need. When we want to become, or emulate, the superior man, then we have to understand the allegorical meanings as well. There is an old saying, "as above, so below." In otherwords whatever is happening on earth is happening in the heavens as well. Therefore, the Sage, or the Superior person takes on multiple meanings depending on the level we are reading from. It also depends on what we are able to take in or understand at our present level of understanding. We cannot comprehend that which we are not ready for, for we will not see it regardless of how it is presented to us.

There is also the old saying, "When the student is ready, the master will come." It is just as true that when the master is ready, the student will appear." We all want to learn more but most of us just apply it to our daily lives and are not capable of seeing the next level. We have to be able to comprehend that there is a next level, and we have to be mature enough to accept the work that goes into the comprehension of the next level. But if we are so caught up in our daily lives, overly grounded in the physical (and we do need to be grounded before we can move on) without understanding the heavenly realm, we will never see the heavenly realm and will never even believe it exists. This is the fate of modern man. We pride ourselves on being able to put together wheels and ball bearings in ever greater ways, and yet never contemplate the nature of those wheels and ball bearings. We are intellectual giants, but spiritual imbeciles. We cannot see anything that is not in the electromagnetic range that our eyes pick up, not until we lift up our sight, and see the "wheels behind the wheels." Only then do we go to the next level and not until. When we do we will be laughed at by those who still cannot see the wheels behind the wheels, but we will know, so it will not matter.

The knowledge of the I Ching is endless. It is as profound as profound as profound can be. It is like the well in hexagram forty eight which is so deep the rope does not go all the way down. We cannot but begin to taste of its waters. The well for us is still being lined, (line four) because we have not yet made it to that deeper level.

This could go on forever. Hexagram four teaches us a lot about the need to be respectful of the teacher, who is the I Ching itself. Hexagram twenty tells us how to approach it, "full of faith they look up to him." Hexagram fifty tells us that it can transform us. Hexagram forty nine tells us that it can abolish the old ways, and bring us into newness of life. Hexagram forty tells us how it can release us from the bondage of intellectual elitism and negative thinking. And it goes on and on forever.

Nevertheless, only those who are ready to hear at a higher level will comprehend the words of the Sage.

Gene

 

[dharmamom]

The Yi's word for sage is "sheng ren" meaning a wise or reverent person. Neither wisdom nor reverence require a deity. The Yi itself describes human religious activity, sacrifice, setting up temples, etc., but it is far more concerned with the attitudes of the worshipers and, conspicuously, never sets forth any religious doctrine.

I have tried to find "sheng ren" in my different versions and could not find it exactly as such. I like this definition because it is more focused on an reverent attitude on our part, without quite implying the existence of a deity. We stand in awe before the process of continual change, we develop ourselves and whether a deity exists or not is secondary.

Thank you, Gene, for your answers. The thread seems to have struck a chord with you.

I feel silly for trying all of a sudden to label my relationship with the Yi, when it has worked so well for years without my need to pin it down. But then, sometimes people who see me with a book ask me what the I Ching is about and I'm lost for words.

In fact, I don't care to get lost in an endless intellectual speculation. The Buddha refused to discuss the notion of God, because he found it was not relevant to human happiness. No matter how much we want to know where we come from, where we're going or what is the purpose of our life, we'll never really know and no amount of arguing or raking our brains will change that.

And I consider myself a very spiritual person though not religious at all. Carol K. Anthony's liberal use of the word "Sage" as a god equivalent has bothered me a bit, lately, that's all.

 

[bradford]

I have tried to find "sheng ren" in my different versions and could not find it exactly as such.

The phrase isn't used in the Zhouyi at all, only in the Wings, specifically the Tuan Zhuan or Commentary on the Judgment. It occurs at Gua 16, 20, 27, 31, 32 & 50.

 

[Sparhawk]

Apropos Shengren, I recently came across Thorsten Pattberg, a German scholar that flustered quite a few feathers amongst some of his peers at Warp, Weft and Way for suggesting that Chinese terms such as "shengren" should be left untranslated. He wrote a book by the same name where he elaborates on the idea.

