You need...

[candid]

Today, in a fit of boredom I wandered to a few ?spiritual? chat rooms.
The one pervading comment from leaders was: you need this, you need to that.
You need a teacher.
You need Jesus.
You need to let go of your past.
You need enlightenment.
You need to study.
You need to find.
You need to realize.
You need to repent.
You need to forgive.
You need.
You need.
You need.

I think we have a choice
to either need or to be.
Being sounds easy, but its not.
All the needs have to first go,
and the need for the needs with them
before we can just be.

I was quiet in rooms, preferring to hear,
lest I utter the words - you need.

 

[martin]

All the needs _have_ to go first?
What is that, another need?

 

[candid]

chuckles.. I knew someone would catch that! You're right, nothing needs.

sometimes there?s a pearl

 

[candid]

please remember to click on the ZERO link at the bottom of the last page.

A need is what one has in order to aquire a particular result.

 

[lindsay]

Well, Candid, I think a creature without needs is a dead creature. Life itself is a condition of endless neediness. Whether I can identify what you need or not, that is another question. Probably I would need to listen to you.

Here is something I read in a newspaper a few days ago: "God is found in listening. Listening is reaching out into that unknown other self, surmounting your walls and theirs; listening is the beginning of understanding, the first exercise of love. This isn't easy; and our modern world is jammed with endless attempts to prevent us from such listening, from the silence that makes it possible, from the empty spaces in our work-filled days that alone can actually make us human and our lives rich."

I've never been very good at listening, but I do know this: the Yi is a device made for listening, a kind of existential hearing aid that tunes in the sounds we cannot otherwise hear. Dogs and cats hear more than we do. More important, they listen more than we do. That's why they do not need the Yi.

Lindsay

 

[candid]

Lindsay, I agree, a creature without needs is a dead creature. That's what needs are for: tools to create a life, a means to our desired results. But only that. Before and after that, nothing. It just is. We just are.

 

[lindsay]

Um, I'm not so sure. In a sense, the sense of a photo snapshot, "we just are." But in a more complete sense, the sense of our unfolding lives, we are becoming. I'm not just Lindsay, now and forever. Every passing hour I am becoming Lindsay. Everything changes through time. I suppose that is why we consult the Book of Changes (Becoming) instead of the Book of Standstill (Being).

Lindsay

 

[RindaR]

Everything changes through time except being, that's how we can be aware that there is change. Without the background of being we could not see the change, we'd just be lost in it.

Rinda

 

[candid]

It is possible to fail at becoming Lindsay? If so, how? If not, where's the need to become?

 

[martin]

Perhaps it's a semantic issue but for me being is not the same as standstill.
Sometimes being doesn't change or move, sometimes it does. The being of a mountain is rather static but the being of the wind is all movement.
It seems to me that becoming and standstill are just different ways of being.

It's the same with peace. Peace is not necessarily calm, it can be very dynamic, like a hurricane.

Martin Heidegger

 

[pedro]

There is only one real need, of which all the others are mere attempts to substitute for
This need requires nothing of us, except the recognition that we lack the ability to satisfy it ourselves (by our false ego driven solutions)
We do need that one thing, and that we need it is not the problem
The problem is pursuing the other false needs before this one is satisfied, which will only guarantee failure

But if we provided for this one need in the first place, everything else will fall on our lap

The amazingness of it all is that we do not believe it could be so simple

 

[candid]

Pedro, and that one thing is?

 

[martin]

Hmmm, we have all those different words ..
Need & desire: not the same. I may desire her without needing her and the other way around ...
Movement & change & becoming: becoming seems to imply a purpose or at least a direction but things may move and change without direction.

Etcetera.

 

[candid]

To clarify my point: I'm not saying need is bad or wrong. Just that it is only useful to acquire a particular result.

This begs the questions: does the Universe/God/Whatever need a particular result? Does it have an ultimate agenda? And if it does, is it possible for it fail to acquire it?

 

[martin]

Yes, I am convinced that All & Everything has a purpose.
And yes, I also believe that All & Everything will achieve that purpose. It cannot fail.

