Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Generally speaking, when something in the Yi seems to have no consistency, coherence or rationality, it's obvious to me that I have more to learn.It should be obvious to anyone that if there is no consistency, no coherence and not rationality in the placing of the Trigrams that the method cannot be correct.
Thanks again for hosting the imagery discussion. I believe that it was LiSe who said something about there being sounds along with the imagery (or something like that?).Hilary said .... You can simply enjoy it all, without attempting to analyse anything, and experience how the layers of imagery are ‘baked’ together to create the atmosphere of the hexagram.
Freedda
During that week I had been contemplating a reading that had the trigram Lake in it - one broken line above two solids. As I began my walk, I heard an owl in the nearby forest call out:
who who
whooooo
whooooo
If the Trigrams function as they do then surely they would go from bottom to top and not from top to bottom.
That was the order I heard them, and I painted an image in my mind, which followed how I would write something: first words are at top of page - which is not in the order we'd usually create a trigram or hexagram - from bottom to top. (But I did ask the owl, and she agrees with my interpretation!)... just curious as to what made you put the whooos in that order.
I never said either was 'better'. It was - according to my infallible translation - one of the Zhouyi's authors who said that more layers in desserts are better than fewer, and that got misconstrued to mean that hexagrams were 'better' than trigrams.HI Freeda - I am rather bewildered as to why you would consider that "better" has any correlation with being more "central" .... Hexagrams, if only because there are 8 times as many are far more usable, and therefore considered to be better, than a mere 8 Trigrams.
To eliminate that tendency to influence , even in a small inconscious way I established a way of using cards to represent the Hexagrams and another set to represent the possible line changes.
jukkodave
All is required is a good shuffle and a two quick draws and one has ones reading without any possibility of influencing the reading by watching the Hexagram develop line by line.
Yes, thanks. I found that Harmen Mesker's YouTube video 'How (not) to consult the Yi' covers this a bit. Though I do like to take a quite moment to do my cast, it is preference, not a requirement.... You must think there is a pure and correct answer that might get sullied by contact with our thoughts, hopes and wishes. This is an understandable but a misplaced concern. It almost seems like wanting to remove your own mind from the process yet your own mind is inextricably part of the connection via which the answer comes, you can't lop it off .... Another point to make is that it is quite clear the mind doesn't somehow fix the answers .... There is no need for special measures. Casting with coins or beads or yarrow stalks is fine.
Another point to make is that it is quite clear the mind doesn't somehow fix the answers because of the number of times we get answers that shock or surprise us. If I was influencing the coins as I cast them I'd imagine I'd be generally getting answers I want or expect. This clearly isn't the case.
jukkodave
He is of course entitled to his opinions but I suspect that many would not agree with all of his notions, and they are rather without the consideration that others have actually found the opposite of some of the things he suggests to to be irrelevant. His notions may be applicable to him personally but what makes them relevant for anyone else. The things he suggests may be exactly what are important for some individuals. He does begin by saying that there are lots of "rules" in various books, but isnt he, in how own way, making up another set of rules, even if they are "non" rules, they are still rules.
If I was to put up a YouTube video saying exactly the opposite of what Harmen says would that become relevant and be linled on a post.
Personally I prefer to use my own experiences, my knowledge and understanding to evaluate the notions he suggests.Why would we anyway take anything in a book or on YouTube as relevant or valid without considering if it had any value and testing the possibilities out for ourselves.
Trojina. Another point to make is that it is quite clear the mind doesn't somehow fix the answers because of the number of times we get answers that shock or surprise us. If I was influencing the coins as I cast them I'd imagine I'd be generally getting answers I want or expect. This clearly isn't the case.
It really isnt about being able to completely "fix " an answer but being able to influence it in any way at all. I did make it clear that there are those that will influence the outcome towards answers in either direction of what one would consider positive or negative. The point is that it is possible to influence the outcomes, science tells us that this happens subconsciously so how would we even know if we had influenced a reading or not. Why would we even want to take that chance when we know that the capacity to influence exists and that any influence will "alter " the reading in some way and deflect away from the full guidance that the Yi is capable of illuminating.
Mary'sMother said:Mary had a little lamb
I would say yes and in relationship with others and just suggesting there is no need to favor one method to the exclusion of all the others when not all seekers have issues with calculating things ahead of time. Personally, I’ve noticed a tendency for a line to be unchanging more often than not when I’m calmer, so don’t think I’m dismissing your argument outright, but I think you’d have to agree that it’s still not possible to mentally create the hexagram you want 100% of the time which leaves it open for Yi’s hand to effect the outcome.Isnt the seeking of truth and purity the real purpose if the Yi.
