Hello!

I have just joined this borad with the intention of asking some specific questions, and have already found some great discussion to jump into. I'm new to the I Ching, though I'm currently making a serious study into it (on its own and in relation to Kabbalah, tarot, runes, and other oracles), but with my background in Taoism, am finding the I Ching to be particularly useful and interesting.

On to the quesiton:
One of the translations I've recently come across is Aleister Crowley's, as I explored some of his ideas of kabbalah and other things. It's definately different, and for me it seems to lack some of the Taoist background, but it's a decent translatoin.

One of the main differences I noted, however, is the method of divination. I've learned the yarrow stalk method and have dabbled in the three coin method...but Crowley suggests using six coins, and I haven't seen this anywhere else. I'm wondering how "valid" or traditional this method it.

Basically, you have six coins--one side yin, the other yang, but they can be any coins--with one being of a different size than the others. You simply hold them in your hand, ask your question, then cast them (not unlike runes). The coin closest to you is the bottom line, then upwards from there until you have a hexagram. The different sized coin is marked as a changing line. In this way, you get a reading in seconds, and it always produces a changing line.

This seems...very easy. Which makes me wonder if it's not genuine. It almost seems to be a cheat, though I would think that any way of consulting the Oracle can be helpful. I also wonder about the ever present changing line. I would think there are times when an Unchanged hexagram is intended-sometimes the situation/question is cut and dried.

Thoughts?

I agree about the changing line. I think the two hexagrams you get are both important, if you limit the relating hex to just 6 possibilities out of the 64, you limit the Yi severely.

So you believe that always drawing two hexagrams is beneficial? I can certainly see the point in it; in my experience, the two hexagrams one gets when there's a changing line only serve to highlight an important aspect of the original hexagram. But what if the situation is certain enough that only one hexagram is needed? Is this method "forcing change" on a situation that may not require it?

Although, in writing that, I've just realized that the idea of "forcing change" on an oracle known as "the book of changes" is a bit ridiculous. Change is the point, isn't it?

As for the method, is this valid, or is it just Crowley simplifying it?

tobiasosir said:

As for the method, is this valid, or is it just Crowley simplifying it?

Click to expand...

Hilary recently posted what I think is an interesting allegory to your question:

Originally Posted by hilary
Doesn't really matter if I draw the curtains and tie them back neatly, put my foot in the wastepaper basket, grab the curtains and accidentally rip them down as I fall on my backside, get a dog that demolishes curtains, set fire to them or let them be eaten by moths: I will still not have broken the light that eventually illuminates the room.

Click to expand...

Best way to test the validity of a given method is to use it for awhile, than evaluate it compared with other methods. You'll become convinced with what has proven to work best for you. Personally, I prefer receiving all change lines and the changing/relating hexagram, when applicable. There is a yet further comprehensive method, which Bradford has illustrated (I believe he calls it transitional), and in which I see the logic, but it's usually over the top for me, but that makes it not the least less legitimate of a method to use if it suits someone.

I can't speak to Crowley's translation, but I've always perceived it more as clever poetry, which, in most cases, does capture something essential to the spirit of the text.

Six Coins of the Beast

Ah Crowley! Yes, I would say the six coins method was probably something he just made up, but nothing he touched was simple. I would bet that he had an intuitive method, or perhaps even something based on calendar, astrology, etc. for looking at specific parts of the received hexagram. He was very interested in aligning the Chinese symbolic system with that of western occultism, and his copy of the Yi had many notes on that in the margins (along with a painting he did on the cover). I was able to study his copy briefly many years ago at an OTO initiation.

It can give a lot of insight to ask one oracle about another. Once I got hex.17 and at that moment I could not make sense of it. Follow what the time asks for, something along that line... but how.

So I pulled a card of the Osho tarot, and got "trust"".
"There is a tremendous sense of exhilaration if we can take the jump and move into the unknown, even if the idea scares us to death. And when we take trust to the level of the quantum leap, we don't make any elaborate plans or preparations. We don't say, "Okay, I trust that I know what to do now, and I'll settle my things and pack my suitcase and take it with me." No, we just jump, with hardly a thought for what happens next. The leap is the thing, and the thrill of it as we free-fall through the empty sky."

That was exactly what I had to do. And not-do.

Since posting this, I've read that Crowley learned of the I Ching from Legge's translation, and added several of his own changes and insights to the book after doing a reading each day for several years. Since he published this method in his book, I'd assume that this is the method he used most of, if not all of, the time. So in that, you could say it's tried and true...at least for him.
I've also read that whatever "original" and "authentic" method we had of casting the I Ching has long since been lost, and the yarrow stalk and coin methods we have are approximations or (relatively) recent adaptations. Which makes me think that, as referenced above with Hillary's analogy, it doesn't matter so much how we divine form the I Ching as that we do. Or allow it to work through us.

Anyway, the Crowley Coin method is something I've been using for about a week now, and it serves me well so far. It's quick and simple, yet illuminating. I miss the meditative aspect of spending a half hour drawing yarrow stalks (actually, bamboo skewers, which is what's available to me!) but that could easily be added to my ritual by...well, meditating a bit before casting.

heylise, I like the idea of asking on oracle about another, and I'll have to try this. In fact, I've begun studying the connections between tarot and kabbalah, and am writing a journal about these links and their connotations. Crowley also linked kabbalah to the I Ching, so that will be part of my study as well. All of them, and other systems I'm sure, are interconnected somehow, I'm convinced.
But it hadn't occurred to me to literally ask one about the other. Doing that would be very illuminating in helping to find these connections, I think, so I'll have to consider it as I make my study.

Yarrow and coin methods

tobiasosir said:

I've also read that whatever "original" and "authentic" method we had of casting the I Ching has long since been lost, and the yarrow stalk and coin methods we have are approximations or (relatively) recent adaptations. Which makes me think that, as referenced above with Hillary's analogy, it doesn't matter so much how we divine form the I Ching as that we do. Or allow it to work through us..

Click to expand...

Quite right, the yarrow method is based on Zhu Xi's reconstruction of the method from the Song Dynasty.

The coin method is much older, dating back at least to the Han Dynasty.