I sort of like his approach. Interestingly, I came across Thorsten via a comment he posted, on Aug/22/12, here: Shortcomings of the Sages. Earlier in the month I expressed similar (in very broad terms) views about that in my blog, where I note that Legge translated the text of the Yijing but not the names of the hexagrams.

 

[bradford]

at Warp, Weft and Way for suggesting that Chinese terms such as "shengren" should be left untranslated.

I'm inclined to agree for a number of Chinese terms, at the very least where the uninformed insist on hanging on to really bad translations. "Superior man" for Junzi comes first to mind.

 

[dharmamom]

How would you translate Junzi, Bradford? Is it what Karcher calls Chün tzu? You probably don't like Karcher, but he translates it as "ideal of a person who uses divination to order his/her life in accordance with tao rather than wilful intention." That still relates to the querent, not to the voice that speaks through the oracle.
As to you Luis, the sages are not quite THE Sage as Carol K. Anthony describes him, am I wrong? You probably don't like Carol K. Anthony anyway, either. I feel like I'm bringing a knife into a gunfight. I am not a sinologue but I'm learning a lot from you, guys.
Mine is an intuitive approach to the Yi, totally deprived of any intellectual intention.
I have Carol K. Anthony's notes interspersed in the comments of the Yi I use for my consultations and her Sage has struck me as a God equivalent. I know I repeat myself. It's just that I don't like the G-word so much and I don't like to see it in the yi. It strikes me as a Western notion that does not relate to the Chinese view of the spiritual realm.

 

[gene]

If you don't like the word God then don't use it. But don't expect everyone else to follow suit. If it is there it is there. If it is not it is not. Who cares?! If you don't like Carol Anthony then don't use her. The I Ching is what it is. You aren't going to change it. But it is very presumptuous to insist that a book should be what you want it to be rather than what it is. Good God, ya all. And it is presumptuous to presume that you have a light greater than that of the sacred texts. Were you there when Orion was created? If not, you don't know all that much do you?

Get what you can out of the I Ching or any other book you deem worthy. But to think that there are not deeper levels of meaning than the surface is foolish to say the least. When your mind matures, so will the level of understanding you receive from it. It would not be wise to let likes and dislikes keep you from the deeper truths.

Gene

 

[bradford]

How would you translate Junzi, Bradford? Is it what Karcher calls Chün tzu? You probably don't like Karcher, but he translates it as "ideal of a person who uses divination to order his/her life in accordance with tao rather than wilful intention." That still relates to the querent, not to the voice that speaks through the oracle.

Jun means noble, a member of the noble or royal class. Zi, when the Zhouyi was written, meant Child or young one. This is how it's used in the Zhouyi where it appears separately, as at 53.1. It was also used as an affectionate diminutive, like san in mama-san. By the time Kongzi (Confucius) grew popular, though, it had come to be a term of "looking up to" kind of respect, like Sir. Yes, JUnzi used to be spelled Chun Tzu. Literally, then, a Junzi was a child of the nobility, a "young noble" or "noble young one." It was someone encouraged more for their great potential rather than for greatness already attained, but someone who would be perfectly capable of getting there. Thus there is an element of humility in it. One way to look at the Zhouyi is as a manual of ethical instruction for the noble class. It was not a mass market paperback. The common man was not its target demographic.

Side note on Zi - those who can only see the Confucian rendering completely miss the word play in the pen name Laozi, which meas Old Child, not Elder Sir.

It's not that I don't like Karcher. He just doesn't understand Chinese, particularly, Chinese grammar. Nor does he care to. I hold the opinion that the authors were trying to tell us something specific, even though that specific meaning is intended to have broad application.
Karcher is of the (deconstructionist) opinion that the words are simply there to make what we will from, that it's all relative to individual perspective. While this is often the case in individual readings, I still hold to a theory that each of the lines has a core meaning that was intended by the authors.