Now that I write this down I must say that it amazes me that am so sure about it. I have no doubt at all!
I guess it all started when I read Teilhard de Chardin. I was only 16 and it was probably my first exposure to a spiritual vision that went beyond traditional religion.
I still remember the excitement I felt. Since then, life - with all its ups and downs - has only confirmed that vision.

 

[candid]

Martin, if the purpose can not fail, where is the need to accomplish it's will or purpose? The sufficiency was there all along. There never was lack of sufficiency or need for anything. Am I wrong?

 

[candid]

Lindsay,

First, before attempting to apply my reasoning to the idea that the concept of need, beyond acquiring our own desired end result, is an illusion, we must agree not to pick apart the term ?God?. I personally am most comfortable with the word Universe, but I mean the term as being synonymous with life, Tao, nature, God, Goddess, collective unconscious, etc. If we can agree, if only for sake of communicating an idea, on my intended meaning of God (or..?), then I?ll proceed, and see if my reasoning holds up under your scrutiny. And thank you for scrutinizing, btw!

In order to believe that God has no need, we must arrive at the understanding that everything together equals one. There?s no theory involved in understanding this, it is basic reasoning. God, for sake of this discussion, is the sum of it?s parts.

If God consists of everything that is, its reasonable to include you and I in that sum. There can be no disunity when seen from this perspective. If God lacks anything, it doesn?t exist. Therefore, sufficiency is also self contained, so long as the self isn?t segregated from the sum of God. (Anon covered this well.) The self may appear to be separate or dis-unified. The appearance of this, by reasoning, must be discredited based on the assertion that God is one. Disunity therefore is an illusion, a false perception of reality.

I?ve stated elsewhere that I?m not using the term illusion in any sort of negative way here. I mean it rather as an appearance of something which doesn?t hold up to the big picture, the sum of God. If we dream of eating a fattening dinner it still won?t put meat on our bones. (Though we may wake up hungry.)

Imagine for a moment that we had no sense of need. There would be nothing to do, nothing to wish for or aspire toward. That?s why I agreed with your comment: ?A creature without needs is a dead creature.? However, I do not agree with your statement which followed: ?Life itself is a condition of endless neediness.? I?ll say why at the end of this post.


So then, what is the purpose of need? Need empowers us to create our life the way a painter creates a painting. Need becomes a motivator and a means to accomplish or manifest our dreams, much the same as the person who dreams of feasting awakens hungry, and proceeds to nourish their physical form with food. We dream things into being through our perceived needs.

By way of example, let?s use the term ?self assured.? Being self assured empowers us with confidence, which is necessary to fully apply our talents and abilities to a given task or function. And yet the term ?disunity? is, in the sum picture, only illusionary. Likewise, disunity is the only way we can be self assured. So long as someone needs self assurance, disunity becomes a useful tool to becoming self assured. A useful illusion, if you will.

Let?s also look at an opposite illusion: failure. Failure can only exist within the contextual field of need. If there?s no need, we can not fail to achieve the need. IE: ?I need to pass this test. I failed the test. If there was no test, I could not fail.? And yet failure can serve a creative purpose, again, helping us to manifest our dreams. IE: ?I don?t like failing, so I will study harder to pass the next test, to win the next game, to accomplish whatever goal I set.? Failure draws a line in the sand by which be may gauge our progress. Though in the sum picture, its illusionary, it serves to achieve our desired end, thus giving animation to our otherwise static life.

It is by these illusions that we create this life, but if we mistake the illusions as life, we never really awaken from the dream. I do not agree with the second half of your assertion: Life itself is a condition of endless neediness.

Thanks for being a sounding board for these ideas. Test them. I?d like to know if they hold up to reasonable scrutiny.

Candid

 

[lindsay]

Dear Candid,

Before I get started, I want to make one thing absolutely clear. I don?t care whether you are right or wrong, sharp or dull, big or small, hot or cold. I don?t care because I have been around here long enough to get to know you, and I believe you are a very good and generous person. I really like you, Candid. Any idea you put forward must have some measure of goodness in it, or you would not consider it worth talking about. So whatever you say or think, you?re at the top of my list.