First, I can’t agree that a good shuffle would shift things around enough to be a better calculator than a good random generator. Second, over time, some places in the deck are more likely to be picked from than others which would also affect the random outcome. Again, I’m not dismissing the method outright, just saying I don’t see it as the end all, be all method. There have been threads on best randomization methods here in the past, maybe it’s a good topic to bring back to life for a more thorough assessment of various methods.Not quite sure how you would consider that there would be any sort of statistical problems. One simply has two pack of cards…
What, ha ha?! Not dying out “many moons ago” as a scientific benchmark?! Kind of a weak argument don’t you think? (Hopefully, laughing with you here, not trying to laugh at you). Yi Jing didn’t die out many moons ago either and stands the test of any number of methods over time including cards. Using rationalizations like that, I could say that makes Yi a hundred times better. Moving on…Isnt that the same principle as is used in the Tarot, a pack of cards, well shuffled, and drawing cards, with no knowledge of what they are, in order to illuminate a question. If that was a problem then the Tarot would not work and would likely have died out many moons ago.
In saying “we will be inclined,” does that mean this is a struggle for “you,” to want a “good” hexagram? Inclination or not, I can see this would only be a problem if one also had trouble detaching from calculating the numbers as it seems you might. Personally, the more experienced I’ve become, and I don’t think I’m all that unusual here, the more I like “drinking from the firehose” as one might say, willing to explore any combination I receive and find the good and true in it. Personally, I actually refrain from looking at the computer screen anyway because I like the practice of not wavering in my openness to that-which-is-Yi in my private moment of casting/communing with Yi as a source of strength and wisdom for me for many years.The reason that "mentally creating" Hexagrams as we go along with the traditional methods of developing the Hexagram is that for whatever reason, we will be inclined, even it is subconsciously, to prefer one particular reading over another.
Yes, “maybe” is a good summary.I see your point that the possibility exists that the Yi would be capable enough of working around our mental influences. Maybe it is but maybe it isnt.
And no clear evidence that it is inanimate either. And no clear evidence it doesn’t have any capacity or consciousness in its own right.there is no clear evidence that the inanimate Yi has any capacity or consciousness in its own right
Would it? With due respect, this comes across as pure speculation and I could even argue for it being a “horriblizing” error in thinking. Don’t you agree that what “we” understand about the world is miniscule compared to a universal picture? And, in fact, that we actually need to allow for being “broken apart” to accept new truths (such as the earth shattering truth we survived that our planet is round.)which would break what we understand about the world into a million pieces, if it turned out that an inanimate object had consciousness in such a way as to be able to regualte or control a sentient human being in any way at all, even to overide one "influencing".
May I also suggest the perfect tool is less important that the work of the person using the tool. A Stradivarius does not a professional violinist make. If you are finding yourself a more compassionate, humble, just person, then great. Someday, we humans might even care enough about our inner workings to do actual research on which systems are most effective. Then, in thousands of years from now, I might say, hey Dave, you really had something there and then you can tell me “I told you so,” but until then, the data just isn’t in yet for me that there is one best way.I will remain confident that my methid of drawing cards is inherently less prone to inaccuracies.
And you seriously think a diviner who valued his life wouldn’t find a way to manipulate the cards to stay alive?!Can you imagine the problems if the Emporer went to his Yi diviner and was informed that he was behaving like an ignorant fool, so it may even be that the traditional methods were designed just so to allow that "influence" to happen.
Again, it is a weak argument to say it is “not as though they have ever been shown to be better or more accurate.” They have also never been shown to not be better or more accurate either. That along with making assumptions based on associating Yi with the discovery that we have the capacity (“incredible capacity” sounds a bit subjective to me) to affect our environment seems a bit like jumping to conclusions to me. However, I discern through your posts that you desire to share a best way for the most good. Being honest, there are still too many unknowns and very little hard data for one method alone to rise to that standard. Then again, that’s what we’re here on this site for – to share a collective knowledge and I’m sure yours will resonate to the benefit of some here.As we have non of the responsibilities that a Yi diviner might be faced with, and only have responsibility to be as honest as possible withour selves I cannot see why we would even be inclined to use traditional methods. It si not as though they have ever been shown to be better or more accurate and science now informs us that we do actually have an incredibe capacity for affecting our environment so should we be learnig from what we now have knoweldge of and by doing that improving the potentials of the Yi, rather than clinging on to ancient methods just for the sake of them being ancient and traditional.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).