 

[dharmamom]

If you don't like the word God then don't use it. But don't expect everyone else to follow suit. If it is there it is there. If it is not it is not. Who cares?! If you don't like Carol Anthony then don't use her. The I Ching is what it is. You aren't going to change it. But it is very presumptuous to insist that a book should be what you want it to be rather than what it is. Good God, ya all. And it is presumptuous to presume that you have a light greater than that of the sacred texts. Were you there when Orion was created? If not, you don't know all that much do you?

Get what you can out of the I Ching or any other book you deem worthy. But to think that there are not deeper levels of meaning than the surface is foolish to say the least. When your mind matures, so will the level of understanding you receive from it. It would not be wise to let likes and dislikes keep you from the deeper truths.

Gene

It's true that I don't like the word God but it's way off mark to presume that I expect others to follow suit. My personal opinion is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, though that's probably too open-minded for you.
Other authors allude to spiritual realms and the Creative or a Deity but Carol K. Anthony seems to be the only one who alludes to the Sage as the equivalent of our Western notion of God. I don't find quite that same meaning in, let's say Jou Tsung Hwa or Kwok Man Ho, who are Chinese, neither in Karcher (who is very spiritual but in another context), though Wilhelm does use the word God now and then. But then, he comes from a strong Christian background and that's why I began to wonder if Carol K. Anthony had added a bit of her own input in her interpretation of the Yi.
And I don't think my attitude is presumptuous at all, since I am asking for the opinion of people who are more versed in the Yi than I am in order to continue learning and growing in the Yi. I am thankful to people like Bradford and Luis, for example, who know a lot about the Yi, for taking the time to place some posts in this thread in order for me and other newbies who could have my same doubt to advance in our paths. The guas and blogs they advise have proved very relevant in clearing my doubts.
Another notion totally yours and totally wrong is that I want the book to fit into my ideas. On the contrary, I just want to make sure that certain versions are true to the letter of the Yi and not a mere excuse for people to voice their own narrow ideas or views of the world. Take any popular book in humankind's lore like the Bible or the I Ching and you'll find as many versions as people under the sun.
Each person has their favourite version of the Yi because something in them appeals to them and no-one is more right or wrong than the other. We all come from different walks of life and have lived different experiences. You cannot say that I am wrong and I can't say that you are because none of us holds the key to the ultimate truth, if ever there is one.
And that I have a light greater than that of the sacred texts is another idea totally your own. Deeper meaning as opposed to surface meaning does not equate pour into a Chinese Classic your ingrained ideas about a God or Western spirituality and disdain other people's spirituality.
Presumptuous is to presume things about a person you know nothing about and get all worked up when differences in opinion appear instead of discussing a subject in a tone more in accordance with the highly enlightened situation in life that you seem to have attained. In your own opinion, at least.
Besides, you weren't there, either, when Orion was created, and your very wise phrase about not letting your likes and dislikes keep you from the deeper truths might come handy to you when dealing with people who don't share your points of view.
I know my English is not that good, but now that you know so much about the I Ching and life in general, a course to brush up your reading abilities could do a lot to prevent you from misreading people's posts. Or from reading into them whatever you CAN read, looking down on the world from the lofty standpoint you seem to have attained. I'm sorry to see that the I Ching couldn't do much for your anger management skills.

And after this fascinating lyrical intermezzo with Gene, thank you, Bradford for always taking the time to answer. You have no idea how much I am learning from your posts. I like to have the opportunity to approach the Yi through your eyes, since I am new to the site and I am sure other newbies like me are also learning a lot.

 

[bradford]

Hi Dharmamom-
The Zhouyi has nothing to say about the existence of a deity. In several places it describes the sociological fact of humans either worshiping a deity or making sacrifices to ancestors, but it appears to be solely concerned with the attitude of the humans in performing these behaviors, whether they are sincere or grateful, or simply greedy. In this the Yi may have been like Lord Buddha, who seemed to think that as long as you were craving and suffering your perceptions of a deity are going to be an untrustworthy mess of wish-fulfillment and revenge fantasies.
Don't take Gene too seriously. He's got his tinfoil helmet on and his loins are girded for the end of the world, later this year. He promised to leave us a while back, to focus on said preparations, but now he's back all full of the word and the spirit.