I have no problem accepting your idea of God for the sake of argument, but it is important to understand what that idea means. If God is everything, the sum of all the parts and pieces of the universe, then it follows there is nothing that is not God. Since everything and everybody is God, then every idea or word or action is equally a divine product. Your thoughts are the thoughts of God, and so are my thoughts. But when everything is God, it becomes meaningless to talk about God, because anything we could possibly say or think is the word of God.

Let me give you an example. Let?s say everything in the universe was blue in color. The earth is blue, the grass and trees are blue, our skins are blue, our blood is blue, the sky is blue, the stars are blue. Everything is blue. Now, what I?m saying is that in such a case, the whole concept of color is meaningless, because there is only one color, blue. We can not even think or talk about color, because no one would be able to imagine that such a quality might exist. Essentially there is no color in the universe ? everything is blue.

This is the big problem with pantheism (God = everything, everything = God). A quality (Godliness) which everyone shares cannot even be perceived, much less discussed. We perceive and think by discriminating between things. If things cannot be seen as separate, there is no basis for comprehending them as different and discrete. If everything is blue, then there is no such thing as color. If everything is divine, then there is no such thing as God. In other words, according to your own theory, we have no basis whatever to continue this discussion.

So that?s one problem.

A second problem is a point of personal taste. I do not like arguments that proceed from the abstract to the particular. I like arguments that go from the particular to the abstract. The last place I would begin an argument about how to live my life would be at the level of the abstract nature of God. When you begin on such a high plane, it is very difficult to maintain a convincing chain of argument down to the level where daily life comes into play. And if your theory cannot be applied to daily life, then what good is it? If it does not offer comfort or guidance or understanding, then whether it is true or false, it?s all the same to me. And frankly, Candid, I missed how your theory all applies to ordinary experience, except for the conclusion that we are all slaves of illusion. That?s not very helpful, I?m afraid. It?s also a little suspect, because personally I often think anyone who does not agree with me is a slave of illusion (but I admit this is a bit short-sighted).

Once you get bogged down in all this ?some-part-of-life is a dream? or ?some-part-of-life is an illusion? stuff, you are caught in intellectual quicksand from which there is no escape. Which part and why? We must be asleep to dream, but who is awake, you or me? Who is deluded, you or me? If we?re all asleep or deluded, then there are no grounds for discussion (see the ?everything is blue? problem above). How do we know when we are asleep or awake? Zhuangzi has a famous story about dreaming he was a butterfly, and wondering if maybe he was really a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi. Yikes! That way lies insanity.

The more specific points you make about ?need? and ?failure? I find a little hard to follow. You are going to have a hard time convincing me I do not live in an almost constant state of need. Every minute of the day I seem to be in need of something. That?s because I am alive. Life is simply a potpourri of complex organic molecules in an intense state of irritation. That?s my definition, anyway. Yet I do not see myself as more or less needy than other people. I also like to succeed more than to fail, even though I admit my sense of success and failure is pretty much socially conditioned. I feel good when I succeed; I am depressed when I fail. Is that a problem? Is that an aberration?

Right now I need to go to sleep. Candid, there is something missing in all this palaver (thanx to Dij for that wonderful word). What is it about this line of thinking you find so appealing? Obviously it makes sense to you, but I wonder what it explains, why it produces that ?ah-ha!? feeling for you? If you can stand to go one more round, Candid, please tell me how all this impacts our lives?

Lindsay

 

[candid]

Dear Lindsay,

I can always count on you to justly counter my own penchant for the abstract. I consider it a privilege to go one more round with you.

Your example of a blue world spoke clearly to me. If everything is One, there?s no way to distinguish, separate, analyze or discriminate. But - this isn?t a blue world. This world has a wide range of color, texture and feeling; it?s a sensual world we live in. If we see it all as blue, then its our own limited perception of wholeness, not the colorlessness of God. Yes, its all God, but its anything but sameness.

?And frankly, Candid, I missed how your theory all applies to ordinary experience, except for the conclusion that we are all slaves of illusion.?

I?ve described how the illusion can be used as a tool for crafting life, and I said that while these can be great tools, they are not life itself. This seems pretty practical to me. Knowing the difference between a tool and life seems essential for someone who seeks out truth. Its like the man who buys a shiny new sports car and displaces his self into the car. His identity with his car has caused him to mistake the useful illusion for his own self. Knowing this seems very practical, very applicable.

?What is it about this line of thinking you find so appealing? Obviously it makes sense to you, but I wonder what it explains, why it produces that ?ah-ha!? feeling for you??

Hell if I know. Its just how my mind works. LiSe once told me that I am born under hex. 4. I believe her. Life to me is a bowl of toys. The mysteries are there for the folly of wrestling in them. I?ll never win, but its fun to play. I have the attention span of a gnat and the intensity of a drill. Who can say why? chuckles... same reason you are the way you are, I guess. Just different colors of God.

My thanks to you.

Bruce

 

[candid]

Oh, I see I?m not getting off that easily. I?ve failed to address some of your other points:

?The more specific points you make about ?need? and ?failure? I find a little hard to follow. You are going to have a hard time convincing me I do not live in an almost constant state of need. Every minute of the day I seem to be in need of something. That?s because I am alive. Life is simply a potpourri of complex organic molecules in an intense state of irritation. That?s my definition, anyway. Yet I do not see myself as more or less needy than other people. I also like to succeed more than to fail, even though I admit my sense of success and failure is pretty much socially conditioned. I feel good when I succeed; I am depressed when I fail. Is that a problem? Is that an aberration??

I vill be back!

 

[candid]

Lindsay,

Alright, I?ve contemplated how to express this correlation between the illusions of need, failure/insufficiency/disunity/etc more clearly, but found myself at a standstill. Not that the ideas aren?t there, but I fear I may be going in a circle explaining it. So I asked the Yi this question:

If my point of view has truth, how would you explain that truth to Lindsay?
I received 54.1,4 changing to 7.

Before I share my interpretation of this reading as it applies directly to the question, I?m going to let the reading sit here awhile, in case anyone else would like to have fun with it. Lindsay, you know I?d love to hear yours, but you?d better get your rest while you can. heh heh!

 

[dij]

Isn't it ironic... don't you think

this, in the forum about Yi

Oh, the papa bear said, someone's been sleeping in my bed!

Was there God before Devil deflected?

"I can feel you" Prophet said to God.

"Cool, but I'd rather you'd heard me, since I've important things to tell you" God replied.


Black and white
in each black some white
in each white some black

sound familiar?

back and forth
up and down
left and right
in and out

But why?

Well, let me put it to you this way.

If everything was just and only you, wouldn't you want to kill yourself out of sheer boredom?
And if that was the case and you then also found that you were immortal, forever and ever wihout any danger of expiring....
What would you do?


Can you even think it?

 

[lindsay]

OK, Candid, I?m awake (I think), and I?m ready to look at that reading. Q: ?How can I explain the truth of these ideas to Lindsay?? A: 54 (1,4) > 7. Let?s use the Wilhelm translation, and let Hilary, LiSe and Bradford tell us how we went wrong later.

The Judgment is not very encouraging: ?The Marrying Maiden. Undertakings mean misfortune. Nothing that would further.? Offhand I would say the Yi is telling you not to waste your time. Lindsay is uneducable. Nothing you can say is going to light his candle. The frustration of trying is just going to make you miserable.

The Image sheds a little more light on the situation. Thunder (Zhen) over Lake (Dui) indicates your efforts to explain, though loudly audible and full of energy (thunder), are motivated by pleasure (Dui) -- possibly a love of intellectual engagement or argument? This is fine, but it is not really serious. You do not have a sincere commitment to persuading Lindsay of the truth. But we are having fun, aren?t we?

?The superior man understands the transitory in the light of the eternity of the end.? Say what? A better but similar translation is: ?The superior person understands the imperfect and the transitory in light of what endures in the end.? The Romans had a phrase for this sort of thing: the wise man consider things ?sub species aeternitate,? from the point of view of eternity. In this case, I guess you, with your concern about God, must be the ?superior man? and Lindsay is ? well, the non-superior man.

But don?t get too inflated about your superior viewpoint ? there?s more to follow in the changing lines. First, let?s consider the central symbol of Hex 54, the Marrying Maiden. This refers to the marriage of a younger sister to the same husband (Fred) who is wedded to the older sister. The older sister is Fred?s primary wife. She holds the keys to the car, the password to the family bank account, and basically runs the household. The role of the secondary wife is pretty humiliating ? she?s washing the dishes when she?s not performing her role as Fred?s brood mare.