 

[dharmamom]

Thank you, Bradford, soooo much for this particular last answer....

 

[meng]

I know my English is not that good..

Could have fooled me. Gene aside, that was one of the most stimulating posts I've read here in a long time.

 

[meng]

And I have to agree that wearing an aluminum or tinfoil helmet is absolutely crazy. Copper has much better conductivity.

(this is probably brass or bronze)

Between Brad's complete-ism and Gene's absolute-ism, I'm just a pup lost in a park. Make that an old dog at home with the unfamiliar. I think those are the choices one makes, with or without the Yijing.

 

[Sparhawk]

Hi Dharma,

As to you Luis, the sages are not quite THE Sage as Carol K. Anthony describes him, am I wrong? You probably don't like Carol K. Anthony anyway, either. I feel like I'm bringing a knife into a gunfight. I am not a sinologue but I'm learning a lot from you, guys.
Mine is an intuitive approach to the Yi, totally deprived of any intellectual intention.

Don't worry, you are doing more than fine by reading and opining and asking questions. Also, there's nothing wrong with an "intuitive approach" if it works for you. Look at Karcher, for example. It's done wonders for him. Alas, one must be aware of the limits of intuition when it comes to actual, hard fact, studies. Personally, I would reserve my intuition for interpreting consultations to the Yijing as I don't want to fill with intuition what I don't know as fact. There is a place for everything. Now, since you've pointed Anthony to me, it isn't that I don't like "her," it is that I know where she comes from with her work, which, rather than being an exegesis on the Yijing it is more like an exegesis on Richard Wilhelm's take on it (with Jungian ideas thrown in for good measure). She's very unique in that she's re-interpreting an interpretation. A good comparison for that type of approach is to think of Christian evangelists that are total "experts" on a single book, the Bible. But one thing is faith and focus on a single book and another is to actually "study" a book such as the Bible, which comprises much more than reading, memorizing, interpreting and believing what's between the covers.

As for terms like shengren and junzi, I understand that most people, not knowing better and perhaps not interested in going beyond the page, will digest what they read and accept it as a bonafide translation and/or interpretation. The reality, however, is that such terms, over millennia, have accumulated a load of related meanings in which the end result is greater than the sum of those parts. IMHO, I believe it is better to ingest as many of those meanings as possible and allow those appropriate to the situation to come forward as they will. Those are really rich terms. Even arguments such as "shengren meant this or that at the time of the Warring States Period" fall short of what the term actually contains. Nobody should kid himself in believing that we are creating exegesis, after 2500 years of mostly Chinese exegetes going at it, that's totally "novel" and meanings (and debris) have accumulated on top of key terms in the Yijing, which, in many cases, are as valid as their straight semantic value.

The best advise that I can give, I suppose, is to be critical of everything you read and learn about the Yijing and build, little by little, a picture of it that fits "you" as best as it can.

 

[dharmamom]

Thank you Luis!
For many years, the I Ching has been a friend. I mostly used Wilhelm's version. But down the years I have begun to look on it as a manual of self-development and have noticed that different versions have different standing points.I certainly prefer those which are not contaminated by Western ideas.
The Buddha emphasized the use of your critical faculties when learning and like you say, I try to be very critical of every text that comes my way, though in the case of the I Ching, I lack the historical and linguistical background to do so.
But I'm learning a lot. I'm happy that I found this site and I'm happy that people who know a lot take their time to share their ideas and guide our newbie steps.

 

[dharmamom]

Could have fooled me. Gene aside, that was one of the most stimulating posts I've read here in a long time.

Thank you, Meng, for your posts! My post did not originally begin like that, but in the end the two dragons in my astrological chart took over and silenced the cute dog I usually am.
Can you speak Chinese? I did not get your ti ming comment at first but I think I'll be using it very often in the future.