So what does this mean in this situation? Maybe our whole conversation puts us in the position of becoming secondary wives. The engine that powers this forum is the Yi (= Fred). The primary wife (Hilary) runs the forum to explore the parameters of the Yi. Now I don?t remember mentioning the Yi in the last one thousand words, do you? My guess is that the primary wife is getting a little impatient with us, and we are about to be reprimanded (archived) for dragging out this irrelevant string. In plain language, what we are talking about here is completely irrelevant to the main thrust of Clarity. The longer we stretch this out, the more you and I are in danger of turning into secondary wives.

Changing line 1: ?A lame man who is able to tread. Undertakings bring good fortune.? OK, we could continue this discussion, it might even be fun for us, but we?re still being lame. Maybe we can walk, but nobody wants to watch us.

Changing line 4: ?The marrying maiden draws out the allotted time. A late marriage comes in due course.? There?s a time for everything. In this case, the time is later. Maybe you should postpone your efforts to enlighten me.

The relating hexagram is good old Hex 7, The Army. Leadership, discipline, military virtue, get the army marching. It?s time to knuckle under, Candid. Exercise your self-discipline, the army (the forum) needs your leadership. This isn?t the time to split hairs with Lindsay, however much that appeals. The forum needs you.

So that is your reading. Time to give it up and go back to the Yi and the forum.

Fortunately, the reading doesn?t apply to me. I get to thank Dij for having the last word. Dij, I hope you stick around, your mind sparkles.

________________________________________________________________________________________
Quote:

If everything was just and only you, wouldn't you want to kill yourself out of sheer boredom?

And if that was the case and you then also found that you were immortal, forever and ever without any danger of expiring....

What would you do?

Can you even think it?
_________________________________________________________________________________________

This is, of course, the position God finds himself in. Or it would be, if the only thing that existed was God. Not too hard to understand the rationale of Creation. But, as Dij points out, it only makes sense if God created a separate Creation. God needs somebody else to talk to. So God created humans with an attitude of ?Show me!? Why do you think people are so difficult, argumentative, contrary, hard to control? They make the Game more interesting. Will God win? Maybe. At least God is having fun.

My final thought is that it all boils down to how many things exist in the world: one or many? Most people here seem to think ultimate reality boils down to one thing. I say this is wrong, there are ultimately ten thousand things, fully real, discrete, different, lovely.

Lindsay

 

[heylise]

The Image sheds a little more light on the situation.
Lake below thunder. Lake is exchange, "coming together with friends for discussion and rehearsing". Thunder is the emerging new paradigm: "shocks. The noble one through anxiousness and fear sets in order and examines". In this case I think we can see 'fear' as scrutinizing something in order to see its potential danger, and letting oneself be shaken by it into something new.

The role of the secondary wife is pretty humiliating ? she?s washing the dishes when she?s not performing her role as Fred?s brood mare.

L: And she tends to the altar of the family.

In plain language, what we are talking about here is completely irrelevant to the main thrust of Clarity.

No problem, the primary wife created a playground for this kind of boundless conversations: the Open Space. There we can hobble around on our hobby horses.

Changing line 1: ?A lame man who is able to tread.
Undertakings bring good fortune.? OK, we could continue this discussion, it might even be fun for us, but we?re still being lame. Maybe we can walk, but nobody wants to
watch us.

We are lame, we have difficulty finding the right words, because it is not a subject we are used to discuss, with all the right expression ready-made for use. And in general not a subject anyone can talk about without feeling lame (or at least he should). But all the same we can talk about it, and even explain to some degree.
This line changes to hex.40, 'removing the horns', the noble one pardons transgressions and is lenient towards crimes. The free feeling when one can exchange without having to keep arms ready.

Changing line 4: ?The marrying maiden draws out the allotted time. A late marriage comes in due course.?
There?s a time for everything. In this case, the time is later. Maybe you should postpone your efforts to enlighten me.

Dunno when is the right time. It does not say 'not now', so it might just as well be that the time has been drawn out, until now it has finally come.
Things come closer and closer, and then they move away again. At this closest point the spark can jump over. A little before or after this point, nothing happens.
The fanyao is 19.4: To the highest degree nearing. Without fault.

If everything was blue .. A difficult example, I tried with 'wood', but that one did not work either. Then I found 'energy'. If everything was made of energy. An energy which keeps a chair from collapsing into a heap of dust, which turns the rays of light back which fall on it, so you can see it, which resists your intrusion, so you can sit on/trip over it, or hit someone else with it. The chair is very different from the lamp, or from you, but this same energy is the base of all.

Burn the table: there are ashes, but there is also warmth and light. Without knowing of the energy, you could never understand where that comes from. The superior person understands the imperfect and the transitory in light of what endures in the end.

Nobody can entirely understand energy. Gravity seems still to be a riddle. The existence of ESP, another kind of energy, is proven, but not understood. The total sum of energy does not decrease or increase, seems to be a law.

The relating hexagram is good old Hex 7, The Army.
Shi is 'army', also the army you have yourself, your skills, talents, experiences, all those things which help you to be an expert in what you do. Several meanings of shi: example, master, teacher, tutor, to imitate; a specialist (med., music, paint or divining), local administration chief, high functionary, superior in rank.
The first thing you will need is energy. Without that, even the best musician cannot play, a teacher cannot convey his knowledge, a superior would lose his rank.
Could it be, that when you understand the base of all things, you would be a lot better equipped to command that army?
There is the strange thing, that through all centuries people who caught a glimpse of what this energy essentially is, saw their mind and lives changed. Maybe no proof that there is anything, but there were quite a lot of them.
54: ?The superior person understands the imperfect and the transitory in light of what endures in the end.?

And finally hex.7: "The noble one tolerates the common people and watches over the crowds".
Sounds familiar . .

LiSe

 

[hilary]

The 'primary wife' is reading every post with delight. (And linked to this page proudly from the last newsletter.)

I seem to remember she was eventually demoted for not bearing sons, while the second wife triumphed. Hmmmmmm... whose interpretation is this, anyway?

 

[dij]

I love you too Lindsay.

 

[candid]

(yawns and stumbles to his machine to find the thread continuing, and the handles of the ting altered)

Good morning,

Lindsay, the question I asked Yi wasn?t ?How can I explain the truth of these ideas to Lindsay?? It was ?If my point of view has truth, how would you (Yi) explain that truth to Lindsay??

54 is about the potential of displacing the primary woman of the household with a secondary wife or servant. In line 1, the maiden enters as a concubine with the consent of the primary wife. Line 4, the maiden waits to receive her due within the household.

Here?s my take on it:

The useful illusions in this discussion are pictured as this maiden. The illusions enters our field of consciousness from the outside coming in. The illusions are not the original or primary wife, but rather she enters as a lame man who is able to tread, acknowledging and deferring to the true wife, who represents the manifest truth, the bride of heaven. If the maiden knows how to fit into the household, she will compliment and assist the first wife (the illusion assisting the truth).

In line 1, the concubine takes shelter, and finds peace through taking her rightful place, not along side the wife but under her rule and dominion. The illusions are not mistaken as being the bride of heaven, but are rightly seen as being a helpful servant, a tool, an assistant.

In line 2, the maiden is virtuous and awaits her allotted time before marrying. The keeper/observer of the illusion is assured of uniting with Tao/God/Universe, and waits out her allotted time. But for now, she will care for and utilize wisely the illusions.

7, The army requires leadership. Someone?s got to call the shots. It is not the King?s place to rule the army, it is the General?s. Someone must mediate between God and the illusions. Killing off the illusions is like killing off your own army. You need them the serve the King and the kingdom. But you know, as the wise maiden in line 4, the time will come to be in perfect unity with the husband, the King. Meanwhile, don?t become misled into believing that you are either the King or the illusions. In your mind you can take heart, you are neither alone nor apart from the King or the kingdom because the kingdom of God lives within.

Must be Sunday, that sounded pretty righteous. Someone please tell a joke! Dij, where are you??

 

[candid]

Whew, dodging bullets here today! LOL Where?d I put that Kevlar?

Lindsay, revision can be a good thing, especially when once revises themselves occasionally. Keeps the dust from settling on the brain. The unchangeable will always endure though.